or was he a good scientist in his prime
i know that he denies global warming, was he a good physicist?
Is this guy a good scientist
Joseph Myers
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
theguardian.com
realclimate.org
naturalresources.house.gov
ibtimes.com
dailycaller.com
economy.money.cnn.com
youtube.com
aftenposten.no
ipcc.ch
newsweek.com
twitter.com
Lucas Foster
>denies global warming
No,
>Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[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."[53] However, he believes 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. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[53]
>In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."[4]
>en.wikipedia.org
tl;dr: Solving PDEs is hard, stop pretending this is like freshman physics.
Gavin Gray
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
>we are putting more of it in the atmosphere
>Earth will retain more heat
>how much heat it'll retain and what are the effects we can't accurately model with our current understanding of Earth's climate
"OMG! CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER! THAT MUST MEAN HE'S A FLAT-EARTHER CREATIONIST! LOL! THINKS PI=3 EXACTLY LIKE 'MUH BIBLE!' SEZ SO!!!111oneone"
And if you think I'm exaggerating, the extremists even called James Hansen a climate change denier because he supports nuclear power as a way to save the world from AGW.
theguardian.com
You are either with Al Gore, Bill Nye, and Greenpeace (of shit) on every single tenant of AGW or you are with the climate change deniers.
And yes, not all of them are like that. It's just enough of them that are like that and in position of power to cause problem. Just look at Europe. Countries are dismantling their nuclear reactors at the behest of the "solar and wind only" crowd only to burn for coal when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Even France is falling for this faggotry.
Either the extremists are reigned in or we won't get off fossil fuels until we run out and then it'll be too late to switch over to an alternative.
Kayden Sullivan
He is legendary tier.
James Miller
>However, he believes 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:
We've been reliably predicting future trends for several decades, so this is just empirically false.
Chase Ross
>how much heat it'll retain and what are the effects we can't accurately model with our current understanding of Earth's climate
We've been accurately modeling it for several decades. Our current understanding is more than enough to conclude that the current warming trend is primarily caused by our GHG emissions.
Evan Baker
Data?
Nathan Williams
you don't even need climate models to tell you global warming is happening (instrumental records are enough), you need them to tell what's going to happen in the future
And you can get very compelling evidence of global warming's antropogenic source even without climate models
So even if all the models are completely wrong there's no reason to deny agw
Wyatt Harris
>We've been accurately modeling it for several decades.
If only the climate would stop denying its own warming.
Hudson Perry
I couldn't help but to notice you never addressed 's main point-that the dogmatic climate fundies are biggest hurdles to addressing climate change. Climate change would be old news if we didn't spend decades fucking around with solar panels and wind turbines and stop letting the anti-nuke fearmongers set climate policy.
Ryan Davis
Tell that to Iceland losing its ice sheet and the ever shrinking Antartica. Hell China itself declared it's glaciers a "lost cause".
Kevin Baker
>anti-nuke fearmongers
Not this strawman again. Nuclear power failed because it sucks. Go shill somewhere else.
Measured effects =/= effects exactly as modeled.
To quote Hamming: "The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers". Too many humanities students read the results as certain prophecy which then harms the public's trust in science when they don't pan out as modeled.
Kevin Brown
Thanks for proving me right, climate fundie. Now go suck Bill Nye's dick someone else.
Carson Myers
You mean how our models predicted that Antarctica is shrinking as a result of global warming and that the ice shelf is gonna melt and absolutely fuck shit up as the water returns to the ocean and a shit load of methane is released into the atmosphere?
Justin Young
Different models nigger.
Jack Allen
Climate change is always happening even without us. You know this planet had ice ages before us right?
Andrew Gutierrez
>look ma I posted it again!
Shill.
Adrian Bennett
I don't really care what his main point is, I addressed the main lie in his post. I don't see how you can go around calling people dogmatic or fundamentalist when you spread politically motivated misinformation in the same breath. Acting like the impediment is environmentalists who ignore that nuclear can solve the problem when one out of two political parties denies the problem even exists is idiotic.
Isaac Evans
So what? The climate is warming at an unprecedented rate due to our emissions. How does natural climate change affect this fact?
Ryan Bailey
>temperatures of altitude of jet airliners and Mt. Everest
John Christy's graph covers the lower troposphere, which is stated in the official congressional testimony.
From naturalresources.house.gov
"A very basic metric for climate studies is the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer known as the troposphere, roughly from the surface to 50,000 ft altitude. This is the layer that, according to models, should warm significantly as CO2 increases. And, this CO2-caused warming should be easily detectible by now, according to models."
Climate models include changes in temperature in the upper troposphere. "But no one lives in the upper atmosphere" bullshit is a dishonest ploy to appear to the readers' incredulity.
>graph improperly aligned
>Doesn't show other groups showing greater warming
>Oceans are heating up as predicted
The .gif misrepresents John Christy's argument right off the bat. So, there's no need to bother taking the rest of it seriously.
>Shill
ibtimes.com
dailycaller.com
economy.money.cnn.com
You whores can't call anyone shills after getting passed around Putin and the OPEC oil sheikhs and guzzling down every proverbial drop of cum they jizz down your throat like a call girl at a frat party. They are funding and promoting the anti-fracking movement in the US and it isn't because they're worried about the environment Fracking in the US has increased oil supplies and decreased its cost. Russia and OPEC doesn't like that and that's why they help fund the anti-fracking movement in the US.
Robert Bennett
>Climate models include changes in temperature in the upper troposphere. "But no one lives in the upper atmosphere" bullshit is a dishonest ploy to appear to the readers' incredulity.
Actually it's simply pointing out that we should care more about modeling surface temperatures accurately than the bulk atmosphere. But if you demand that models accurately project TMT temps, I suggest you use a chart that isn't incorrectly baselined, doesn't cherrypick data, and doesn't use old satellite data which has been admitted to be flawed by Christy and Spencer. The current satellite record in much better agreement with other data and the models.
>>graph improperly aligned
>>Doesn't show other groups showing greater warming
>>Oceans are heating up as predicted
>The .gif misrepresents John Christy's argument right off the bat. So, there's no need to bother taking the rest of it seriously.
Wow. so you aren't going to even try to defend the major flaws in the graph. You know it's lying and you have no justification, but you are going to keep posting it. What a joke. You truly are a shill.
Jayden Rodriguez
He's an excellent mathematician and scientist.
Carter Nelson
>We've been reliably predicting future trends for several decades
OK
aftenposten.no
>North pole without ice within 2013.
Got more reliable predictions?
Jaxon Rodriguez
>North pole without ice within 2013.
Most climatologists disagree
ipcc.ch
>Changes in sea ice: There will be substantial loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Predictions for summer ice indicate that its extent could shrink by 60% for a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), opening new sea routes. This will have major trading and strategic implications. With more open water, there will be a moderation of temperatures and an increase in precipitation in Arctic lands. Antarctic sea-ice volume is predicted to decrease by 25% or more for a doubling of CO2, with sea ice retreating about 2 degrees of latitude.****
Juan Garcia
Jaxson Reyes
Not an argument.