Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Kaosium]

Actually the statement you tied to dispute was that "the fundamental physics is rick solid and all that remains is to calculate how much warming will result". After much correction and pinning down your moving goalposts you finally conceded that Dyson doesn't dispute the physics and isn't qualified to dispute the quantification that arises from that physics.

So again why do you keep bringing him up as if his name alone gives some form of support to your position?

Forget goalposts for a moment.

This might just be why. See if what you can understand what he's saying and why he backed away slowly at the end. Here's another one along the same lines. You see there's a huge number of things that have to be true to reach the conclusions and (especially!) support the proposed solutions of 'The Team' that agreement on any one or even most doesn't make one a 'believer' as Betsy Rosenberg might put it. Usually another term is employed, one that some of those who employ it are hesitant to label Freeman Dyson, and I can't say I blame them. Perhaps it has been realized that like all epithets it only says something about the ones that use it

Here's another interesting person, he calls himself a 'converted skeptic,' but like the other, that doesn't actually mean anything what matters (in this regard) are his observations, positions and analysis. You see there's been some problems with those amongst the peer-reviewed pontificate in this nascent field, which unfortunately has led to many being skeptical of what 'The Team' has produced. It would not surprise me if Freeman Dyson was amongst them judging by the things he says and the position he articulates. I found this to be an additional reason to pay special attention to Dr. Muller, and perhaps explains another reason Freeman Dyson might be saying some of the things he does.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Meanwhile in the real world the models are wrong again and the Arctic is off the charts..

http://www.nature.com/news/ice-loss-shifts-arctic-cycles-1.11387

In the Arctic, teaching climate change has the aid of audiovisual means, how lucky we are. One third of my province -some 24 million acres- is silently under water again, for the, 4th, 5th, 6th time? I've lost count, since 1980 -some scattered occasions in previous centuries-. I suppose Indian tribes had a better drainage system, with more artificial canals, dams and pumping.

 

[Acleron]

Sorry, but "you're a liar" doesn't conclusively show anything except the intellectual bankruptcy of the other side of this argument.

Please point out where I called you a liar.

You have been shown actual arguments that rebut your position, you have not answered those rebuttals.

 

[Acleron]

Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other. The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert. They may depart at different points from the argument, but their knowledge of physics does not compel their assent to the AGW conclusion.

You have been shown that Dyson admits that he is ignorant of the technical aspects of the climate and that his opposition is not to the science. We know you have read that because you removed my hiliting of his statement to substitute your own.

So your last statement concerning Dyson is completely erroneous.

 

[a_unique_person]

Forget goalposts for a moment.

This might just be why. See if what you can understand what he's saying and why he backed away slowly at the end. Here's another one along the same lines. You see there's a huge number of things that have to be true to reach the conclusions and (especially!) support the proposed solutions of 'The Team' that agreement on any one or even most doesn't make one a 'believer' as Betsy Rosenberg might put it. Usually another term is employed, one that some of those who employ it are hesitant to label Freeman Dyson, and I can't say I blame them. Perhaps it has been realized that like all epithets it only says something about the ones that use it

He is a slippery one. I doff my hat to Steve Conner. The fact is that, when you get down to the specifics, and Conner does a good job of trying to hold him to these, Dyson doesn't want to know the climate science, it frightens him too much. He babbles on about the only evidence being models, when that is just sheer ignorance, and accuses everyone of having to follow the 'party line', which implies a paranoid conspiracy theory.

 

[a_unique_person]

Betsy Rosenberg: Well, do you think that Al Gore did a service to the country, in terms of beginning to wake Americans up to this problem that you're now acknowledging as real?

Richard Muller: Well, once - when he did that, when he did that - and I was worried that eventually it would be shown to be an exaggeration and the public would have a backlash, I think that's now been vindicated. I think that's exactly what's happening.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other. The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert. They may depart at different points from the argument, but their knowledge of physics does not compel their assent to the AGW conclusion.

It doesn't, but that's because the science that they are disputing is not the science that they specialise in. Dyson did some very innovative research into fundamental physics, he has done no research into how climate research works, he just questioned the models after having what he admits is a quick and cursory overview of them. That is, their modelling of clouds and particle pollution. Admitting he doesn't know how this will affect the outcomes amounts to little more than that.

Finally!
This particular argument started here:...
(a_unique_person): "...The Global Warming idea, however, is still with us thirty years later, the world is warming, the ice is shrinking, the fundamental physics is rock solid. The only question is, how warm is it going to get."
This..."It doesn't, but that's because the science that they are disputing is not the science that they specialise in..." is the point I have been trying tio get across. The predictions about the consequences of burning fossil fuel and the resulting additional CO₂ depend on a lot more than "fundamental physics" or "basic physics". Otherwise people whose expertise we all accept would agree about such things as the degree of warming that would result and the speed of change.

 

[Megalodon]

It takes more than weasel words to go from stupid to Socrates.

 

[uke2se]

Finally!
This particular argument started here:...
(a_unique_person): "...The Global Warming idea, however, is still with us thirty years later, the world is warming, the ice is shrinking, the fundamental physics is rock solid. The only question is, how warm is it going to get."
This..."It doesn't, but that's because the science that they are disputing is not the science that they specialise in..." is the point I have been trying tio get across. The predictions about the consequences of burning fossil fuel and the resulting additional CO₂ depend on a lot more than "fundamental physics" or "basic physics". Otherwise people whose expertise we all accept would agree about such things as the degree of warming that would result and the speed of change.

You are still wrong, for the exact same reasons as before. Dyson doesn't dispute the basic physical effect we call the greenhouse effect. His problems with AGW theory aren't science based, as he himself admits.

 

[lomiller]

This might just be why. See if what you can understand what he's saying and why he backed away slowly at the end.

Oh I understand what he's saying unfortunately when you get to the heart of it he's just hand waving.

Take his view on climate models for example, sure there are gap, but as the saying goes "all models are flawed, some are useful". Dyson has never done any work in that field so while he has a vague idea what issues climate models face he has no idea how those issues are addressed or what the implications of those gaps are so he hand waves his way from real science to conclusions almost no one truly failure with the science would agree with.

This isn't confined to climate models either, he repeats it with biology, oceanography and geology.

 

[lomiller]

Finally!
.

No, not "finally". You were told this from the beginning and on every page thereafter. The only "finally" that may exist here is if you are finally able to admit Dyson's opinion carries no weight on this subject so dropping his name into the discussion is an example of appeal to false authority.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Anyway, i assume you now agree with the baby steps two and three, that there is an energy balance that moves toward equilibrium, and that changing the parameters can change where that equilibrium lies?

In other words, you agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth?

Time for baby step four: do you agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect?

I'd like to see Malcolm reply to this - we started off well enough, but he ceased to answer after establishing the first fact or two...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8610266&postcount=5862

I tried to think about this, but bogged down. I have a problem with "the temperature on (E)arth" (capitalize it ot it means "dirt"). Move a large 3^o K. body into orbit around a star. The shape of the body and the speed of rotation matter to the response of a thermometer buried a few feet under semi-insulating dry dirt. Assume that the plane of rotation is parallel to the plane of the orbit around the star. A square meter of pulverized solid surface facing the star will acquire more energy per unit time than will a square meter of surface at the pole. NASA once proposed to seek ice in craters at the Moon's poles. Nobody suggested doing this at the Moon's equator.
Things quickly get more complicated when you add fluids to the discussion: convection currents move heat around and the concept of "surface" starts to fall apart.

 

[BenBurch]

I tried to think about this, but bogged down. I have a problem with "the temperature on (E)arth" (capitalize it ot it means "dirt"). Move a large 3^o K. body into orbit around a star. The shape of the body and the speed of rotation matter to the response of a thermometer buried a few feet under semi-insulating dry dirt. Assume that the plane of rotation is parallel to the plane of the orbit around the star. A square meter of pulverized solid surface facing the star will acquire more energy per unit time than will a square meter of surface at the pole. NASA once proposed to seek ice in craters at the Moon's poles. Nobody suggested doing this at the Moon's equator.
Things quickly get more complicated when you add fluids to the discussion: convection currents move heat around and the concept of "surface" starts to fall apart.

Please, Malcolm, go read some on the topic before trying to advance science all by yourself.

 

[jimbob]

I tried to think about this, but bogged down. I have a problem with "the temperature on (E)arth" (capitalize it ot it means "dirt"). Move a large 3^o K. body into orbit around a star. The shape of the body and the speed of rotation matter to the response of a thermometer buried a few feet under semi-insulating dry dirt. Assume that the plane of rotation is parallel to the plane of the orbit around the star. A square meter of pulverized solid surface facing the star will acquire more energy per unit time than will a square meter of surface at the pole. NASA once proposed to seek ice in craters at the Moon's poles. Nobody suggested doing this at the Moon's equator.
Things quickly get more complicated when you add fluids to the discussion: convection currents move heat around and the concept of "surface" starts to fall apart.

Malcom, do you accept that the greenhouse effect explains how greenhouses work?

 

[Pixel42]

Malcom, do you accept that the greenhouse effect explains how greenhouses work?

The greenhouse effect doesn't explain how greenhouses work. The name's a bit of a misnomer; it's analogous, but the mechanism is different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Please, Malcolm, go read some on the topic before trying to advance science all by yourself.

That's what I'm doing here; reading. Although I never saw a textbook this rude before.

 

[uke2se]

That's what I'm doing here; reading. Although I never saw a textbook this rude before.

A textbook is normally unable to give the student a proverbial slap when he intentionally misreads the book. In this way JREF is different from a textbook.

 

[Acleron]

That's what I'm doing here; reading. Although I never saw a textbook this rude before.

That's because you cannot use spurious and evidence lacking arguments to tell the text book it's wrong.

 

[jimbob]

Malcom, do you accept that the greenhouse effect explains how greenhouses work?

The greenhouse effect doesn't explain how greenhouses work. The name's a bit of a misnomer; it's analogous, but the mechanism is different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]

I considered that, but although a greenhouse does get additional warmth from trapping air, you can still get a raised surface temperature just from the covering of glass without any air getting trapped. Last time I visited the Centre for Alternative Technology in Machynlleth, it had a demonstration showing that in its solar water heating display.

ETA: IIRC, they had one plate made of something like Pilkington K-glass, which led to a higher surface temperature.

 

[Halsu]

I tried to think about this, but bogged down. I have a problem with "the temperature on (E)arth" (capitalize it ot it means "dirt").

My apologies for the lack of capitalization. I'm not a native speaker, so subtleties like this often go amiss.

But let me try to be more specific with what i mean by "temperature on Earth" so that we're in the same planet as far as vocabulary goes (pun intended).

In this context, "temperature on Earth" means the temperature of the lower atmosphere, namely the temperature as it's measured by the network of thermometers around the globe, roughly two meters above the ground, in the shade, not direct sunlight.

Further, as we are talking about a single global number here for clarity, the "temperature on Earth" in this context means the area weighted average of the readings of all these thermometers. This is what's usually said to be the "global temperature". It's an average of real measurements, not a result of a theoretical calculation.

We could include the temperature of oceans, measured similarly with underwater thermometers, but for the sake of simplicity of discussion, let's only talk about air.

Equipped with these clarifying details, keeping in mind you accept that the atmosphere traps heat, could you now answer my questions (pasted here for convenience):

Anyway, i assume you now agree with the baby steps two and three, that there is an energy balance that moves toward equilibrium, and that changing the parameters can change where that equilibrium lies?

In other words, you agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth?

Time for baby step four: do you agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect?