14 Comments

1. Michele says:

   Aug 17th, 2010 at 12:21

   This has not entirely been what I’d call an interesting debate and not quite what I’d expect here on Greenfudge. The writers here, including you Graham, give the reader good write ups, unbiased and informal, with links for us to follow up further when the interest takes us. I come by the site often and enjoy the articles.
   How can any one person, and I mean you Alex, be so convinced of only their opinion being the right one.
   Alex what is it you are trying to prove. You quite obviously have some knowledge in this sphere but you trying too hard to convince us and thereby falling apart at the edges. I really believe you should take your carry on off to a scientific forum and let them scrutinise what you say. And as for (amongst other things) “The out and out theoretical physicists may be too polite to say to their climate science colleagues that their work is incomplete, but the theroetical physicist is going to look at their work and apply all sorts of reality checks because he knows that much of what seems plausible to the average person may not be consistent what happens in physics.” ! Who do you expect to swallow this demeaning statement. When it’s all said and done thank goodness people are waking up to the fact we need to act. That’s the bottom line as far as many are concerned. Thanks Greenfudge for following current events. Let’s debate this again in twenty years! See who’s right with a bit of hindsight.
2. Marc says:

   Aug 17th, 2010 at 12:21

   Alex, the world is warming at an accelerated rate. It’s different. Why can’t you wrap your head around that. The world isn’t going to follow history without fail as you naively seem to think. Never before in history has the world been so industrialised. Cause and effect…
   This is pretty valid and sound logic, but i’m sure you’ll have some rebuttal. So, knowing how unreasonable you are, keep trying to convince yourself you’re right, and take care.
3. Graham_Land says:

   Aug 16th, 2010 at 20:34

   One thing that has been highlighted in these exchanges is how those within different scientific disciplines seem to focus on their own area as the most important. This may sound obvious, because it’s totally natural, but it also highlights the need for cross disciplinary approaches and broad mindedness in climate science. To me, this is more what the “consensus” of climate change is about – not that all the details will or should be agreed upon, but that different disciplines support each other in more general conclusions.
   /
   Alex, besides being a well-known cartoon, obviously knows some physics. So where else would he look for answers and who else but to the physicists he admires. That doesn’t mean he is right or wrong. But it DOES means that I can’t argue physics with him. Dyson doesn’t exactly argue with climate scientists either, but gives some criticisms, which are qualified by reasonable disclaimers (I am not an expert) and looks at the situation from an informed perspective, but one that is none the less firmly rooted in his own discipline and not qualified in theirs.
4. Alex says:

   Aug 16th, 2010 at 19:18

   Marc wrote

   “Why would you decide to concur with the views of physicists over the experts in the field (climate scientists)? To put it in another way, they’re physicists, not climatologists! physicists and all that e=mc2 stuff (black and white formulas) can’t be applied to something as complex as the Climate. I would think that skeptics of all people should agree with this, since “the climate is a very complex thing and a whole range of things – known and unknown – could be causing it rather than CO2…”

   The issue derives from a very simple thermodynamic principle and the adsorption of electromagnetic waves by certain molecules. Maybe this shouldn’t be in the hands of climate modellers. Sure we all know that the climate is a complex issue but it may be l;argely irrelevant. The out and out theoretical physicists may be too polite to say to their climate science colleagues that their work is incomplete, but the theroetical physicist is going to look at their work and apply all sorts of reality checks because he knows that much of what seems plausible to the average person may not be consistent what happens in physics.

   I looked at you pointers to other extreme events, of which two were probably related to deforestation. The Pakistani floods may also have been due to inappropriate infrastructure. The Russian heatwave may also be linked to human factors and the large iceberg is simple the largest one since the last time a large iceberg broke off. That is not to say I don’t think the earth is warming. It has clearly been doing so since long before we started using significant amounts of fossil fuels in the nineteenth century. Historicalmean temperatures correlate very well with measured solar activity (not very surprising), which quite neatly brings us back to the relevance of basic physics.
5. Marc says:

   Aug 16th, 2010 at 17:41

   Alex,

   Why would you decide to concur with the views of physicists over the experts in the field (climate scientists)? To put it in another way, they’re physicists, not climatologists! physicists and all that e=mc2 stuff (black and white formulas) can’t be applied to something as complex as the Climate. I would think that skeptics of all people should agree with this, since “the climate is a very complex thing and a whole range of things – known and unknown – could be causing it rather than CO2…”
   But taking it purely from a physics point of view, would it be valid to say that increasing ENERGY IN (increasing global temperatures due to global warming) will lead to increasing ENERGY OUT (being the severity of weather for instance)? (see below for proof that global temperatures are increasing, and they’re the warmest they’ve ever been for stages of this year)
   Here’s an extract from article on increasing occurrence and intensity of weather events due to CC:
   “Several diverse extreme weather events are occurring concurrently around the world, giving rise to an unprecedented loss of human life and property. They include the record heatwave and wildfires in the Russian Federation, monsoonal flooding in Pakistan, rain-induced landslides in China, and calving of a large iceberg from the Greenland ice sheet. These should be added to the extensive list of extreme weather-related events, such as droughts and fires in Australia and a record number of high-temperature days in the eastern United States of America, as well as other events that occurred earlier in the year.”
   http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/extremeweathersequence_en.html

   On your first post Alex, your simply wrong. The earth’s global average temperature is the warmest it’s ever been.
   http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html
   So…

   The greenhouse effect…

   If you’re not compelled and challenged by all this stuff, or put it down to a mere coincidence, then you simply don’t like what the issue could mean rather than disbelieve in it.
6. Graham_Land says:

   Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:53

   You are really on top of this topic Alex!
   Well, Dyson is certainly a brilliant physicist, but in his own words he is well-informed, yet is not an expert, nor he says are any of the people he knows who share his views. If he says there is no evidence of tipping points or the likelihood of runaway climate change, why should anyone believe him then? Anyway, his main gripe seems to by the hype. He also seems pretty cool, but expresses some simple idealistic views about certain details, i.e. CO2 being good for plants (it is for some, but not the ones they outcompete in a new, CO2-rich atmosphere) “supertrees” or that coal in India and China is such a great thing.
   /
   Re tipping points, don’t expect me as a non scientist to try to prove them – there are many worries such as all the methane released when permafrost melts. James Hansen and the IPCC have referred to these as ‘risks’, not certainties.
   /
   I imagine you mean reality checks to mean experiments? We can’t really experiment with the climate until it’s too late, and geoengineering, while it sounds great, can also be foolhardy. So we should mitigate risk and adapt as best we can, while conserving more and consuming less. We are barely doing any of this, but the benefits would be far wider than just mitigating climate change. Of course, you will probably disagree with some of that due to both ideological and practical concerns/world views, but that the essence of discussion!
7. Alex says:

   Aug 16th, 2010 at 11:55

   “Graham_Land says:
   As far as the calculations you state, what I understand about the climate (and what makes it so unpredictable) is that it is complex system. I could only reference other articles about tipping points, the unpredictability of the climate and the fact that small changes in temperature risk affecting vulnerable parts of the world which already suffer from extreme weather. Of course I am not certain about these things, least of all climate models, but they are the best we’ve got and I still believe the climate experts are the people we should listen to.”

   I think that is where Dyson and I differ from the climate scientists. If you take step back and look at the basic physical system we have a continuous nuclear explosion (the sun, surface temperature 5700K), blasting out radiation into deep space (temperature 5-15K), and we are sitting nicely placed half way being gently roasted at about 300K. The actual temperature on the earth is a function of a combination of the temperature of the sun, our proximity to the sun and how “sticky” our planetary environment is in retaining heat above the theoretical values calculated for a black body. Climate science is largely a function of calculating local effects (weather patterns) rather than looking at the overall retention of energy and it is the complexity of the computations that make their numbers so unreliable.

   As I said before, there has been no ral indication of why there should be an overwhelming tipping point (or to put it another way why our planet should retain much more of the suns energy at 301K than it does at 300K. In fact there is a known very strong potential positive feedback mechanism (water vapour) that does not give rise to a tipping point. As the surface of the earth heats up more water vapour is absorbed into the atmosphere, and being a greenhouse gas and a much more prominent one than CO2 this should give rise to further heating, but in practice we find that it doesn’t, (because increased cloud formations raise the albedo of the earth).

   Now, thinking about this further, the source of the initial heating is not important, it could be from solar activity or it could come from CO2, but the damping effect that stops water vapour creating a tipping point should act in exactly the same way to prevent any heating from CO2 creating a tipping point.

   What Freeman Dyson is objecting to in his statement is that the “science” of climate change has not been subjected to the most basic of reality checks that he would expect as a physicist (and a very good one). He is too polite to make any accusations of cronyism, conspiracy or careerism. He very wisely leaves that to others.
8. Graham_Land says:

   Aug 16th, 2010 at 11:15

   Thanks for the good response, Alex.
   As far as the calculations you state, what I understand about the climate (and what makes it so unpredictable) is that it is complex system. I could only reference other articles about tipping points, the unpredictability of the climate and the fact that small changes in temperature risk affecting vulnerable parts of the world which already suffer from extreme weather. Of course I am not certain about these things, least of all climate models, but they are the best we’ve got and I still believe the climate experts are the people we should listen to. They do need to communicate better, however.
   /
   http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151
   Freeman Dyson:
   “I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.”
   /
   To me this is more evident in media and public as much or more than in the scientific community, but in academic or research spheres isn’t this the norm? Both sides of the media/political debate oversimplify, take strong standpoints, emphasize risk as “fact”, unreasonably demand certainty and are harshly unforgiving if there is ever some mistake in the scientific process. This comes from a lack of understanding of what science means (observation, experiment, review and modification). Scientists, like doctors, are not gods and aren’t idiots or liars if they make mistakes or have their science oversimplified and misrepresented by others. Never have I seen such a current scientific topic being debated so much by non-experts (except evolution). Everyone thinks they know better, yet as far as I can tell their opinions are formed by ideological alliances or by agreeing with prominent figures whom they happen to like. I might be a bit cynical, but not so much that I would buy into some world-wide conspiracy of scientists to lie about climate change for some ‘leftist’ agenda or that I or a few rogue scientists, philosophers and politicians by some means know better. For example, I love Camille Paglia, but I certainly don’t go to her for info about the climate.
9. Alex says:

   Aug 15th, 2010 at 23:35

   “I’m a bit surprised that you are that confident in your scientific knowledge about something as complicated as climate science that you feel you know better than the IPCC, Met Office, et al. ”

   Perhaps the problem is that it doesn’t have to be as complicated as that. I tend to follow the views of Freeman Dyson and other eminent physicists who feel that the climate scientists have rather lost the plot.

   Physicists (and engineers and bankers) are good at doing quick “back of the envelope” reality check calculations. Looking at the situation in the round we can do a simple calculation of the amount of energy we receive from the sun and calculate the temprature that the earth would be if it was a perfect black body. Now that number doesn’t actually give us the right answer because of the impact of albedo and the effect of greenhouse gases, but it gives us an idea of the impact of thiose things.

   For what its worth the estimated impact of greenhouse gases at present is to raise the earths temperature by 33C Now where the reality check breaks down is that the climate scientists claim that with an extra 1 degree rise in temperature caused by CO2, feedback effects predicted by their models would actually increase the temperature by a further 5C, which is curious because it would appear that the scientists are saying that while these feedback effects do not arise when the average sea temperature is 23C (296K) they suddenly manifest themselves at 24C (297K).

   Now I am as open minded as the next man and I am quite prepared to believe that this could be the case if I could be given an explanation of the physical processes by which this occurs, but you have to bear in mind that heat radiates from the earth like water from a leaky bucket, so it would have to be a very convincing argument. Unfortunately, nothing has been forthcoming from the IPCC, Met Office etc, apart from their models, which have repeatedly been shown to be incorrect in their predictions, and certainly no convincing explanation of why the feedback effects should suddenly kick in when the temperature increases (and bearing in mind that the actual temperature of the earth varies from about +70C to -70C.
10. Graham_Land says:

    Aug 15th, 2010 at 20:07

    Congratulations on your good marks and success in life, Alex.
    As I said I’m not a physical scientist and though one should be critical and maintain healthy skepticism I don’t try to argue science with experts. I would feel foolish. However, in the climate debate it seems to be that all over. No doubt there are plenty of intelligent skeptics, but let the scientists debate in their realm and the rest of us can debate policies or whatever. I’m a bit surprised that you are that confident in your scientific knowledge about something as complicated as climate science that you feel you know better than the IPCC, Met Office, et al. But at least admit it has to do with ideology rather than scientific expertise (of which I’m sure you have some since you studied physics and engineering).
    Also, I agree it’s not only CO2, but these things are entangled. As far as deforestation, the connection is plain, and with acid rain, its new primary sources are agriculture and vehicles – same as lots of greenhouse gases.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7849445/Acid-rain-could-return-because-of-car-fumes.html
11. Bayu says:

    Aug 15th, 2010 at 20:04

    „No but training in physics and engineering might give you a good understanding of the principles underlying the world and its climate, and if you work really hard at it and graduate from one of the top schools in the world with a good mark, you may find that you can get a job in investment banking.”
    Oolala! Alex, I guess you are talking about yourself Sounds like an unappreciated megalomaniac with inferiority complex Have you heard about savoir vivre of discussion? You can share your point of view, but it does not mean you have to be rude, you know?

    There’s a public access to knowledge and everyone has a right to make their own opinions. Especially environmental writers such as the ones that work for Greenfudge.
    I visit the site everyday. Keep up the great work!
12. Alex says:

    Aug 15th, 2010 at 19:35

    “would investment banking make me more qualified to judge climate science?”

    No but training in physics and engineering might give you a good understanding of the principles underlying the world and its climate, and if you work really hard at it and graduate from one of the top schools in the world with a good mark, you may find that you can get a job in investment banking.

    “Anyway, no one is attributing everything to CO2, just stating that higher temperatures increase the likelihood of extreme weather events and their severity.”

    The trouble is that the world’s average temperature was rising long before we started using fossil fuels in great amounts, has stalled over the last 10 years due to a fall in sunspot activity and even the most dire predictions do not attribute a total temperature increase directly to CO2 of more than 1%.

    The rest of the increase to 4% or 6% predicted by models is supposed to be due to feedback effects, but
    (a) We don’t see those feedback effects at work at present; and
    (b) There are other factors at work which seem to have a far greater impacr (such as the varying level of radiation from the sun), so if those feed back effects really did exist, and I doubt it, we would get hit by them eventually because of an increase in the non-CO2 factors – so we might as well resign ourselves to the fact because we can do much more to protect the world by worrying about acid rain, deforestation and a whole host of other issues than we can do by worrying about CO2.
13. Graham_Land says:

    Aug 15th, 2010 at 15:40

    Hi Alex.
    I can’t really claim to be a historian and was frankly never much of a musician, but would investment banking make me more qualified to judge climate science?
    I know I’m not a physical scientist and admit that my world views influence my decision to accept what the bulk of the scientific community claims, rather than believe that they are lying due to some socialist conspiracy (not saying that you do) or take the opinions of certain skeptical politicians and journalists – who are motivated by sympathies, interests and ideologies I don’t share – over said scientists.
    /
    Anyway, no one is attributing everything to CO2, just stating that higher temperatures increase the likelihood of extreme weather events and their severity. Of course I can’t argue that trees play an important part in preventing erosion and mudslides.
14. Alex says:

    Aug 15th, 2010 at 13:38

    Graham, I am sorry that as a musician and a historian you are taken in by so much wolly science. I believe that CO2 could be a problem, but the fact is that the sun’s out put has been quite weak for the last 10 years so that the earth’s average temperature has been static or declining since 2000, and the heating that would be required to make these disasters happen simply has not been there. The root causes of the floods and mudslides in Pakistan and China are more likely to be linked to the felling of trees in the region. Attibuting everything to CO2 is just plain wrong.