Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Douglas — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:16:54 -0000

In order to seperate order from disorder you need a definition. I did not see one. The second law of thermodynamics is clearly defined, but I did not see that definition here. Perhaps this is because NONE of the participants would understand it or could follow the math though it is quite simple. Try Wikipedia

The second law ONLY pertains to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. If you could follow the math, it would be clear that nothing happening on this planet violates the second law of thermodynamics. That fact that some of you on this list do not understand or accept that very basic and demonstrable fact, does not make it less of a fact.

The world is clearly a set of self organizing systems. Regardless of a specific definition, it is clear, for example, that a hurricane is a fairly organized self contained system.

RE global warming: For the last few hundred thousand years CO2 came AFTER global warming. So whatever humans have done in terms of CO2, and it is NOT a small percentage (doesn't anyone here know how to do the most basic research) the evidence that humans are causing GW is not convincing. Since about 90% of the changes in weather patterns (as indicated by melt times, ice thickness, freeze times, migration times etc.) are out of the envelope for the past 2000 years it is unlikely that this is a 50 or 100 or 400 year 'cyclic' pattern.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sam Grove — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:37:49 -0000

The human condition can either be explained by evolution or an idiot god.

OAN, this is the second time in two days I've seen the use of "except" where "accept" is the appropriate term. Is this a trend?

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

tjr — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:30:09 -0000

Alas it is far too common in America to deny the theory of evolution but not unique to America. These type of people exist everywhere in the world. In discussing topics with anyone if they deny this theory I use it as a shorthand signal that I am talking to an intellectual inferior or more bluntly a bleeding idiot. Why waste time on such a person? On a more relevant issue climate change, I can except that there are greater uncertainties in the science but the overall consensus around the world is that it is likely that it is happening. the consequence is that there will be a carbon constraint in the future. This is now factored in to the commercial world and anyone building new baseload power stations has to factor in a future carbon price. This is the reality. I can appeal to the authority of the best climate economists, Nordhaus, McKibbin and such as endorsing this view and they have their models for minimising the cost to society. All true policy economists should be looking at the most appropriate ways of dealing with this genuine or perceived market risk. Arguing blame and attacking the science will not solve the genuine commercial problems in the market.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

colson — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:11:50 -0000

ok, this gets even better - I didn't even think of this scam - er - market:

search ebay for item:

#200092895507

I almost crapped my pants - time to go grab the obits and corner the market early.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

golddog — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:09:01 -0000

I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree on global warming.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

colson — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:04:53 -0000

I just got some new stationary to start printing out some carbon credit certificates to put on eBay but it looks like others are already selling them:

http://search.ebay.com/sear...

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sam Grove — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:41:28 -0000

Such certainty based on so much conjecture.

What's known for certain:

The planet has been warming for several hundred years.

Humans release CO2 into the atmosphere.

BTW, the portion generated by humans is a small fraction of the CO2 exchanged among the three reservoirs: ocean, atmosphere, and biomass.

Water vapor is the single most significant greenhouse gas...except when it forms clouds.

What is not known:

Cloud cover impact.

Solar impact. The influence of the solar magnetosphere is just beginning to be explored.

Cloud cover averages and cause of same.

And much else.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Python — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:18:22 -0000

Golddog says "Climatology is different. No matter what your values are, human induced global warming is occurring."

It's strange how you make a statement so matter of factly when the original post is from an expert who doesn't believe what you just said. The fact that we speak of "the consensus view" regarding global warming makes it obvious that "values" are being used. We value a majority over a minority, or we trust this guy over that guy. Values are everywhere in this discussion. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is not up for debate. But to what extent it is contributing to the current warming is certainly a value judgment based on how the climate models are constructed.

Few people are concerned with the temperature as it is right now. The concern is for the future, and what should be done about future warming. One year, a top British scientist said that England would be something like 8 degrees Celcius warmer in 2080 because of global warming. The very next year, another leading British scholar said it would be 10 degrees Celcius colder in 100 years because of the breakdown in the Gulf Stream also because of global warming. They both had OPINIONS based on scientific understanding that they used in their computer models. And at least one of them was very very wrong, but they are both considered to be global warming advocates.

Climatology may be different than economics in some ways, but the science behind climatology is far from settled - with many shades of gray regarding: a) how much warming is occurring, b) how much warming was caused by humans, c) how warm will the planet get in X years, d) what is the "optimal" temperature of the planet, etc.

The so-called "consensus" of scientists involved in global warming is not known, because the only numbers we see have first been passed through political filters. Members of the IPCC have admitted that some models that were used in the lastest report exaggerated future CO2 emissions when forecasting out to 2100. Any time that you begin to predict human actions in the future you are moving out of pure "science" and into other realms that involve economics and other "value"-driven fields.

To re-iterate my point, let me ask a simple question. Suppose that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere goes to 400ppm and stays there until the year 2100. What will be the increase in global temperature beween now and 2100? You will find that you will get a wide variance of answers, and then you'll realize that that is when you known the level of CO2. But of course, we don't know what the level will be, and the variance gets bigger. Who should we trust? The average? The median? The max? The most published? Maybe climatology is not a value-based science, but predictions using climatology is.

The original post is a link to a scientist who believes differently than the majority. We have seen follow-up posts about a) ID, b) economists don't belong in the argument, c) evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, d) Republicans squelched some voices. Why so much defensiveness to a post? Did Lindzen say something factually wrong, or illogical?

In any other discussion, if one guy is saying "Millions will drown and starve in 50 years if we don't do something immediately." and the other guy is saying "Look, the Earth is a complex place that we still know little about, let's continue to seek out learning." Which guy would you naturally tend to trust? Why is it different with global warming?

By the way, what is the optimal temperature of the planet?

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

golddog — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:14:45 -0000

Python:

You write, "[d]o nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream economic wisdom, or just scientific?"

The point that I'm drawing from that statement is that liberals are hypocrites because we follow the scientific consensus on climate change, but not on economics.

Economics is about trade-offs and necessarily entails value judgments. For example, a liberal may favor laws that encourage unions, while a conservative may oppose them. Say there is an economic consensus that economies with high levels of unionization are less efficient. Does this mean that if liberals still want high levels of unionization that they are ignoring the economic consensus? No. Liberals are not denying that their choice will make the economy less efficient; however, they are willing to sacrifice efficiency to gain job security. They are simply expressing a preference for one over the other.

Climatology is different. No matter what your values are, human induced global warming is occurring. We can have a discussion about whether global warming is good or bad. We can also discuss whether further government regulation is the solution. The problem is that many conservatives have realized that most people will decide that global warming is bad and that most people will want the government to step in, so instead of trying to debate liberals on the values (i.e., is government regulation the solution to it?), they deny that global warming is occurring. That's not acknowledging the scientific consensus.

I agree that Chait uses the term “nonconservative” too broadly, but I think that is a function of his space constraint in the op-ed more than anything else.

Sam Grove:

I am not a climatology expert, so take what I am about to say with many grains of salt.

I do not think that anyone disputes your chart. The problem with global warming is not that the earth is heating up, but that the rate of change of its heating is increasing because of humans. So a process that might take millions of years, or hundred of thousands of years, or even thousands of years will now take a few centuries or even decades.

If global warming were happening within the normal cycles of the earth's temperature fluctuations, then people would have a long time to adapt to the changes and it would not be a problem. If it were to happen quickly (a few centuries is quickly) then an uncoordinated response to the change could be harmful to humanity. Think of a shoreline that slowly disappears at the rate of a foot a year over the course of many years versus a flood which happens in a day. You can see why the sudden change would be far more catastrophic than the gradual one. (This is only a metaphor. I am not saying that on one day all our major cities will be flooded at once; do not take it literally)

Once again, this is simply how I understand the threat. If anything I've said is plain wrong, please correct me.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Python — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:11:12 -0000

Here is a quote from Richard Somerville, a scientist at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (a pre-eminent Institute associated with University of California), during a debate regarding global warming:

"You know, a lot of things could be done, once you free up the creativity of, uh, of technical people, of business people by making this a priority nationally and internationally"

This type of talk bothers me to no end. Chairman Mao would be happy to hear his words echoed so closely. Business people will be "free" to be creative once they are told what project to work on - perfect.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sam Grove — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:14:14 -0000

This image is my redrawing of a temperature graph from the paleomap project.

We are still way on the cool side of the median temperature for the last half a billion years.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Python — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:53:00 -0000

Golddog,

Chait says "But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom."

Do nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream economic wisdom, or just scientific?

How can someone so cavalierly make such statements about polticial groups?

Perhaps there are other reasons why the 2 congresspeople were not put on the panel. But Chait doesn't go into specifics, just hinting at the reason he wants to believe.

I'm sure the Democrats would welcome global warming skeptics on their side of the panel. Oh wait. Do we know the number of Democratic congresspeople who are skeptics?

Doesn't this show for the millionth time that politicians of any side can't be trusted to be impartial?

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

golddog — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:13:46 -0000

Jonathan Chait in the LA Times about global warming:

Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Lowcountryjoe — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:13:18 -0000

The Hadean Eon through to the present clearly shows that we're in a very long term WARMING trend, doesn't it? Well?

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Mike — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:00:01 -0000

Here are links to the MP3 of the IQ2 debate on global warming:

Long form:

http://www.npr.org/template...

Short form:

http://tinyurl.com/2vjpmy

EconTalk, eat your heart out. :^)

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Mike — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:38:04 -0000

"the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not make room for order to ever come from disorder."

... in a closed system, which the Earth is not.

Sanjiv, you have a point. Some people are just blockheads, and people who have spent most of their adult lives familiarizing themselves with the relevant evidence and argument are less likely to be so. Lindzen is, however, neither a non-expert nor a blockhead. He's NAS, something that Gore is not.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Ray G — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:19:35 -0000

Glurb:

The only thing I can think of that says the 2nd law isn’t always true is in the case of fluctuation theorem. Essentially, it is assumed that there has to be some non-zero possibility of entropy increasing at a micro level, but this also brings with it the baggage of reversible time possibilities.

Which is why I mentioned unlighting a match, or unmelting a candle. These were two of the more common arguments against reversible time in most literature.

More to the point, at a larger level, and still in a closed system, random mutations have never jumped the gap to actual order from disorder, and thus the 2nd law is still a good argument. It’s a very unproven, and vague theory resting on untried premise upon untried premise.

Sanv:

Along the lines of what you are saying, there was a time when Newtonian phsyics were the "law" and to question them were heretical. Thank God someone did.

But that's just the point. The anthropogenic GW crowd make so many false claims at consensus precisely to avoid any questions, any debate. Why? There are links already on this thread pointing to great, and respectable scientists on both sides of the issue.

But I hear very little of anyone actually talking about the faulty data from the antartic, the activity of the sun in all of this, the historical data that shows temperature fluctuation throughout the ages, etc.

Alll we hear is that it is a consensus, and so we should stop our attempts at debate, and just start walking.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sanjiv — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:07:26 -0000

Brad raised the issue of how to make good science.

Here are Richard Feynman's views (a person who knew what good science was) taken from his superb book "The Feynman Lectures"-

"The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess."

More Feynman (from the same book):

"You might ask why we cannot teach physics by just giving the basic laws on page one and then showing how they work in all possible circumstances, as we do in Euclidean geometry, where we state the axioms and then make all sorts of deductions. (So, not satisfied to learn physics in four years, you want to learn it in four minutes?) We cannot do it in this way for two reasons. First, we do not yet know all the basic laws: there is an expanding frontier of ignorance. Second, the correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean. No, it is not possible to do it that way. We can only do it piece by piece."

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Glubglub — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:45:16 -0000

"the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not make room for order to ever come from disorder."

Ray, you're totally wrong here. I'd go into detail, but you seem to be rather too invested in your fantasy--as indicated by comments you have made here thus far--for me to expect that further discussion to have much of an impact on you.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Ray G — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:03:37 -0000

I kindly read a number of links and paragraphs stemming from our little discussion.

If you personally understood science, as you so vaguely put the whole matter, then you should be able to coherently explain evolution to me wherein order is not derived from disorder.

Despite what you've googled, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not make room for order to ever come from disorder.

The best way I know how to get this across to you is to refer back to Cornells' example of the wood and nails. That is not "order" per se, but simply a rearranging.

Their example is akin to saying if one takes 20 single celled organisms and arranges them in a specific pattern under their microscope, they are creating order out of disorder. That is absurd of course. The wood and nails are rearranged, not brought to "order." And in this rearranging, more energy is used, and thus entropy is increased, just as their following examples make clear in the context of weather i.e. cooler air vs. warmer air.

If their examples are true, then one should be able to unlight a match, or perhaps unmelt a candle.

A good book for you to start with is James McGovern's "The Essence of Engineering Thermodynamics." He makes several good examples - none of which have anything to do with evolution - on how impossible it is for the 2nd law to be violated.

I continued on with this to make the point of how entrenched a theory can be despite the overwhelming evidence of proven and unquestionable facts. Now, evolution might be the real deal, and there's something to it we just haven't figured out yet, but as it stands, the theory does not have enough legs to it, to stand up to existing fact.

Likewise, we are being told to accept man-made global warming without debate. And that's really the rub.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sanjiv — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:24:08 -0000

Ray_G, kindly refer pages 145-146 in "Atmospheric

Thermodynamics" by Bohren & Albrecht.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sanjiv — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:21:22 -0000

oops, the URL got chopped off. Let's see if this works..

http://www.intelligencesqua...

TranscriptContainer/

_GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sanjiv — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:18:53 -0000

Folks,

I came across this transcript of a recent GW debate with Richard Lindzen as one of the participants. Made interesting reading.

http://www.intelligencesqua...

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Ray G — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:00:58 -0000

Sanjiv:

Go back to Google and figure out what a closed system is. Your Cornell link mentions this, and it is important. But if the universe is the closed system, what is the wood pile?

Essentially, the link says that the 2nd law does not always hold true in a localized example with the right amount of outside intervention.

That is simply wrong.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Ray G — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:43:15 -0000

So much for the unbiased scientist:

This is quoted from Sanny's Cornell link:

"There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe."

Ah, but in the larger sense, and not just in the case of the man's body heat going off into the ether, more disorder has occured than not. The man's body is constantly degenerating, as is the wood, the nails, everything. In moving the pile around, more entropy is created in that more activity is taking place.

Sanjiv Googled a couple of key words, and because someone from Cornell said so, then it must be so.

If order could truly be gotten from disorder, in any fashion, time travle would be possible, among other impossibilities.