Climate Policy

[Jester]

You clearly haven't read much of his writings.

On climate change? I've read nothing but interviews, book reviews, statements, and so on. Does he have a scientific publication record on this topic that I'm missing? (Not that I'd be qualified to judge it.)

When Dyson says that he doesn't know much about something, it usually means that there's a dozen or so individuals in the world who know more. If he claims to be short, it is only because he uses a very long yardstick.

Pete, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Freeman Dyson's mighty mind. But this borders on worship. This isn't his field. He does not do research in climate science. At best, he is a very talented outsider taking a look around another field and giving his thoughts. And there are legions of scientists lined up against him, including some of the few minds as powerful as his own.

And for one who doesn't know much, his objections are pretty specific and to the point.

Not really, at least from what I've heard. He tends to take a very scattergun, press-conference approach to the topic. I suppose it fits with his eccentric futurist approach, but this is a man who has seriously and consistently proposed that genetically engineered "carbon eating" trees are the solution to this problem. Or that there is no problem. Or that there is a problem, but we can't predict it. Or that it's just a beef with the modellers taking themselves too seriously. Or that there is a problem, but it'd be too expensive to fix, compared to solving world hunger or some other worthy cause.

At least from where I sit, he seems to change the tune quite often, and makes no practical or actionable suggestions, instead throwing out sound bytes and neato ideas about the totally speculative, untested field of environmental bioengineering. He seems to say almost nothing about the underlying science except that he thinks the models' accuracy is exaggerated (he specifically has a beef with the role of vegetation) which may be true politically, but hardly represents the opinions of those actually doing the modelling, who are generally quite aware of just how much work remains to be done.

-Jester

[Jester]

You can attack Milloy if you like. You will further the argument by disproving what he says. I admire Dr. Hansen for some of his scientific work, particularly on black carbon. But, his politics and activism strain his reputation as an objective scientific opinion.

I already pointed you to a site with answers to pretty much everything Milloy brings up. My point was not to drag him out, but to point out that you can't have a holier-than-thou attitude about attacking sources on one hand, when presenting notoriously biased sources, and then launch into a diatribe about how James Hansen is biased by his politics and his idealism.

Either this is about the ideas and not the people, or it isn't. Take your pick.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I already pointed you to a site with answers to pretty much everything Milloy brings up.

Yes, the site with a pat unsubstantiated answer for any point any skeptic might ever bring up. Very useful for shutting down a debate.

My point was not to drag him out, but to point out that you can't have a holier-than-thou attitude about attacking sources on one hand, when presenting notoriously biased sources, and then launch into a diatribe about how James Hansen is biased by his politics and his idealism.

Either this is about the ideas and not the people, or it isn't. Take your pick.

Perspective. While Steven Milloy has a BA in Natural Science, he doesn't claim to be a climate scientist and he runs an opinionated website and guests on Fox News. Dr. James Hansen is the Director of the NASA Goddard Space Sciences division feeding at the public trough. Dr. Hansen is a climate scientist and uses his position as a bully pulpit, and his scientific credentials to forward his political ideology (and I guess also that of Greenpeace) and his biased opinions. That is not science. It is ideology and proselytizing. Scientists let their research and findings speak for themselves, and sometimes, although seldom, they are invited to speak in public to explain their research.

Milloy is a pundit, a politico, a lawyer, and a talking head who devotes himself to science skepticism, and admittedly has an agenda he is forwarding. I expect him to be on one side of the debate. It may be unfair, but there are a few professions where your credibility suffers if you don't keep your political opinions secondary to your primary profession, for example doctors, judges, grade school teachers, scientists, and news casters. We expect some people to remain above the fray and attempt to present all sides fairly. Milloy is a political hack and always will be one.

Perhaps Dr. Hansen's political activities make him a hero to the Al Gore crowd, and perhaps to you, but to me it tends to make me more skeptical of what he says, and what he writes since he has an obviously extreme bias. A bias so huge it probably affects his judgment on science matters as well.

It is Al Gore who says that any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. That is politicizing science, and sending a chilling message throughout the academy. I'm glad there are heretics like Dr. Dyson who have the credentials to withstand the political scorn, and attacks.

[kandrathe]

On climate change?

Here are a couple videos on Youtube. One. Two.

[Jester]

Yes, the site with a pat unsubstantiated answer for any point any skeptic might ever bring up. Very useful for shutting down a debate.

Oh, now I'm shutting down the debate. Marvellous. You asked if I had any refutation of Milloy's points. Did you not want to see one? Or do you have some specific, rather than stylistic, issue with the answers there? There are links to realclimate if you're wanting a more in-depth answer.

Perhaps Dr. Hansen's political activities make him a hero to the Al Gore crowd, and perhaps to you, but to me it tends to make me more skeptical of what he says, and what he writes since he has an obviously extreme bias. A bias so huge it probably affects his judgment on science matters as well.

I'm not interested in heroes. I'm interested in what's true, what isn't, and what we should do about it.

How does an "opinion" differ from a "bias"? Milloy is biased. His politics and his allegiances to industry clearly pre-date and determine his "scientific" opinions. James Hansen is a scientist. He was among the first to make a major prediction of global warming in his scientific work. He then becomes a major public face of the effort to mitigate global warming. He becomes an ardent supporter of efforts to curb climate change. Therefore, he must have had a bias in his past science based on his future politics? He came from climate science to advocacy, not the other way around. And he's no party hack. He's consistently criticised anyone whose position he disagrees with on this topic, including both Clinton and Obama.

Even Einstein got political with his science. It's hardly a new game in town. While we shouldn't mistake the two, holding public opinions does not erase one's scientific credentials. Scientists have a right to speak out with their expertise about things that they believe follow from it. It's not like, say, economists are shy about doing the same, and probably with much less scientific basis.

But whatever, throw everything Hansen has ever said or done into the trash, for all it matters. Deal with any of the zillions of other climate scientists, less political and less radical, but whose opinions on the science of climate change, and the need to react to it, are no different.

It is Al Gore who says that any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. That is politicizing science, and sending a chilling message throughout the academy. I'm glad there are heretics like Dr. Dyson who have the credentials to withstand the political scorn, and attacks.

Sure. And as soon as they do some climate science, rather than just yakking to the media, their attacks will seem more like scientific criticism, and less like speculation. Al Gore no doubt exaggerates, although he is not wrong to point out that non-AGW theories sit at the margins and not in the mainstream of climate science, nor that many of AGW's high-profile opponents are on industry payrolls, although not all. Dyson has a skeptical mind, and that's fine. But while his doubts may slightly qualify existing science, they certainly don't overturn the basic picture: the planet is warming, it is very likely CO2 doing the lion's share of it, and it is very likely our emissions that are behind it. We continue at our peril.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Al Gore no doubt exaggerates, although he is not wrong to point out that non-AGW theories sit at the margins and not in the mainstream of climate science, nor that many of AGW's high-profile opponents are on industry payrolls, although not all.

Your statement here is what is wrong with the debate. Your assumption is that AGW science is out of the mainstream, yet that very assumption is unscientific in nature. Science is science and if done correctly proves or disproves a hypothesis. My background is computing, and I'm just saying that computers are very good at churning out unreal information. In my opinion, as someone who has built models, I see no feasible way to model the solar system, and Earth, with the atmosphere, with the clouds, with the GHG's, with the ocean, with evaporation, with the soil and vegetation and expect to have any level of realism or accuracy. Dyson is right in my opinion, that we need to go out and start measuring a heck of a lot more data.

Dyson has a skeptical mind, and that's fine. But while his doubts may slightly qualify existing science, they certainly don't overturn the basic picture: the planet is warming, it is very likely CO2 doing the lion's share of it, and it is very likely our emissions that are behind it. We continue at our peril.

Perspective. Dr. Hansen is calling for the immediate shut down of all coal fired plants (50% of the electric generation in the US), and criminal charges against oil company executives. In fact, Dr. Hansen's radical opinions are resulting in his alienation from all but the extreme fringe of activists. Dr. Dyson is calling for more science and less modeling, becoming better stewards of our land, and if necessary, using our expertise in bioengineering to develop plants that absorb more CO2. Who seems more kooky?

[eppie]

Hi,
Which Steve Gould? But never mind, it doesn't matter. Dyson is a genius, his opinion on all subjects deserves serious consideration.

--Pete

Maybe then, he should have left out the phrase ' about which I don't know much'.

What Dyson does with this comment is the same as people not believing in global warming because Al Gore lies in 'an inconvenient truth'.


And it is a pity the discussion goes this way again. In his first comments Kandrathe posted some links to scientific paper which made this discussion go in the right direction, but the next thing is a nothing saying word-drool (even though by a respected physicist)

[eppie]

He routinely claims not to know much about it... and then throws the considerable weight of his opinion behind trashing it in public and in print.

I'm not going to say that scientists should simply stay in their own narrow field and never, ever look out at the world (quite the opposite), but it strikes me as irresponsible to not just express skepticism, but mount a full on attack on an entire discipline without actually doing the legwork. Even incredibly brilliant scientists have made painful blunders when making bold, public declarations about things outside their expertise. Genius is not universally transferable. If it was, Gary Kasparov wouldn't be a kook.

-Jester

He uses his 'fame' for political reasons, and with that he places himself directly in the group of howler monkeys.

[Jester]

Your statement here is what is wrong with the debate. Your assumption is that AGW science is out of the mainstream, yet that very assumption is unscientific in nature.

Hunh? My "assumption" is that AGW is a well-founded theory based not just in modelling, but in historical data, atmospheric physics and chemistry, and a whole host of other disciplines. There are still unanswered questions. But unless the answers to those questions are radically different than what they appear to be, the basic case of the role played by CO2 in warming the planet is settled science. You have a hypothesis to overturn it? Let's see the scientific fireworks. Let's see the theory that better explains the data.

Science is science and if done correctly proves or disproves a hypothesis.

Disproves, yes. Proves, no. The hypothesis is global warming driven by human emissions of CO2. Got an effective disproof? I'm sure the climate science community would be all ears.

My background is computing, and I'm just saying that computers are very good at churning out unreal information. In my opinion, as someone who has built models, I see no feasible way to model the solar system, and Earth, with the atmosphere, with the clouds, with the GHG's, with the ocean, with evaporation, with the soil and vegetation and expect to have any level of realism or accuracy.

Fine. Trash the models, ignore them entirely. They may be a suggestive part of the picture, but they're not necessary. Rely 100% on the paleoclimate data. Try to come up with a sensible attribution of past warming without CO2 as an important forcing. Go over the 20th century, figure out how we could be experiencing this kind of warming trend while keeping CO2 as only a small part of the picture. If you can manage it, it'd be one hell of a feat of climate science. But if you really have the explanation? It'd be fantastic. But as it stands, that isn't the state of the science, and until that changes, I feel pretty confident (not 100%, but more than enough) standing behind CO2-driven AGW without even considering the results of the modelling.

Dyson is right in my opinion, that we need to go out and start measuring a heck of a lot more data.

We always want more data. More and more forever. We want more data about crime rates and carbon, cancer and the cosmos. But when the data we have points strongly to serious problems with how we're currently conducting our business, problems that might well haunt us for dozens of generations? We have to decide what we're going to do about it, because while the science can wait and wait, we're taking the action of emitting the CO2 as we speak. If that turns out to be a really bad idea, as the science suggests (does not prove, but strongly implies), then we don't get a second shot at it. Economies recover. Atmospheres are a lot less forgiving.

Perspective. Dr. Hansen is calling for the immediate shut down of all coal fired plants (50% of the electric generation in the US), and criminal charges against oil company executives. In fact, Dr. Hansen's radical opinions are resulting in his alienation from all but the extreme fringe of activists.

Like I said. You want to throw Hansen overboard? Be my guest. Ignore everything he's ever said or done, assign him zero credibility. Doesn't make much sense to me, but if that's what you'd like, it doesn't make a whit of difference. He's one of thousands and thousands, a figurehead in front of a large body of science. Do you feel confident that they're all just crazy radicals? Because there are an awful lot of them.

Dr. Dyson is calling for more science and less modeling, becoming better stewards of our land, and if necessary, using our expertise in bioengineering to develop plants that absorb more CO2. Who seems more kooky?

What expertise in bioengineering? Do you know how to make trees absorb and sequester carbon at significantly higher rates than they currently do? This is untested speculation, based on biological technology we do not yet have. However uncertain the models are, relying on guesses about our future capabilities in bioengineering is yet more uncertain. Or, alternately, we could take Dr. Dyson's suggestion about planting a trillion ordinary trees. Got an area the size of, say, Ontario that's currently unwooded that you can replace with never-burning forest? Dyson knows that getting carbon actually sequestered by vegetation, rather than just absorbed, is not a trivial problem, and will require technology well beyond what we have. It would also be a monumental effort (he talks about transforming 1/4th of the world's forests into carbon sequestering engineered trees, and this at a time when we can't even keep existing forests up!) He knows all this, being phenomenally brilliant.Yet he still seems to be willing to bet on that, rather than pay the expensive-but-reasonable price for mitigation today. That might be fine for a personal opinion, but seems very risky for a species.

-Jester

[Jester]

Here are a couple videos on Youtube. One. Two.

Like I said. Interviews. Book reviews. Statements. Which is what he does on this topic, as opposed to the detailed, specific criticisms that make science move forward. When Einstein was skeptical of the Copenhagen interpretation, even late in his career, he fought tooth and nail with its proponents, devising fiendishly difficult, specific challenges to the theory. When his criticisms eventually failed, after long and ferocious debate, quantum physics was much the better for it. If some similar genius wants to throw himself at the science of AGW with equal rigour, I'd be altogether too happy for it. And if he/she can topple the whole tower, then I'd be amazed, but glad for the advancement to science.

But I'm waiting for it to actually happen, not just presuming that it's going to.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

And it is a pity the discussion goes this way again.

True. But that is because all that can rationally be said has been said. There are observations, there is data, and that is pretty much indisputable (although some of the data reduction methods are slightly controversial). There are models, and they are more controversial, leading to conclusions that are more controversial still.

The issues cross multiple disciplines. The models are far from first principles. And little or none of it can be tested in the lab. We'll only know the answers in a century, maybe a millennium. Right now, on both sides, it is more a matter of belief than of knowledge -- and religious wars are often the most bloody.

--Pete

[Jester]

The issues cross multiple disciplines. The models are far from first principles. And little or none of it can be tested in the lab. We'll only know the answers in a century, maybe a millennium.

We're testing it right now, in a gigantic lab orbiting our sun. That's part of the whole point. We're not sitting idle, waiting for data and modelling to get better before making a decision about what to do. We're experimenting in real time on a planetary scale with the only home we currently have. What does a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels do to the climate? We don't strictly know, but we'll find out soon enough, because we've done it, we're still doing it, and if we accept the status quo, we'll keep doing it. I hope we like the answers, because if the climate really is nonlinear, there's no guarantee even the best CO2 sequestration technology can get us back to square one.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

We're testing it right now, in a gigantic lab orbiting our sun. That's part of the whole point. We're not sitting idle, waiting for data and modeling to get better before making a decision about what to do. We're experimenting in real time on a planetary scale with the only home we currently have. What does a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels do to the climate? We don't strictly know, but we'll find out soon enough, because we've done it, we're still doing it, and if we accept the status quo, we'll keep doing it. I hope we like the answers, because if the climate really is nonlinear, there's no guarantee even the best CO2 sequestration technology can get us back to square one.

Another area I haven't thought through yet. Perhaps the linear growth of CO2 correlates with global deforestation. From the first logs hewn for ships and castles to the present day how has land use affected the climate? Some scientists predict deforestation accounts for 25% of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, but perhaps that is larger due to other processes such as erosion releasing carbon from the soil as well.

Anyway, whether you want to put a stake in the ground at the development of the steam engine, or the wooden sailing ship, people have been changing the environment drastically for at least the past half a millennium, if not since the first human dammed the first river etc. Over the past few hundred years, humans are addicted to higher and higher amount of energy consumption. So I only see three possible outcomes; either we 1) replace the energy source, 2) reduce the humans, or 3) force the humans to go cold turkey with a drastic cut (probably resulting in #2).

I just watched a documentary on the Toba eruption and it possibly dropping the human population down to perhaps as low as 30 breeding females. I'm proposing that we should have a large number of nuclear power plants to augment solar production in the event that some volcanic event reduces solar flux for a prolonged period. While mass starvation is still likely, some nuclear power would allow the artificial growing of some food to sustain a meager number of humans on the planet.

[Jester]

Another area I haven't thought through yet. Perhaps the linear growth of CO2 correlates with global deforestation. From the first logs hewn for ships and castles to the present day how has land use affected the climate? Some scientists predict deforestation accounts for 25% of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, but perhaps that is larger due to other processes such as erosion releasing carbon from the soil as well.

That shouldn't be tough to measure. Just install measurement devices in recently cut areas, and see what happens. But I suspect the lion's share of CO2 released is just through the obvious mechanism: trees that held carbon in wood are burned. Stopping deforestation would be an enormous and sensible step forward. It is also one of the reasons I'm highly skeptical of the "plant a trillion trees" solution. We can't even keep our existing forests up due to population pressures and economic motives. How, without changing those facts, are we going to dramatically increase global forests, or transform them with bioengineering?

Presumably, it would be true that deforestation is highly correlated with CO2 growth, for fairly obvious reasons. One is causal: forests held carbon in plants that is now in the atmosphere. Another is simply coincidence: we are more able to exploit forest resources because we have fuel-burning technology and a high population, both of which create emissions.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How, without changing those facts, are we going to dramatically increase global forests, or transform them with bioengineering?

Good point. I've read other places where scientists are calling on first world nations to resolve the causes of deforestation as a bigger first step in reducing atmospheric CO2. I still think we can do more than one thing at a time, though. We should spend effort *now* to begin building enough nuclear plants to replace all our current electricity generation, work with S. American, Asian and African nations to preserve or reverse deforestation, work worldwide to limit or decrease human population over the next 100 years, and develop sustainable agriculture sufficient to support the population that we have.

Presumably, it would be true that deforestation is highly correlated with CO2 growth, for fairly obvious reasons. One is causal: forests held carbon in plants that is now in the atmosphere. Another is simply coincidence: we are more able to exploit forest resources because we have fuel-burning technology and a high population, both of which create emissions.

I found a paper on the topic by Woodwell in 1978. Also, it reduces the capability of the land to sequester additional carbon. There are least four effects on the local climate that I can think of; 1) burning the vegetation releases its carbon, 2) soil erosion further releasing GHG's, 3) reduced capacity of carbon sequestration, and 4) lower albedo resulting in a warmer micro climate. Not to mention the other ecological impacts such as the reducing lifespans of watersheds, habitat destruction and the loss of biodiversity.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I still think we can do more than one thing at a time, though.

One would hope so, though even doing one thing sometimes seems politically and/or fiscally impossible.

We should spend effort *now* to begin building enough nuclear plants to replace all our current electricity generation, . . .

That is an example of forcing a single solution. Hydro is viable, represents a fair percent of present generation capability, and is environmentally neutral. No need to replace it until the facilities become obsolete. Incorporating other sources (solar, wind, tide and wave, geothermal, etc.) spreads the load. There are many solutions, few of them that would work alone, but in combination they can be better than any one of them.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

That is an example of forcing a single solution. Hydro is viable, represents a fair percent of present generation capability, and is environmentally neutral. No need to replace it until the facilities become obsolete. Incorporating other sources (solar, wind, tide and wave, geothermal, etc.) spreads the load. There are many solutions, few of them that would work alone, but in combination they can be better than any one of them.

I should have been clearer. I was thinking about only the polluting, and CO2 emitting sources of electric generation. Good call. It would be nice to run the grid at 60% capacity and extend the life of the plants (and fuel), rather than nearer to 95% and risk brown outs. I would envision then that as renewable sources come on line, the nuclear power generation could be scaled back to act as fill in when solar generation is not optimal such as night time, and unpredictable weather. My concern here is that we know today how to build a safe 1000 MW nuclear generating plant (or at least Westinghouse does), but as of yet have not designed anything near that capacity with renewable energy sources.

The best design I've seen for a solar generating plant (50 MW) uses the sun to heat salt into molten form and stores it in that form in buried ceramic tanks, then uses the hot salt to power steam turbines when demand is higher. My second biggest beef with solar (1st beef is area needed) is that its peak generating time is high noon, when the grid is pretty much at its median consumption. Checking the power company's rates, peak rates apply from 8am to 11pm, and the biggest spike in power consumption is from 4pm to 7pm (if you go by hourly rates).

[kandrathe]

The WSJ is reporting on a an 11 day trip made by 10 Congressmen (with wives) over New Years 2008 to study global warming first hand, and is estimated (when including the Air Force planes involved) to have cost over half a million dollars.