Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I don't see your explanation. Neither do I see any egg (as yet).

Posted by Offside at August 11, 2007 12:04 PM

BTW, the piece about the temperature correction made the front page of the NYT. So much for the bias of the MSM.

Posted by Offside at August 11, 2007 12:14 PM

What a nice essay. I read this yesterday when /. linked to it.

Dyson is a curious character, hard to figure out. He doesn't seem to have been one of the brilliant ones, like Dirac or Feynmann or Schwinger, but he did some ace work. (The Dyson series for doing time-dependent perturbation theory is, I dare say, the foundation of all modern quantum mechanics work.)

I met him once, at Boulder when he gave a talk. He was intense, pre-occupied, shy. I read his autobiography and was struck by the general tone of regret and dissatisfaction overlaid with a massive mental discipline. He struck me as a man who God designed to barely miss greatness and to illustrate the heroism possible in being second-best, the Spartan (to make a contemporary media analogy) sent home before Thermopylae to tell the story of the 300.

He's certainly right, we need plenty of heretics in science, because only they advance the field. The rest of us are just clean-up men, bottle-washers and button-sorters, who categorize and explain what the great men do, who turn it from heresy to dogma.

Perhaps more so in climate science. But why? Maybe (being a heretic here) it's because climate science is much more "feminine" than its parents, physics and chemistry. Not only are there more women in it, but it also seems to operate more on feminine principles of consensus and everybody trying to make everybody else happy, rather than the masculine principles operating in physics and chemistry, where the order of the day is stiff competition and rubbing the other guy's face in the humiliation of having been wrong, or at least not the first who was right, if you can.

We've heard endless yammering about how various jobs and fields need the special qualities of women -- more sensitivity, more consensus-building -- but this may be a field where we need the special qualities of men -- more competition, more striving for ultimate truth no matter what sacred idols and sensitive egos get chipped and dinged along the way.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 11, 2007 01:24 PM

Democratic activist Greg Hansen is the poster boy for politicized science and a darling of the press. I predict great things ahead for him in the new Clinton administration.

Freeman Dyson in the employ of BIG OIL? Who knew?

Posted by K at August 11, 2007 01:24 PM

I feel I should clarify: when I aver Freeman Dyson is second-best, that is not a slight, not in his field.

I'm a pretty smart cookie myself, but I'm barely fit to wash Freeman Dyson's blackboards and sharpen his pencils.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 11, 2007 01:59 PM

BTW, the piece about the temperature correction made the front page of the NYT. So much for the bias of the MSM.

The point is, Offside, that any right-wing bias or even-handedness on the part of the media, mainstream or otherwise, is taken for granted. "Media bias" is mostly an attack slogan; and anyone who resorts to it more than occassionally actually wants bias (in a specific direction) and resents the plain truth.

It may be that most of the narrow accusation of bias has merit. Nonetheless, lurking behind each querulous protest of media error is an even less welcome truth. For instance, in the case of Scott Thomas, the unpleasant backdrop is the criminal trial for the Haditha massacre. Despite the pronouncement here that the massacre "didn't happen", both sides of the trial accept that it did, the only question is who is guilty.

Posted by at August 11, 2007 02:44 PM

"I predict great things ahead for him in the new Clinton administration. "

I predict more of the same for him in the Thompson administration, the one that will take office on Jan 20, 2009 in the non-Bizarro universe where Hillary has a 49% 'will not vote for her under any circumstances' rating.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2007 06:58 PM

"Despite the pronouncement here that the massacre "didn't happen", both sides of the trial accept that it did, the only question is who is guilty."

Sure it happened, it is just the small problem that the US did not cause it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2007 07:01 PM

For instance, in the case of Scott Thomas, the unpleasant backdrop is the criminal trial for the Haditha massacre

Oh I don't know, I would have said the "unpleasant backdrop" is....the epidemic of obesity among American school-age children, the shocking upswing in mortgage foreclosures, the rise in gas prices, the carnage on our highways among 16-year-old drivers, and the inevitability of death, taxes, and presbyopia.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 11, 2007 08:28 PM

Here is a great link to an article about a new controversy related to the scamming of climate data from China that is at the core of the new IPCC climate assessment.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/un-s-ipcc-accused-possible-research-fraud

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 11, 2007 09:00 PM

I'm a pretty smart cookie myself, but I'm barely fit to wash Freeman Dyson's blackboards and sharpen his pencils.

Good, finally some modesty overcomes you.

Actually, if you read his article carefully, the idea of growing some weeds and then burying them, which you sneeringly offered in another thread as a cure for global warming, is pretty much what Dyson says can work to move Carbon out of the atmoshpere.

In the meantime, Greens should rejoice in that Dyson clearly indicates the importance of a green, vegetated earth in regulating the climate or even saving us from a runaway climate that China's coal use could produce. So tree huggers, unknowingly perhaps had it right.

Posted by Offside at August 12, 2007 11:07 AM

So, you think IPCC is a religious organization.

This you could call a "spot a scientist" panel debate:
http://www.youtube.com/user/voltscommissar
From pt3 onwards. It's the scientist that has to constantly fight all the disinformative crap by the "sceptics".

Posted by mz at August 12, 2007 12:10 PM

Now consider what happens to the roots and shoots when the growing season is over, when the leaves fall and the plants die. The new-grown biomass decays and is eaten by fungi or microbes. Some of it returns to the atmosphere and some of it is converted into topsoil. On the average, more of the above-ground growth will return to the atmosphere and more of the below-ground growth will become topsoil.

Dyson offers genetically engineered plants with a high root to shoot ratio as a solution. We don't have these plants as yet, and probably won't in the near future. We also don't know what other biological consequences growing such plants may cause and I can't quite see a bunch of global warming skeptics rushing into their gardens to plant these. A simpler solution would be to take all that fall biomass and bury it in a deep hole. Done.

Dyson also talks about the five storehouses of carbon that are accessible and their interaction. He however dwells lightly on the fact that one of them, fossil fuels is being converted back into atmospheric carbon in a manner with no previous parallel. So one can hardly argue that the warming this induces can be viewed as part of some natural cycle of whatever length.

If one combines all of his observations including the snide comment that the American overextension of empire is showing signs of fatigue, or that we should be the carbon sink for China's exuberance with coal, one has to argue for a limited population, more ecologically aware, greener style of living with great emphasis on preservation of forests and wilderness.

Posted by Offside at August 12, 2007 02:02 PM

Good, finally some modesty overcomes you.

Now it's your turn, Off.

the idea of growing some weeds and then burying them, which you sneeringly offered in another thread as a cure for global warming

Dude...turn down the personal sensitivity gain on your receiver. I didn't sneer at the idea, I expressed bewilderment that anyone might think this was a breakthrough new idea, instead of, well, rather obvious.

Furthermore, I pointed out that there are a some practical hurdles -- which do not, of course, concern Dyson as a theoretical physicist -- that must be overcome before this makes any kind of sense. What's the net CO2 uptake, for example? If you have to bury your weeds with a lot of diesel-burning tractors, you may not come out ahead.

What I'm trying to discourage is the sort of Eureka! We found the magic bullet! sort of nonsense you get from the crystal healing innumerate crowd out there. Gee, let's legistlate that everyone buy Priuses (Prii?), or replace incandescents with CFLs, or buy only organic food, yadda yadda. All this God-damned overhasty fools rushing in where angels fear to tread meddling from people who....grand irony!... .are crying out that we have neglected to consider all the consequences of past decisions, e.g. to burn fossil fuels for transportation energy. (And their own track record of foresight with respect to, say, nuclear power is abysmal.)

The Hippocratic Oath, line 1 ("First, do no harm") should apply to screwing with the environment, too. I have no problem with being thoughtful and conservative with your resources. I do my part: I ride my bike to work 10 miles every day, although I'm nearing 45, and drive maybe once a week, although I live in Southern California. I recycle everything that's logical (aluminum, steel, paper, glass). I don't buy shit I don't need, I avoid excess packaging, and I never acquire something without thinking about where, ultimately, it will end up. I daresay I value the green Earth no less than you or anyone else, inasmuch as I typically spend many of my summer weekends hiking and camping in the California wilderness.

But does that mean I think it's a great idea to plunge wildly into massive social programs to enforce this or that magic cure-all fad? God, no. I shudder to think of what kind of ill that could provoke. The problem with the big social program people is they haven't a clue of how much worse things could quite easily get, with some hideous Soviet-style folly. Their foolishly naive enthusiasm and blindness to possible unforeseen consequences alarms me greatly. They're like a bunch of dangerously ignorant bystanders at an accident, eager to sit the guy with the neck injury up and have him rotate his head, to make sure it's OK, or they want to pull the sharp prong of metal out of the guy who has it stuck into his abdomen, to see whether it's gone right through or not. Brrrr.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 12, 2007 02:07 PM

Carl, back to that earlier thread which was all about how organic gardening was bad for the planet. I asked the question why the author did not consider the carbon impact of the production and use of synthetic fertilizer. Commenters here were chuckling and cheering the fact that organic farming was bad for the planet, gleeful to once again pounce on the pathetic leftie weenie enviro symatheticos. Which is why I suggest that if true they stop eating organic produce, serving as the carbon offset for those of us who do eat organic produce. I still like that idea.

No question of whether organic gardening is feasible in a no-till scheme and no, not a single answer to the carbon impact of synthetic fertilizer.

Do we know whether this more than offsets the carbon impact of tilled-organic farming? What does your eminence think?

Posted by Offside at August 12, 2007 02:27 PM

Mr. Pham,

Very nice summary of my POV.
---
The IPCC isn't a religious organization. It is a political organization:

-- led by people whose motives we can't verify

-- operated under principles of opacity and unaccountability

-- publishing conclusions that shape the release of underlying data (a release that comes months later)

-- proclaiming the need for massive social re-engineering

What liberty loving individual would see such an organization as anything BUT a threat to their well-being.

President Bush was correct, years ago, when he said that the best thing we can do is adjust to the practical consequences of Global Warming(TM).

I am all in favor of reducing the CO2 intensity of our lives. The "business as usual" is an intensity reduction of about 2-3% per year. Battery technology is very close to improving that rate of reduction. Throw in modern nuclear power plants, and one begins to see the outlines of a hugely reduced CO2 intensity.

The "problem" of CO2 emissions is already being solved, in the only sustainable way -- small steps, insertion of effective technology, and a government role of basic research and as a consumer.

Effective, economical solutions to the CO2 "problem" exist, so long as one allows the time necessary to grow a sustainable solution. Those who amplify the sense of urgency to megacrisis proportions just want your wallet's contents.

In the face of all that, any of you folks who insist on drastic social changes to solve the "problem" of CO2 emissions are either control freaks or useful idiots.

PS: If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Posted by MG at August 12, 2007 02:30 PM

Just one thing to add on Global Warming... whether or not it is happening or not, science is never advanced by consensus. Science can only be advanced by contrarian viewpoints being either proven or disproven.

Most of my skeptisism can be summed up as "a failure of imagination," that famous quote. Long term global forcasting is a very young field, so we do not yet know the magnitude of the "unknown unknowns." That makes it interesting for research and power grabs, but useless as a base for sound policy decisions.

Posted by David Summers at August 12, 2007 05:12 PM

Off, I don't know whether organic farming is "bad" for the planet or not. I daresay no one does. Heck, we don't even know whether coffee is good for you or not, and the human body is a lot simpler system than the entire planet, and we've been studying it more intensely for longer. Not to mention the timescales are lot more amenable to study; we're not asking to predict the future five centuries out.

No doubt organic farming has some environmental consequences that are beneficial, and some that are harmful. What human activity doesn't? The rational action in such a situation is to let people make up their own minds and act as they see fit. I think very few people will deliberately act to wreck the ecosystem for their grandchildren for the sake of present gain. And if they won't act now, I think it's generally because they're honestly unconvinced, and if they're unconvinced, it's mostly because the evidence isn't good enough, and not because they're stupid or have had their minds poisoned by Karl Rove.

Fact is, a farmer knows more about the tradeoffs in farming than I'll ever know, so he is in the right position to decide if organic or no-till techniques are right for him. A city boy telling him what to do is just being an arrogant ass, and will likely make a poorer decision. Similarly, I'm best situated to decide the tradeoffs in using incandescents or CFLs, and whether I think energy usage of mercury exposure worries me more. No one else should imagine he can make that decision with more care than I will.

How do I know that? Well, just take a look at any example of a society where all these decisions are made at the top. They've all turned out disastrously. Heck, even business doesn't do so well when direction comes only from the top, when the Vice President tries to make the decisions the guys on the production floor should be making.

The chuckling you heard -- which was not from me, so it's not actually my problem to defend it -- may be from people who are a bit tired of too many righteous know-it-all "green" evangelists telling them not to bother thinking things out for themselves, because the new religion has all the answers for them.

As Glenn Reynolds says, what provokes the hostility to the most visible "environmentalists" is not their environmentalism but (1) their intellectual rigidity and smugness, and (2) the fact that they yoke environmentalism to a particular political philosophy (usually some kind of Euroweenie socialism-lite).

That's how I feel, anyway. I've been environmentally conscious since before half the modern "activists" were born. I knew about "global warming" and CFCs in the 1980s, and did what I personally and reasonably could do to avoid contributing. I yield to no one in my awareness of the issues. So...mmmm, yeah, I get a little ticked off when some whippersnapper zealot says he wants legislation to force me to try to transport my family of 6 in a hybrid. Of course, he buys a new computer every two years and doesn't trouble his head with where all that plastic and metal goes...

Posted by Carl Pham at August 12, 2007 06:36 PM

Michael Tobis has an analysis of Dyson's talks:
Dyson Exegesis
Tobis is a cool-headed and rational scientist that is recommended reading for everyone anyway.

Posted by mz at August 12, 2007 06:56 PM

Tree huggers DID have it right, at least to the point that there is a current warming trend. Where they got it wrong is saying mankind is causing it. As a current events issue, there is no argument, the Earth has experienced definite warming. But the greenies have turned a current events issue into a political issue. Science of the atmosphere and political science should remain much more separate.

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2007 06:50 AM

Greens should rejoice in that Dyson clearly indicates the importance of a green, vegetated earth in regulating the climate or even saving us from a runaway climate that China's coal use could produce. So tree huggers, unknowingly perhaps had it right.

So sometimes does a broken clock, but being right twice a day is a hell of a lot more often than the greens. The real problem with China's activities is salination and loss of topsoil destroying prime arable land. Not our problem though since it'll be their population which starves.

Posted by at August 14, 2007 12:39 AM

Hey, Offside!

If Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 (compared to our 0.04%), why is it's temperature -60 degrees?

And don't give us some BS about it's atmospheric pressure...that would provide some dispersement, but not enough to explain a concentration 2400 times higher.

Let the spin begin.

Posted by Shaprshooter at August 15, 2007 02:26 AM

If Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 (compared to our 0.04%), why is it's temperature -60 degrees?

Because it is considerably farther from the sun (mean distance 1.52 AU, IIRC), and only gets a fraction (less than half) of the insolation the Earth does. Also, the partial pressure of water vapor (which contributes more than CO2 to impeding IR transport in Earth's atmosphere, although not to the extent that denialists would mislead you to believe) is much lower on Mars.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 15, 2007 05:51 AM

One other thing...

And don't give us some BS about it's atmospheric pressure...that would provide some dispersement,

Not sure what 'dispersement' is, but the lower total pressure does cause the CO2 absorption lines to be sharper than at 1 bar. IR can escape through the gaps in the picket fence more easily when the lines are narrower.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 15, 2007 05:55 AM

Give me a break, Paul. Pressure-broadening at 1 bar or less? A whole wavenumber or so?

Higher pressure just means a shorter extinction depth. Thicker glass in the greenhouse, that's all.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 16, 2007 05:46 PM

Give me a break, Paul. Pressure-broadening at 1 bar or less? A whole wavenumber or so?

Just how wide do you think these lines are, Carl?

Here is an example with diagrams showing a CO2 line going from 70 mbar to 564 mbar. The FWHM of the latter is about four times the former.

(remove the space in "blog spot" to follow the link.)

http://rabett.blog spot.com/2007/07/how-well-can-we-model-pressure.html

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 16, 2007 08:23 PM

But...Paul, did you look at the scale on the horizontal axis?? Those lines are only one or two wavenumbers wide! That's like 1 part in 5000, roughly. Maybe 30 GHz on an infrared absorption.

It's like an FM radio transmission at 90 MHz having a bandwidth of less than 20 kHz, or an audible tone at 2000 Hz having a bandwidth of less than 0.5 Hz. To me, that's very sharp indeed. Why do you say these are "broad" lines? Compared to what?

Posted by Carl Pham at August 17, 2007 04:17 PM

But...Paul, did you look at the scale on the horizontal axis?? Those lines are only one or two wavenumbers wide! That's like 1 part in 5000, roughly.

So what, Carl? There are many such lines (there would have to be -- if there were only a few such narrow lines, the absorption would be insignificant). When each of these large multitude of lines broadens slightly, the overall change in absorption can be quite substantial.

Why do you say these are "broad" lines?

Why do you lie about what I said?

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 19, 2007 08:16 PM

Post a comment