Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change
From Mike Asher at the DailyTech:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Complete article here
(h/t Fred)
UPDATE: 7/18/08 9PM PST It appears there is some discord at the APS over the issue.
The higher ups at the American Physical Society, apparently do not agree with the editor that made the initial post and reaffirms the statement on human caused global warming, posting this statement on their web site www.aps.org:
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
There has certainly been a lot of argument and rhetoric surrounding this issue, and I’ve taken a fair amount of criticism for even posting it, with one commenter exclaiming that I was “popping champagne corks” while another said that “I couldn’t wait to talk about it as a major hole in the case for doing something to clean up air pollution.” which is curious, since I never made any comments about “celebrating with champagne”, “air pollution” or “major hole in the case”.
What this story does is demonstrate how politically and emotionally charged the issue has become. And when politics, emotions, and science mix, the outcome is never good.
It strikes me that albedo is the important factor, and how increased convection due to surface heating, impacts albedo. I found this useful as it is comparitively neutral.
However, I see very little study of the effect of heat and convection on atmospheric heat transport and albedo. Any references please?
[…] APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming- cites “Considerable presence” of skepti… [image] Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change From Mike Asher at the […] […]
Skeptical Debunker (10:12:40) wrote: “The “debates is back on” is BOGUS. Even Shell the OIL COMPANY agrees that the “debate is over [we are causing global warming]“).”
As a Brittian based company, Shell better toe the line or it’ll be in deep doo doo. As a related aside, three BP stations in my area were shut down due to lack of customers. This in spite of the fact the next closest station (Mobil) is roughly 1.5 miles away.
Boycotts work!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate project
http://www.climateclinic.com
James:
Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
No, not at all.
1. Enviromentalism is not a religfion of hope. It is a misanthropic philosophy.
2. I do not share it. It is dispicable. Humans now, although many do not want to accept it, run the planet.
3. It is quite right, natural and proper for humans to run the planet for their own purposes.
4. The human race is not restricted to the resources of Earth. The resources of the solar system are already at its finger-tips.
5. It is only humans that offer the faint hope of life surviving beyond the Sun’s life … via propagation of the Earth lifeforms to other star systems.
And I am not joking. Enough with this religious guilt about being human. It is good to be human.
I AM PROUD TO BE HUMAN.
Yes, I believe the many misinterpretations (deliberate or not) of this “event” will end up doing a lot more harm to the skeptic movement than good. Organizations, scientific forums, and the like will think twice in the future before opening the door to any debate, lest the “denialists” start with the misinformation.
Computer models do NOT equal “proof”!!!
Holy crap, what are they teaching for science these days?
Since greenhouse owners have been supplementing their greenhouses with CO2 for years to 1,000 or more ppm, there should be lots and lots of literature of a practical nature about how much warmer the greenhouses become WITH supplemental CO2 added than without it.
Robert S (17:14:40) wrote: “Yes, I believe the many misinterpretations (deliberate or not) of this “event” will end up doing a lot more harm to the skeptic movement than good. Organizations, scientific forums, and the like will think twice in the future before opening the door to any debate, lest the “denialists” start with the misinformation.”
Nice try Robert, but you’re absolutely wrong! The public (both in the US and around the world) is fed up with your Pogie nonsense. Poll after poll shows declining support for the AGW crap.
And now, through the power of the ‘net and incredible blogs like this, the word is spreading in places unimagined just a few short years ago. Without that, your kind may have succeeded. But with your god Alan “The Horrible” Gore flitting around the world between his outrageously spacious homes, gas guzzling jets, and carbon pumping SUV’s the public finally came to their senses.
Your world is crashing all around the AGW poppycock and you don’t even know it. You can only lie so long until the truth catches up… and that moment is, or soon will be at hand! There’s only one reason so many Pogies have inundated this blog in the past 48 hours, and that is you’re peeing in your pants over another major crack in the AGW facade!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Boris
Don’t you think that after 10, 15, 30 years of weather balloon data someone would have said. “Hay Mac, its looks like the upper troposhere is warming faster or cooling slower than the surface. I wonder what is causing that?” But no. We learn about “The Fingerprint” because it figment of the computer master mind
I think are are way to many assumptions being made by the computer models.
Keith says: “Sorry, Joel, these fail to answer the question. A computer model is not physical proof, but a conjectured proof at best. A physical proof would be something on the order of an experiment under controlled circumstances whereby an atmospheric sample with one concentration of CO2 warms more than a similar sample with a lower concentration.”
Where to start? First of all, science is inductive and does not operate on proof. You can never prove anything in science. If you want absolute proof, try a deductive system like mathematics.
Second of all, the person asked for evidence that the water vapor feedback is working in the way that the models predict it does and I provided this evidence. This evidence necessarily involves climate models because…well…it is testing climate model predictions against real world data and it is awful hard to test the models if you can’t actually discuss them because skeptics don’t like computer models.
Third of all, there are plenty of lab experiments measuring the absorption lines of CO2 out to wazoo. However, if you want to understand how CO2 behaves within the climate system complete with feedbacks and all, the only way to do a complete all-inclusive test would be to set up your own earth in your lab. Clearly, this is not practical. However, scientists are resourceful folks and have figured out ways to test theories regarding climate, geology, evolution of life, and so forth without having to have a whole laboratory earth.
Robert S, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?
What you appear to be saying is that organizations will even more avoid controversay by issuing bulletins supporting global warming? Do I have you right here?
Robert, who do you work for?
Philip B says: “I am familiar with the first paper and it shows the only significant measureable effect from a GHG is from methane. The effect from CO2 is so small, it’s less than the error in the measurement, and therefore in all likelyhood just that, measurement error.
The second paper is about a model and therefore not scientific evidence.
I didn’t bother to read the third link.”
I am puzzled at trying to figure out which post of mine you are referring to. If you are referring to the one where I provided evidence for the water vapor feedback (as Keith was), I have no idea how you have concluded what you have concluded about the first paper … You must be looking at the wrong paper.
Your comment on the second paper is just silliness. If you want to determine how well such processes in the models as the water vapor feedback are simulating the climate then obviously you have to look at the models as well as real world data. If you want to remain completely marginalized from the scientific community, I suggest that you continue to repeat mantras like, “The second paper is about a model and therefore not scientific evidence.” It will definitely do the trick, I can guarantee it!
OK O/T but very much to the point.
We appear to have arrived at a point where everything has become political. It is senseless to demand debate. I have an open challenge with some GW low-life at Small Dead Animals, bitg even that challenger is not taking up.
THIS IS ABOUT POLITICAL CONTROL OF SCIENCE AND SCIENCE FUNDING.
This is not about science, or reallity. This movement must be opposed.
Swampie:
“Since greenhouse owners have been supplementing their greenhouses with CO2 for years to 1,000 or more ppm, there should be lots and lots of literature of a practical nature about how much warmer the greenhouses become WITH supplemental CO2 added than without it.”
Greenhouses do not work with the “AGW greenhouse effect”, i.e. temperature control is not due to blankets but to lack of convection currents and control of those. This is an undisputed fact by any serious scientist and is not disputed by AGW scientists.
Simple experimental proof comes with a car in the sun. The air next to it has the same CO2, nevertheless the temperatures in the car can be 20C higher than the air temperature. There is no convection to transfer the heat.
Robert Wood: You are right. We humans have two possibilities. Either life exists in other parts of our universe and it will be a grand adventure to know it or we are alone and it is our sacred duty to propagate life to the rest of the universe.
Either way we had better get good at science, not the current CO2 panic which has all the hallmarks of sacrifice to the thunder gods when frightened by a thunderstorm.
Boris:In addition, CO2’s contribution to the GHE is known to be between 9 and 26 percent. The exact number is almost impossible to determine, but 13% is a reasonable estimate.
So the estimate varies by a factor of 3? And is almost impossible to determine but we know that adding to it will be catastrophic? Pull the other leg.
Joel, bud, you’re coming in here swinging your models around.
I repectfully request you stop wasting you time with that. If you really think you are going to come here and wave models in our face, I laugh in your general direction…
Swampie: In addition to anna v’s point, it is important to note that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is more complicated than simply CO2 absorbing infrared radiation. It depends on the actual structure of the atmosphere…i.e., at the end of the day, what is quite important is the fact that when you add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the average effective layer in the atmosphere from which the radiation is re-radiated back into space rises…And, since temperature decreases with height, this means the effective radiating temperature is lower. Since the radiated power goes as the fourth power of the temperature, this means that less radiation is re-radiated back into space. Of course, over the long haul, the earth can’t re-radiate less energy back into space than it receives from the sun without warming, which it does until the temperature rises to the point where the amount the earth radiates into space again matches the amount that we receive from the sun.
“What you appear to be saying is that organizations will even more avoid controversay by issuing bulletins supporting global warming? Do I have you right here?”
No, you do not have me right. What I was saying is that scientific organizations will be less willing to open “debate” for fear of it being “twisted” by “denialists”. This seems quite obvious. The outcry by the AGW proponents has been quite impressive (or frightening), some even calling for editor Jeffrey Marque to be fired (like Joseph Romm and his cronies).
Joel Shore:
Come on, Joel, answer the real question.
Water vapor’s absorption lines overlap greatly with CO2’s absorption lines. CO2’s ability to absorb more energy is logarithmic, and at ~300 ppm we’ve reached the “flat” portion of the log curve.
Do you dispute these points?
Please explain how more CO2 leads to increased positive feedbacks involving water vapor.
Joel Shore:
This is the first I’ve ever heard about the Earth’s atmosphere extending further into space. Or, are atmospheric pressures increasing?
If mankind really is pushing GHGs ever higher, something has to give. And, we should be able to measure it somehow.
References please.
Jack Koenig said
“Nice try Robert, but you’re absolutely wrong! The public (both in the US and around the world) is fed up with your Pogie nonsense.”
My pogie nonsense? I don’t remember ever mentioning that I supported AGW theory. I do remember saying that sensationalism like the dailytech article will do more harm than good for the skeptic movement. Wouldn’t you agree?
mcrat 19.34.1
Totally agree. Why the h@ur momisugly@ did we get into a fight?? LOL
ScottW: “Water vapor’s absorption lines overlap greatly with CO2’s absorption lines. CO2’s ability to absorb more energy is logarithmic, and at ~300 ppm we’ve reached the “flat” portion of the log curve.”
I think that’s true at low altitudes. But the absorption bands at higher altitudes do not overlap as much, which is why the upper Troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface (I think that’s how it’s alleged to work, anyway) with increasing CO2.
[…] Scientists Think Human Actions Are Causing Global Warming?” Noted in Watts Up With That? 19 July 2008 18 July, […]