Some correspondence with Freeman Dyson

Reader Dead Dog Bounce has had some correspondence with Freeman Dyson on the subject of his recent interview with the Independent. I am reproducing their emails with permission.

Dead Dog Bounce to Freeman Dyson

Dear Professor Dyson,

I read today your correspondence with the Science Editor of the Independent, Mr Steve Connor. What came across to me was that you seemed to have more to say than the nature of the discussion allowed or encouraged.  I realise that it is slightly impertinent for an interested lay-person like myself to write to a man of as much substance as yourself, but I have been following the discussions about AGW for some time, and feel that a huge opportunity presented by this correspondence appears to have been wasted.  I will of course understand if this email goes without response.

I was struck by the way Mr. Connor led.the discussion with a series of closed questions.  First, rather  than following his lead, I should like to do the opposite and ask an open question:

1. What questions should intelligent lay-people be asking about climate, and to whom should these questions be directed?

Secondly, there is a minor storm in the blogosphere this week, where the first official "climate scientist", Dr Judith Curry, has openly criticised a graph which featured highly in the "Climategate" email scandal, where Professor Phil Jones substituted a section of "unhelpful" tree ring data with thermometer readings in a graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation.  This is the source of the phrase "hide the decline" in tree ring data (aka the divergence problem).  The discussion is available at  http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/.

2. Would you have any comment on the "hide the decline" controversy? 

3. Would you be willing for me to forward your comments to Andrew Montford, the author of the leading UK Climate sceptic blog (see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/)?

Thanks for your time, and I apologise for bothering you.

Yours Faithfully

[Dead Dog Bounce]

Freeman Dyson to Dead Dog Bounce

Dear [Dead Dog Bounce],

I am surprised that my abortive conversation with Steve Connor is now part of the public record.   Nobody asked me whether I wanted it made public.   Anyhow that does not matter.

 Answer to your question

1.  Both for humans and for wildlife, water is more important than temperature.  Intelligent lay-people should be asking questions about water.  What are the trends over the last hundred years for total rainfall, total water vapor in the atmosphere, total volume of ice on the continents, volume of fresh water in aquifers, distribution of droughts and floods, and last but not least, sea-level? Why did the Sahara change from green six thousand years ago to desert today?  What are the implications for public health and natural ecology of the changes in flow and abundance of water?

Answer to question 2. No comment.

Answer to question 3.  I did not know that the Montford blog existed. You are welcome to send him these comments if you like.

Thankyou for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Freeman Dyson.

As an aside, there have also been accusations that sceptic comments were censored from the Independent piece - Autonomous Mind has the story. I should add, however, my own comments got through OK, which may simply be that they were not very effective.

Comments

[Kevin]

Dihydrogen Monoxide!

[Jiminy Cricket]

I am surprised that my abortive conversation with Steve Connor is now part of the public record.

Public record? Has he seen the circulation figures for the "Independent"?

[TDK]

Freeman Dyson may not have heard of you but Fred Singer has
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/what_do_climate_data_really_sh.html

[TDK]

Freeman Dyson may not have heard of you but Fred Singer has

[dunton joe]

as has been pointed out at climate realists, the commentor censored by the indy started off his letter badly by claiming, apparently, that the ordovician and cambrian eras are within the past 800,000 years. they are about 460 million years ago.

[Latimer Alder]

'Abortive conversation' ??

Did I miss something? Why was it aborted?

[Martin A]

"Why was it aborted?"

I thought Dyson explained quite clearly why he was terminating the correspondence.

[Jack Cowper]

What a perfect gentleman Freeman Dyson appears to be. Gavin over @ RC should take note.

[BBD]

I note that Connor did not have the courtesy to seek Dyson's permission before reproducing their correspondence.

[Shub]

That is because Dyson questioned what must be gospel for Connor - the effect of drought on the carbon of the Amazon forest.

Why would a science journalist use this kind of language?

Revenge of the rainforest

...described as the "lungs of the world" for its ability to absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide through its immense photosynthetic network of trees and leaves

The Amazon rainforest is one of the biggest and most important living stores of carbon on the planet through its ability to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into solid carbon, kept locked in the trunks of rainforest trees for centuries.

Four years ago, a sudden and intense drought in the Amazonian dry season created the sort of conditions that give climate scientists nightmares

[Jimmy Haigh]

The meek shall inherit the earth...

No one has heard of me either.

[Jimmy Haigh]

"That is because Dyson questioned what must be gospel for Connor - the effect of drought on the carbon of the Amazon forest."

Drought? In the Amazon rain forest? I've been there. It rains every day. There isn't time for a drought...

[BBD]

Shub

Revenge of the Nepstad, more like.

[James P]

A drought in the dry season, eh? Damned tricky that climate stuff...

[Richard Drake]

What a great man he is. Not having been heard of by him is no problem but to have pissed him off as Connor has, that's not so clever. A moment of inspiration to ask that question Dead Dog Bounce.

[bernie]

This follow up made me go back and re-read the original emails. Hopefully my paraphrasing is not too redundant with the earlier post - but I was stunned at how dumb and numb Connor was in his emails. If any of the senior editors at the Independent took the time and read the emails then they must question the competence of their science editor. I came to the same conclusion that it appears Prof. Dyson did: Connor shows little evidence of being able to think critically (see last paragraph of the last email). It is a truly embarrassing performance.
In responding to Connor's patronizing seven questions, Prof. Dyson is polite but firm and delivers a series of forceful rebukes: (1) it is wrong to rely on computer models when there are many relevant variables that we do not understand and fail to include in the models; (2) it is wrong to distort reality - more people die from cold in winter than from heat in summer; (3) it is wrong to focus on a single cause (CO2) when there are clearly other significant causes of climate change; (4) it is wrong to ignore significant other carbon sinks and reservoirs as computer models do; (5) it is wrong to demonize CO2 when it clearly has many readily measurable beneficial effects; (6) by way of summary, it is wrong to pretend to understand something that we do not, i.e., the earth's climate.

Connor is so full of hubris that he fails to note or acknowledge the full import of the slap down that he just received. After some more rather asinine questions, Prof. Dyson has to lay it on the line "The most I expect is that you listen to what I am saying. I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain....If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure."

To this strong rebuff, Connor again makes no acknowledgement and proceeds to misleadingly characterize Prof. Dyson's position as amounting to a call to "ringing up the Flat Earth Society and asking them to comment on new discoveries in plate tectonics." It is hard for me to think of a more dumb and irrelevant response.

Finally, Prof. Dyson after taking a few days to muster the energy to respond to Connor's most recent inanities, says goodbye with a fully earned chastisement - which based on his past behavior Connor undoubtedly missed - that is quite wonderfully cutting: I hope one day you will learn how to think critically (i.e., "join the sceptics") because critical thinking is important for a "good journalist as it is for a good scientist." That would leave a mark if addressed to me, but I guess Connor may not recognize that it was meant for him.

[Chris S]

A smart guy and a gentleman. A rare combination these days.

[Shub]

Great post, bernie.

I have been reading the work of Steve Connor. He's won many awards.... Makes you wonder.

[Barry Woods]

oh dear

The Carbon Brief has a go at Freeman dyson..
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/02/freeman-dyson-interviewed-in-the-independent

they are shameless
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/

[HaroldW]

Barry,
Thanks for the link to the Carbon Brief's look at the interview. Here's their point 1:

Claim 1:
[Dyson said] "the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly."

This statement implies that computer models do not take into account the impact of clouds, vegetation, soil and dust on temperature trends. This is not true.

Um, let's see, did Dyson say, or imply, that the models do not attempt to take these factors into account? Read his words again. No, he said the models describe them poorly. Points for giving Dyson's actual words, rather than misrepresenting them in paraphrase, but unfortunately all those points are lost by misreading those words. It's impressive that even in a "throw-away" email exchange, which he didn't expect would be made public, Dyson was so precise.

Just as Mr Connor does, CB thinks they can rebut Dyson by repeating select portions of the IPCC reports. But here's a different one:

Claim 4:
[Dyson:]"the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs"

Whilst it might have been true that climate models only considered the atmosphere and ocean in the 1960s, today's climate models are far more sophisticated. Terrestrial vegetation, sea-ice, the effects of dust and aerosols, and even chemical cycles (including the carbon cycle) are now routinely incorporated in modern climate models.

The last three words are hyper-linked to a 2009 Royal Society paper. What does that paper have to say about the models?

The present-day climate models are composites of dynamic models representing each of the major components of the Earth's climate system. In a sense, they are not yet really complete Earth system models that are designed to deal with all the issues of global change and all the details involved in the understanding of past climates, such as, for example, including all the complexity of biogeochemical cycles or the interactive impacts of mankind and land cover.

Note CB's begrudging allowance that the 1960s models "might have" been limited, look at this figure from the same paper which indicates that biogeochemical cycles are not in the "present day" column. Refer to claim 1 for the accuracy of such modelling.

Dyson was not even aware that the interview had been published; I sincerely hope he doesn't see it mangled as well.

[Neil Craig]

The fact that the Climate Optimum of 9-5,000BC (a name which predates all the alarmist puff) was at least 2 & possibly 4 degrees warmer than now and that it meant the Sahara was fertile & Greenland did not melt is incredibly strong evidence that any warming less than that now will not only not be harmful but actively beneficial.

I would assume that if air temperature was warmer & thus able to hold more water, more of it would fall.