Freeman Dyson is a Nobel-prize physicist who believes that there is 
global warming but he disagrees about the validity of using standard 
models.

This is from wikipedia:

Criticism of global warming studies

Dyson agrees with the general theory of anthropogenic global warming, 
and has written

“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in 
the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil 
and coal and natural gas.”

However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail 
to account for some important factors, and hence the results will 
contain too much error to reliably predict future trends.

“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... ”

“As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is 
organized unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things 
in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do 
the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something 
is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am 
not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my 
predictions are science-fiction=2
0rather than science.”

He has also argued against the ostracisation of scientists who oppose 
the Global warming consensus, stating that heretics have historically 
been an important force in driving scientific progress.

“heretics who question the dogmas are needed... I am proud to be a 
heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing 
orthodoxies.”

He also believes that directing money towards fighting global poverty 
and providing medical aid will bring greater benefits to society than 
attempting to combat climate change.

“They take away money and attention from other problems that are much 
more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases,..”

Dyson was an early proponent of Carbon sequestration by plants by 
planting gigantic areas of trees as long ago as 1976.  He revisited 
this subject in 2007 where he asserted that the "fuss about global 
warming is grossly exaggerated", having calculated that "the problem of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a 
problem of meteorology." The failures of climate scientists to 
understand this was due to his belief that "No computer model of 
atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our 
land."

Dyson has questioned the predictive value of current computational 
models of climate change, urging instead more extensive use of local 
observations.

“The good news is tha
t we are at last putting serious effort and money 
into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but 
they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of 
climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much 
effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors 
rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and 
convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of 
fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects 
that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the 
existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed 
climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The 
bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as 
Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding 
climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.”

Dyson regards the term "global warming" as a misnomer, pointing out 
that warming will not occur uniformly throughout the world, but will 
instead be subject to regional variations:

“As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and 
other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 
increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical 
effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, 
wind streng
th, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together 
in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading 
because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon 
dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon 
dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, 
because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water 
vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is 
dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly 
occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in 
the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at 
night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly 
making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To 
represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because 
the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local 
warming at high latitudes is much larger.”

Regarding political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change, 
Dyson argues that other global problems should take priority.

“I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. 
Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the 
problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and 
attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. 
Poverty, infectious 
diseases, public education and public health. Not 
to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the 
oceans.”

------

In general, I agree with this.  I worked in a science job using 
theoretical models for years.  the uncertainty is beyond belief.

however, there is definitely a problem with climate change due to the 
use of chemicals.  but trying to PREDICT what global warming is going 
to do in 50 or 100 years is of limited use.  we don't know.

for that reason, articles that say 'will there be a new ice age?'  that 
is a similar issue.  prediction.  I don't agree with that either.


what I think we need to do is:

1) understand that the human use of chemicals is causing real problems. 
  I'm not sure I agree with him that the issue is 'exaggerated' b/c I 
have not studied it in detail.  we are definitely having a negative 
impact on climate.

2) switch to nuclear energy as quickly and completely as possible.  
that includes

3) figuring out how to dispose of nuclear waste.


imo, many global warming activists don't feel good about nuclear energy 
use.  to me that is a shame.  the widespread use of nuclear power, 
peacefully of course, to replace other energy sources, that is probably 
THE most effective thing that can be done on a large scale.  and it 
should start immediately.

things like recycling etc. help but using nuclear power
 would help far 
more.

4) I agree that local observation is paramount.  it is often of very 
little use to make worldwide generalizations b/c climate varies so 
much.  you need to observe local conditions.


and

5) I also agree that global warming is not the environmental issue of 
the age.  that is imo, the lack of drinkable water that we will be 
facing, and the wars that are going to be fought over that unless we 
figure out what to do about it.


take care,

Mary Katherine

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy