Slashdot Mirror
Freeman Dyson Talks Interstellar Travel, Climate Change, and More (theregister.co.uk)
New submitter Tulsa_Time writes with this interview in The Register with Freeman Dyson. They cover a wide range of topics including climate change to which Dyson says Obama has picked the "wrong side". The Reg reports: "The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues. He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience. He has also campaigned against nuclear weapons proliferation. At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published [PDF] by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)."
He also said that climate models were a joke, and are getting worse and are deviating more and more from what is actually happening. But he is only one of the worlds most distinguished physicists. I trust Al Gore more. His carbon trading system will save the planet!
Why should one be ashamed of publicizing his own sincerely-held views?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
After doing a lot of reading about this man, I have come to this conclusion about his views: Basically he has said "you're {climate scientists} all wrong because I don't like your models and if you try to ask me about specific technical flaws in those models I will defer to my status as a physicist and not a climatologist" So which is it? Are the models flawed, and if so, how? OR are you just a contrarian old codger whose views on climate science are about as reliable as my plumber's opinions on thermonuclear generators? Here is an interesting exchange
> The Reg is shamelessly used to push these views.
Exacty. That is why proposed laws against challenging settled science are so important. The scientists have already voted.
Voting creates truth? Scientists lie all the time when someone pays them enough money. They are all whores but their honour varies in price.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Consider that Dyson, an AGW denialist ...
Dyson is NOT a denialist. He accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. But he also feels that humanity has much bigger problems, and AGW is getting far more attention than it deserves ... and he is right. If we focus on population control, 3rd world poverty, eradicating malaria, and raising literacy rates, then AGW will be a much easier problem to deal with in the future. My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
You forgot to call him an anti-science shill for the oil companies.
I agree that fusion is unlikely to solve any of our problems in the near future, but what I've read about thorium reactors is very promising.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Obama is always on the right side of history
Obama signed an extension of the PATRIOT act within two years of taking office. Pull your head out of your ass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
James Hansen:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
JASONs and National Academy of Sciences, 1979:
In 1979 the subject was addressed by the JASON Committee, the reclusive group of scientists with high-level security clearances who gather annually to advise the U.S. government; its members have included some of the most brilliant scientists of our era.
The JASON scientists predicted that atmospheric carbon dioxide might double by 2035, resulting in mean global temperature increases of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and polar warming of as much as 10 to 12 degrees. This report reached the Carter White House, where science adviser Frank Press asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion. An academy committee, headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, affirmed the JASON conclusion: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html
And then there is of course the big one, Roger Revelle writing in a report to Lyndon Johnson on ecological problems. 1965.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2015/02/president-johnson-carbon-climate-warning
In 1979 and 1965 there was not significant and reliable data firmly indicating global warming (we now know that greenhouse forcing was compensated by increased pollution in N hemisphere); the predictions were made entirely from basic physics and thermodynamics, and their underlying principles still stand today. The fundamental predictions: increased infrared emissivity from additional carbon dioxide, warming surface and troposphere, cooling stratosphere, global warming, and relatively higher in polar regions, are all specific markers of increased global warming from increased greenhouse forcing (vs aerosols and increases in solar forcing), and subsequent major observational programs showed them to be true.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong here. But I keep an open mind and listen to reasoned argument. The extremes (flat out deniers on one side and cataclysm mongers on the other) do neither.
Don't you get it?
Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson
Freemason!
The denialists want to claim him as one of them, but if you read what he actually says (and not what other people rephrase what he says), he's not; he's a skeptic, all right, but not a denier, or, at least, he doesn't parrot the deniers' (mostly stupid) talking points. His arguments are more complicated than that.
He does, however, think that climate models are not reliable. When you dig down into why, you see that he admits taht he hasn't actually studied them, he's just distrustful of numerical models in general.
A large part of his argument, however, is that global warming just isn't a problem, and if it is, it's one we can solve. (In the very short interview referenced, for example, he says that we should look at ways of increasing snowfall in Antarctica as a solution.)
I think, unfortunately, that there is a complete contradiction here. You can't solve a problem if you don't have a model that tells you the effect of your prposed actions. So-- if you don't believe the models, then you can't model what the effect of your solution is. Contrawise, if you are asserting that you can solve the problem (by, for example, increasing snowfall in Antarctica), this means that you think that you can model the problem, and be confident that your solution the effect of solving the problem. So: you can assert that you don't believe the models, or you can assert that we can solve the problem, but you can't logically assert both.
Who needs fish if corn has better yield. Those stupid oceans are not acidic enough. It is like touting fluorocarbons and insisting that removal hurts poor people because refrigeration becomes marginally more expensive, and never mind the skin cancer. Maybe he really needs his own sphere by now.
The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction
Actually, an interesting question. The oldest "scientific consensus" I can find that gives a number that can be used as a prediction is the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report. This predicted that the climate sensitivity was between 1.5 and 4.5C per doubling: that is, 3 plus or minus 1.5. Citation: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1979. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/121... (you can go back earlier than this, but this is the first one where a panel of scientists came together to evaluate all the models available at the time, and not just a single team making a model.)
That's 36 years ago, so it's long enough to compare prediction to reality. In 1979, carbon dioxide (annual average) was 336.8 ppm; in 2014 concentration was 398.6 ppm. citation: http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/... That's an increase of 118%, log(2) of that is 0.243. So given that CO2 increase, the predicted temperature rise between 1979 and 2014, if the NAS value was correct, is 0.81 plus or minus 0.4.
Actual temperature rise, according to the GISS temp, is 0.17 above datum in 1979, 0.75 above datum in 2014, for a temperature rise of 0.58C. citation: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
The prediction of 0.81 plus or minus 0.4 is within the error bars of the actual measurement, 0.58. So I will rate this as a correct prediction.
Who do you think are climatologist?
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You would be wrong.
Unless you listen to mainstream media alarmism and a few of the extremists on that side, even the IPCC barely points to barely more than half "could" be man made and they have absolutely no idea if its bad or not.
The tipping point argument holds no water and has no evidence.
But the questions you mention are valid ones, I just think you believe they are answered when they are not.
My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
I suppose it could have, but so could $10k spent on anything else, and the U.S. government spends a lot of $10ks on much less worthy priorities.
Anyone that can afford a Tesla doesn't need $10K from the taxpayers. And just because they do other stupid things with our money doesn't make this any better. Take the money given to 3 rich folks for their Tesla's and buy some poor person a LEAF. At least then I'll feel like my money is doing some good.
Now its 90%? Or your just being conservative because you don't believe the 97% version of propaganda?
WHAT is settled is the question? Do you know whats settled? Please tell me EXACTLY what is settled. :)
Yes it's true that climate models do have some issues (as any science does), and are constantly refined. It's also true that, from a scientific perspective, the earth will be quite habitable even under the most dire predictions.
This is NOT where the major problems associated with global warming come from. It's the changing of natural resources everyone is used to. It could require massive engineering projects or moving tens of millions of people and abandon whole cities near sea level. It could cause massive heat waves that could kill tens of thousands like what is starting to happen in India. It could require whole regions to abandon the familiar agriculture practices, and in some areas leave no alternative production. It could destabilize whole regions of the world and cause massive wars killing millions - far worse than any direct effect.
This is the real danger of global warming, not simply a few degrees of temperature rise on an otherwise bearable average value.
"He also said that climate models were a joke, and are getting worse and are deviating more and more from what is actually happening. But he is only one of the worlds most distinguished physicists. I trust Al Gore more. His carbon trading system will save the planet!" ref
"More Than 400 U.S. Cities May Be 'Past The Point Of No Return' With Sea Level Threats: But there are still cities that could be saved by reducing carbon emissions..
Take the money given to 3 rich folks for their Tesla's and buy some poor person a LEAF. At least then I'll feel like my money is doing some good.
The goal is to encourage the replacement of gasoline cars with electric cars, not to give people free cars. The way you would do it, would be about only one third as effective in achieving the policy goal. Also, according to the Wikipedia article on the incentives. The LEAF actually qualifies for a large federal subsidy than the Tesla Model S, thus getting both an absolutely larger subsidy and a subsidy that covers a larger percentage of the cost.
And just because they do other stupid things with our money doesn't make this any better.
No, the actual goals of reducing dependency on foreign oil, reducing pollution from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, and helping to jump start a new and innovative industry make it better. The point is that if you want to bellyache and complain, you should aim for the actually bad policies rather than the relatively good ones. If the U.S. paid for one less aircraft carrier, for instance, you could probably buy everyone in the world their very own malaria net, ship it to them gift-wrapped, and have cash left over.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Well from what I keep hearing the argument is that if we don't focus on climate change now it will be too late to try in the future.
Funny, that's not in the actual research. What's actually being claimed is that if we don't want to experience any serious consequences of global warming, we need to keep temperature increase from 1850 below 2 C. I think that's exaggerated.
While the stuff he stated is true and those are important problems none will lead to the amount of death and extinction as climate change.
Except that high level of death and extinction is not predicted by actual research or modeling either. It's also worth noting here that habitat destruction, invasive species, and overharvesting are the primary causes of species extinction and they will remain so even in the face of high global warming.
You can't contribute to this discussion, if you aren't paying attention.
More than a Nike superstore.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Dyson has succeeded in destroying his reputation as a serious and credible observer and commentator of society and his times by propagating pseudo-science around climate change. His actual scientific achievements are of course spared.
Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist. He's a scientist who dabbles in theorizing about the climate because he wants to. He is trading on his name and reputation, to the detriment of both. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how accomplished you are in other areas; if it's not your specific area of expertise, then you're in over your head.\
If you want to see Dyson's theorizing on climate systematically and thoroughly destroyed - (amongst other things he gets caught in just plain old logical fallacies) by actual climatologists, here's what that looks like:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://initforthegold.blogspot...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...