We learn from our teachers, and are influenced by those who we admire - as I have been influenced, by Singer and Bryson.

I haven’t studied under Dyson directly, although I have read numerous of his manuscripts. I would say, that I have not seen anything in the papers I have examined that would lead one to question the man’s ability to apply scientific principles to understand physical phenomena that underlie observations of the physical world, nor have I identified aberrant use of math to quantify these investigations.

Far from it.

Thus if Dr Dyson has conducted rational analyses of the influence of components of the atmosphere on the long-term thermal behaviour of the fluid dynamical system, one could reasonably conclude that it is unlikely that he has either neglected important effects or misinterpreted important ones.

Senator Inhofe collected the public statements of those who have rejected the notion that human activities have or have the potential to significantly alter the radiant transport properties of a participating atmosphere over natural variations.

At the request of the Senator’s office, some, like me, have submitted more complete statements

SciAm’s John Rennie labeled Morano Senator Inhofe’s Pet Weasel

Do you have a scientific response to the sunspot correlation or are you going to cover your ears and say “la la la…”?

Brian — Maybe Tiger and Dyson have more in common than I thought, since everything Dyson writes about global warming is jaw-dropping too, albeit not a good way.

Paulidian — Thanks for not bothering to do any actual research on the “non-correlation,” including reading about a half a dozen posts on this blog.
Start here http://www.skepticalscience.com/ solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems and expressed global warming skepticism. “Human development, associated with the continual advance of Civilization on the Earth, has always influenced the local weather; and the degree of influence on local weather is probably proportional to the magnitude of the changes in the Earth’s topography that have resulted from continual human advances,” Valentine wrote to EPW on May 17, 2007.

“There is no evidence that any of these changes in local weather have ever resulted in a change to the global climate. My own research has convinced me that excepting for one situation, there have NEVER been ANY influences that have changed the global climate - not solar, not stellar, not variations in Earth’s spin on its axis - nothing - that can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, for which equally valid evidence is available that contradicts the assumption of global climate change,” Valentine explained.

“This single exception is the known variation of eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun. This is the periodic variation of distance from Earth to the Sun that changes the distance from the Earth to the Sun within Earth’s seasons, and occurs within tens of thousands of year epochs,” he concluded. (Note: Valentine is expressing his personal views.)

[JR: That, of course, is precisely why the nations of the world set up the IPCC in the first place, to have an objective review of the scientific literature by the world’s leading scientists. Scientific observation and scientific understanding are different than how Valentine represents them. He is entitled to his opinion, based on his research, or on a Ouija Board, but it has no bearing on the scientific discussion.

It is absurd to say there is no evidence that greenhouse gases change climate, volcanoes change climate, or even that sunspots change climate.]

The dominant source of current warming, however, Long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, of course, do not have a “transient” effect, so I’m not certain what your question is driving at.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

and then continue by actually reading the IPCC AR4. You do no credit to your PhD and especially not to the ethical obligations which are attached to your writing ‘PE” after your name.

By warming, are you referring to “global” warming, Joe? Looking at the global temperature patterns over the period 1970-2000 for example - however much I stretch my imagination, this looks asymmetric to me; I cannot rationalize an influence from greenhouse gases for such asymmetry to persist over that length of time, either.

I can’t fathom the supposed influence of greenhouse gases on the global climate, either: clearly the influence would be trivial without the influence of those on water’s vapour- but extrapolating that back to a condition of no other greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere than water, presents a condition I have no explanation for: why would there be any water present at all?

We know that water is a greenhouse gas, and we know of its presence and influence because the diurnal temperature difference (daytime high - night time low) decreases everywhere. We would know of additional influence from any more greenhouse gases by observing that difference decrease and maybe you know that this has happened, I am not aware of that.

I didn’t just jump out of bed one morning and say, “Hey! Maybe I’ll doubt all that Al Gore global warming stuff just to be negative!”

Happy Father’s Day, David R Benson: whether you are a father - or if you celebrate it on behalf of your own father (should he be present with us or not) - as I do.

The fine distinction in the epistemological consequences of those two verbs separates “climate sceptics” and “progressive climatologists” or whatever else they may be distinguished as.

But, the two groups usually agree on more than they disagree, too.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/ ~rtp1/ ClimateBook/ ClimateBook.html

which helps to explain the atmospheric physics (which is not so easy, to put it mildly).

[can the editor of these pages fix that error please?]

Ray P and I have had some exchanges - all of them (except a set of Lebesgue measure zero) - have been cordial

Yet another engineer trots along to tell us that the geophysicists have it all wrong because they can’t fathom the process.

Silly geophysicists.

Never mind that the only way to increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is to first increase either the pressure or the temperature of the atmosphere.

Never mind that this in not the case with CO2, CH4, and NOxs.

Never mind that insolation changes caused by the Milankovic cycles can be calculated and shown to NOT be sufficient to either initiate or end a glaciation without albedo and greenhouse gas feedbacks.

Silly geophysicists.

There are simply too many people, because they know something about chemistry or geology or whatever, think they know about all of science.

I assume when you go to visit the doctor, you don’t accept any diagnosis or treatment until you yourself have gone to medical school, since obviously they are all witchdoctors.

Peer-reviewed science and the IPCC were explicitly set up to get past what you call tribalism.

An entire volume of J Coll Interface Sci was devoted to the elegant (and meaningless) theoretic underpinnings of this marvelous and fictional substance.

Your need to validate your attempts to humiliate is pathetic, consistent, and (as much as I regret to admit it) – expected.

That particular analogy is the last refuge of the denier — “all science is wrong because a few people were once wrong.” I thought you were a scientist….

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ wiki/ Image:Solar_Variation_to_Temperature_Comparison_png

Up until 30 years ago, fluctuations in temps and solar output did indeed correlate. Since then, they have diverged–and we know why.

“You’d think a PhD PE would known that they didn’t know until they studied the science.”

Think of it this way - time he spends posting is time that he doesn’t spend ‘designing’ anything.

Brian G Valentine — I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

I find there is a tribe of PEs who think that their education has taught them everything they need to know. Don’t mind this small tribe of stubborn denialists.

Best,

D