Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW

[trbixler]

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson

www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/seven-eminent-physicists-that-are-skeptical-of-agw/#more-22484

[socold]

Well this certainly highlights some very awkward hypocrisy.

1) This list is used as an appeal to authority. It's a list of credentialed scientists who agree with an idea and is used to lend that idea more credibility.

When skeptics do this, apparently it's fine. So fine that skeptics spread these lists to convince people. You'll see such lists appearing at WUWT and ClimateDepot and maybe even on Fox News.

But woe betide "warmists" from compiling lists. When "warmists" post a list of scientists who accept AGW, skeptics respond by acting like it's wrong - that it's an "appeal to authority" and a fallacy. They tell us that credentials don't matter - that just because a load of scientists sign something agreeing to an idea it does not lend an idea credibility.

This extremely hypocritical behavior demonstrates that skeptics simply are not being honest in the "debate". They accept things when they are convenient but deny the when they aren't*

2) When "warmists" recently published a list of scientists skeptical of manmade global warming, skeptics accused them of publishing a blacklist - the idea was that by identifying skeptical scientists on a list those scientists were therefore at risk of being "blacklisted" from something or other.

But here we have just one example of skeptics posting a list of skeptical scientists. But with none of their earlier concern that by publishing names they stand a risk of being blacklisted.

In fact the "warmist" list that was accused of being a blacklist was compiled from existing public lists which skeptics had put together in the past. Therefore the "warmist" list didn't identify anyone as skeptic who wasn't already identified as such by skeptics themselves.

The pattern of behavior by deniers on this issue is incredible. They blatantly and quite openly just BS to point score and smear. They don't like the fact that a list revealed that most scientists working in the climate area accept AGW and only a small minority do not, so they respond by attacking the list using some made up some "blacklist" complaint.

They then happily post lists of skeptical scientists as if noone will even notice the utter hypocrisy.

[trbixler]

Not at all unexpected from an AGW supporter but did you notice the words?
"But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand."
Certainly the real world is not a slab model as Freeman Dyson has pointed out.

[sigurdur]

Freeman has basically said what WG1 said. The models are not ready for prime time and have no validity.

[sigurdur]

As far as lists....I don't like lists from either side. I like the papers and free flow of information.

[jimcripwell]

Touchey, touchey, socold. Actually I regard this more as a reply to desmogblog, statements like "The science of AGW is settled", and Lord May's statement about there only being a handful of scientists who dont think AGW is real, and half of them are crackpots. All these sorts of things make the MSM. I doubt whether many of the MSM will report this story. For example, I doubt we will hear about it from the BBC.

[socold]

Dyson is not describing a slab model. A slab model is eg an ocean model with a single layer. Modern GCMs represent the ocean and atmosphere using many layers.

Dyson's argument can be summed up as:

1) A lot of processes are not accurately represented in climate models
2) Therefore climate models don't tell us anything about the real world

Noone disagrees with the first part. The IPCC report goes into a lot of detail about such model inadequacies.

The second part however, which forms Dyson's conclusion, does not follow from the first in my opinion. There are good reasons why a model that isn't perfect can nevertheless produce useful results. Part of that is to do with appreciating the imperfection of the model in order to gauge the uncertainty of the results. It doesn't appear Dyson has factored this in. He can't do it himself and neither can I, because that kind of quantification of uncertainty requires expertize in the particular area of climate. The IPCC report does show climate scientists are doing this - components of the climate are being constrained in uncertainty ranges using observations. It's possible that Dyson's view is entirely from his own thinking and so he hasn't factored in these aspects which climate experts do.

[icefisher]

Jul 25, 2010 20:52:44 GMT socold said:

Well this certainly highlights some very awkward hypocrisy.

Sure does!

Here you are the guy that posted at least a dozen posts in support of lists now complaining about the practice.

Myself I think lists are meaningless. Science is not a popularity contest.

But I can think of one good reason for publishing such a list and that is to refute the false notion that there actually is a concensus for the benefit of people who do defer understanding to others and I can't think of any good reason whatsoever why a warmist would publish a list of expert skeptics though some bad reasons do come to mind.

I have to confess to some scathing remarks regarding some scientists largely surrounding the climategate issue but that is because that if we are going to rely on expert opinions it is imperative that the experts put their credibility and ability to practice at risk in doing so.

[hairball]

They should have stuck with the slab:



How wet is the average cloud?

[socold]

Here you are the guy that posted at least a dozen posts in support of lists now complaining about the practice.

I didn't complain about lists. I complained about complaints about lists.

But I can think of one good reason for publishing such a list and that is to refute the false notion that there actually is a concensus for the benefit of people who do defer understanding to others

I agree except you've gone a bit too far. A list can only show there is or isn't a consensus if it makes a like with like comparison of the number of experts on one side with the number on the other. A list consisting of only experts on one side of an issue does not tell you how many similar experts are on the other side.

Jimcripwell's point is on the mark though - skeptic lists are a good way of pointing out that people who claim there are no skeptic scientists are wrong.

and I can't think of any good reason whatsoever why a warmist would publish a list of expert skeptics though some bad reasons do come to mind.

A good reason would be to find out the proportion of experts on each side.

[trbixler]

Bedrock science
Lisa Jackson, Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Mann, Hansen and Gore.

Dyson described the problems with the 'science'. Those problems are real and without being addressed leave AGW as just a theory supported by computer models. What amazes me is this trust in programming with a totally open loop verification. Is it really the dust? Is it really the sun? Is it really termites? Is it really clouds? Pick your least known operative and make up a story. Oh and the story won't be checked until we are all gone from the scene.

[socold]

Jul 25, 2010 22:57:35 GMT hairball said:

They should have stuck with the slab:

There is a discrepancy between model output and observations wrt the tropical tropospheric hotspot. But that mosaic of two images over-exaggerates it.

The image gives two sources - A and B. If you go to source A (www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf) you'll find the lefthand image on page 25. It is one of six images on that page. Five of them each depict the model response to a different forcing over the period 1958-1999:

-Well mixed greenhouse gases
-Sulfate Aerosols
-Ozone
-Volcanic aerosols
-Solar irradiance

The sixth image shows the combined response to all five of the above forcings. It's this sixth image that should be compared to observations, not the first "greenhouse gas alone" image. However this isn't a great comparison either because all of these six images are over the range 1958-1999 whereas the Hadley radiosonde observed image is from 1979-1999.

If you go to page 116 in the same document, you find the righthand image of the mosaic. This is page 116, Chapter 5, which matches the description given in the mosaic for source B. So both images came from the same document - which is odd because the sourcing for A and B makes it look like the two images come from different places.

On page 116 the Hadley Radiosonde image not on it's own. It's one of 5 images. The other four images show model output for the period 1979-1999. Ie page 116 compares model output over the period 1979-1999 with the Hadley radiosonde record 1979-1999.

So the question is why does the mosiac you posted not compare model output 1979-1999 from page 116 with the radiosonde observation image from page 116? Why does it go all the way to page 25 to find an image that shows not only a different date range but also an incorrect comparison?

And yes I know it's not a mosiac you made, I am not accusing you of anything.

[stranger]

There's an old story of a poker player who ran short of money. So he had "one of the girls" carry his hand, a full house, to the towns banker for a loan. The banker brought $100,000, all the money in the bank, to the table to back that hand.

Freeman Dyson has been correct 98 or 99 percent of the time. The other scientists on his list have a percentage of "correct surmises" almost as high. So you can take that criticism of AGW to the bank and borrow money on it.

On the other hand, the firm of Jones, Mann, et al, et ux, have a very poor track record. As does the failed science student some call a "crazed poodle." You will not get a loan on that busted flush.

Stranger

[boxman]

socold
The difference here is that the AGW guys published this list to discredit these scientists.
But i am sure you know that already....

I also find it fun how you blind believers have been shouting that there are no real scientists who back the skeptics, but yet you complain when someone proves you wrong.

But woe betide "warmists" from compiling lists. When "warmists" post a list of scientists who accept AGW, skeptics respond by acting like it's wrong - that it's an "appeal to authority" and a fallacy.

That is just bull and you know it. What skeptics have a problem with are lists that includes scientists who did not support the AGW alarmism in first place. There have been a bunch of scientists added to such lists against their will.