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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.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.
anna v (20:15:59)
“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.”
But heat is still being transfered out at a lot slower rate. So, at some point, within the next 24 hrs, the inside of the car will match the outside temperature regardless of the amount of CO2 inside or outside the car.
Joel Shore (19:22:32) :
Where to start? First of all, science is inductive and does not operate on proof. You can never prove anything in science.
Are you joking? Science is being prooven on a daily basis through experimentation and observation, it cannot be prooven in a model built with an intended output.
I’ll use a very simple experiment, highschool chemistry:
Were going to extract Hydrogen from water:
Take a beaker of water
Add an anode and a cathode
Attach a powersource
capture the rising gases in another beaker, holding upside down
using a match, light the gas – hey presto, ignition, proof of hydrogen.
This is science being prooven at the most simplistc level!
MMCO2 is a tiny aspect of this small proportion.
Well, I agree with your overall point. But MMCO2 is probably around a quarter of current levels.
Yes, I know anthropogenic atmospheric carbon is only around 3% of output and nature is 97%. But 100% of natural CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is reabsorbed by oceanic and the veggie-soil sinks. Plus a little over half of man’s 7.2 Bil. Tons Metric Carbon.
But the other half remains in the atmospheric sink (which contains 760 BMTC overall). So man is increasing the atmospheric sink by c. 3.5 BMTC, or around half a percent a year. CO2 has therefore increased from c. 285ppm to 385ppm
Now, I don’t happen to think that amounts to a hill of beans worth of effect because, like you, I disbelieve in the positive feedback equation.
But I do buy the AGW assertion that we have bumped up CO2 over time.
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.
There’s a third possibility: The galaxy is chock full of intelligent life. But no two will ever, ever meet each other–the distances are too great.
(The exception being two or more different species existing on different planets within the same star system.)
In other words: “We Are Not Alone; We Are Alone.”
I have seen on a AGW defender website, that they have started an email campaign against Jeff Marque.
We have seen how effective this was during Anthony’s recent poll.
I think the majority of scientist prefers to have an open discussion.
Here are some emails of Marque and his bosses, to express your opinion, whatever it is:
jjmarque@sbcglobal.net
azwicker@pppl.gov
krauss@case.edu
ams@physics.wayne.edu
full addresses:
Chair, APS Forum on Physics and Society
Andrew P. Zwicker
Head, Science Education Program, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
PO Box 451, Princeton, NJ 08543
office: (609) 243-2150 lab: (609) 243-3144 fax: (609) 243-2112
email: azwicker@pppl.gov
Former Chair, APS Forum on Physics and Society
Lawrence M. Krauss
Ambrose Swasey Prof. of Physics and Astronomy Director, Center for Education
and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics Dept of Physics, CWRU 10900
Euclid Ave, Cleveland OH 44106-7079
krauss@case.edu 216 368 4070
Co-Editor: Al Saperstein, Physics Department, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, ams@physics.wayne.edu
So far as I know, relative humidity is DOWN except at low altitudes. But with the increase in low-level clouds, albedo is increased.
Therefore there is no positive CO2-water vapor feedback leading to heating. Instead there is negative feedback leading to homeostasis.
At least this is what Spencer says is what the Aqua Satellite data is telling us. If that is true, significant CO2 warming is probably falsified.
“Dogey geezer(sic),
There is no ned to argue against some one who can state
The APS policy statement says that AGW evidence is ‘incontovertible’, and urges physicists to investigate ways to ameliorate the problem. Now, one of the forum editors says that agreement amongst physicists is not total, and invites a debate.
Doesn’t “total” = “incontrovertible’ or are you really not sure and just using words as camouflage?
Robert Wood (17:52:35) ”
Umm… ,Robert, what does this mean?
No, ‘total’ does not mean ‘incontrovertible’. Total means the sum of a set of items, and incontrovertible means ‘unable to be argued against’. The APS position seems to claim that AGW cannot be argued against, so it would be reasonable for all physicists to accept it. And yet this call for debate suggests that all physicists do not accept it. That was the only point I was trying to make.
I am sorry if I confused you.
Does anyone think the APS have made a huge mistake here?
I assume that either this debate will be canceled, or that it will go ahead. If it goes ahead, will all anti-AGW papers have to carry a warning slogan, in the same way as cigarette packets?
Surely this effectively means that the APS is trying to have a debate, but ban one side from speaking effectively? It is hugely reminiscent of the Papal ‘imprimatur’ system.
Do bears defacate in the woods? Is the APS Catholic?
OK, Joel Shore and NewYorkJ, I accept that I was mistaken about the date of that APS article (I took it from the copyright note). Notwithstanding that, I stand fully by my comment that a detailed analysis of the 2007 APS policy statement (see my 9:37 post yesterday – I particularly suggest NYJ does so) shows that it is carefully written to sound tough but to mean all things to all men and is (as Bill Marsh noted) hardly a ringing endorsement of the IPCC. I also stand by my comment that, from this, it seems that the APS has a sensibly open mind on AGW and that the debate that has caused all this fuss is little more than a continuation of that.
The dirty little secrets of climate science are that
(1) the “evidence” for CAGW consists essentially solely of computer simulations; and
(2) while these simulations are great at predicting past temperatures over time intervals of 1, 5, 10 or 20 years, none of them is any good at predicting future temperatures over the same time intervals.
In other words, the primary evidence for CAGW at the moment consists of masturbatory fantasy.
Glenn: “Translation: the *editor* has reversed *its* position. “Its” as in the APS, not his personal position.”
The editor of Physics and Society has no authority to reverse APS decisions.
“Opening a debate is a little like saying “There is no consensus”, don’t you think, Brendan?”
A consensus is a general agreement, which involves some degree of compromise, and does not require unanimity. The AGW consensus refers to the conclusions of climate studies, as summarised in IPCC reports.
Old CW: “But heat is still being transfered out at a lot slower rate. So, at some point, within the next 24 hrs, the inside of the car will match the outside temperature regardless of the amount of CO2 inside or outside the car.”
Only if you keep the car out of direct sunlight (ie move it to shade or wait til nighttime). It is direct sunlight that causes the internal heating of a car as ultra violet light passing through the glass is changed to infrared which cannot pass back out through the glass and is trapped inside the car. This was mentioned on another thread here where it was pointed out that the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t act like that either.
Tom in Florida (04:09:10)
It is direct sunlight that causes the internal heating of a car as ultra violet light passing through the glass is changed to infrared which cannot pass back out through the glass and is trapped inside the car.
Every true. But a car is not made of all glass. Heat will transfer from a warm area to a cooler area without the movement of air.
Jeff Alberts:
I’m a Nuc, so I know that the atomic absorption bands are fixed.
However, the “effective” total absorption is going to change based on the relative amounts of CO2 vs water vapor vs other gases.
If there is more CO2 relative to water vapor at higher altitudes, then CO2 will absorb more. (It will then emit lower energy radiation – there is no such thing as re-radiate!! Jeesh!)
I always thought CO2 was considered a ‘heavy’ molecule, so maybe someone can explain to me why we would expect to see more CO2 up high than H20?
ScottW says: “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. ”
Jeff Alberts basically answered your question about the absorption lines. Most people who contest the water vapor feedback contest whether warming will really cause water vapor to increase. The radiative properties of CO2 and H2O are well-understood and have not been seriously contested in the literature for a long time.
As for being on the “‘flat’ portion of the log curve,” this is nonsense. Log curves never go completely flat. The way to think about a log curve y~log(x) is that it behaves so that it equal FRACTIONAL change in x will cause an equal change in y. In particular, each doubling of CO2 concentration will cause an equal change in temperature (say, 3 C). So, in other words, the temperature change in going from 140ppm to 280ppm is the same as the change in going from 280ppm to 560ppm and so forth. (This is opposed to a linear relation y ~ x where an equal ABSOLUTE change in x will cause an equal change in y.)
Another thought:
I suppose the average energy of the incoming solar radiation is going to be shifted downwards as it penetrates farther into the atmosphere. So maybe there is an optimal altitude range where CO2 is a better shield (ie more effective GHG). And, then mankind must be forcing more CO2 into this optimal altitude range????
I will continue to be a skeptic until someone explains to me how CO2 can magically trap so much extra solar energy. (And I require references.)
old construction worker (06:51:18) :
“”Tom in Florida (04:09:10)
It is direct sunlight that causes the internal heating of a car as ultra violet light passing through the glass is changed to infrared which cannot pass back out through the glass and is trapped inside the car.””
“very true. But a car is not made of all glass. Heat will transfer from a warm area to a cooler area without the movement of air.”
Actually if you live in a hot country, you notice that it is the metal roof of the car that heats enough to fry eggs on, and then heats the interior by radiation. A white car is around two degrees cooler than a black car.
Heat transfers by radiation, convection and conduction. The air is a poor heat conductor, but moving air, convection, brings in cooler air ( the hot rises) and cools much more efficiently.
As long as the sun shines on the car the temperature reaches an equilibrium, but it is still many degrees over the ambient moving air.
Lord Mockton is not amused !
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2IyMDE3NDMzYzgxMGM1ODMxNzU2N2U2ZjM0NjQyMWU=
Lets hope this gets Media Coverage. The public must know that this is all really a cycle!
ScottW, I wasn’t trying to imply that there is more CO2 at higher altitudes, but that the pressure differential between low and high altitudes caused the absorption bands between H20 and CO2 to not overlap as much as they do at higher pressures (lower altitude). If you were responding to someone else, never mind 😉
Anna V wrote: “Actually if you live in a hot country, you notice that it is the metal roof of the car that heats enough to fry eggs on, and then heats the interior by radiation. A white car is around two degrees cooler than a black car.”
You might want to re-think that! I don’t believe the heat transfers into the example’s interior by radiation, but rather by conduction and then by convection.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
One thing should be made clear: “environmentalism” is a Leftist, worldwide, anti-American political movement, as opposed to conservation, which is an American analog of conservatism espoused by Teddy Roosevelt. As Ronald Reagan said, “I wouldn’t be a conservative if I didn’t believe in conservation.”
Environmentalists trumpet the saving of organisms like the snail darter, a minnow that is naturally going extinct, and the spotted owl, which has wings and can fly to another part of the immense national forest — forests in America have increased 40% in extent since the 1800’s due to conservation, not environmentalism. But we never hear much from environmentalists concerning the conservation of our fisheries. As someone who is very concerned about conservation, I am worried about the collapse of many of our fish species, while environmentalists never seem to voice any concern about their loss. Environmentalism is a far-Left political movement, and they have been very successful in intimidating and cowering a feckless Congress.
Now environmentalists are demonizing carbon dioxide, a very tiny but essential trace gas, and they are deliberately frightening people into believing that the 3% or so of CO2 that worldwide human activity contributes to the less than .04 of one percent of the atmosphere will lead to global catastrophe; a preposterous hypothesis based on their always-wrong computer models, without any empirical evidence at all.
And note that the fault is always blamed on the U.S., while China builds an average of two new coal-fired power plants every week, and has announced that they will continue at this rate until at least 2024. And when have we heard environmentalists loudly criticize Russia, India, Brazil or a hundred smaller countries for their rampant increases in particulate emissions? The fault is always laid at the feet of American industry — the cleanest, most pollution-free industry on the planet.
It is our responsibility, and our duty to emphatically respond every time anyone mentions “global warming” or anything associated, and to forcefully inform them that AGW is both completely unproven and completely unsupported by any evidence: the planet is cooling, not warming. If the AGW freight train isn’t derailed, today’s current tax rates and energy prices will be remembered as the good old days. If we don’t tell the truth about the bogus AGW propaganda, who will?
Robert Wood thinks APS is withholding grants?
Do warming [snipped – replaced] skeptics really have no clues as to who funds research, or how it’s done?
Evidence is mounting, indeed.
Anthony Watts: When should we expect a correction of this post?
REPLY: What’s to correct? I linked to a news item on another website, and I added an update to show what APS has done in response. If you have issues with the news item, then the DailyTech is the place to ask for a correction. – Anthony
anna v
“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.”
Correct!
boris
“If there is no hotspot then that means that basic theory is wrong–specifically the wet adiabatic lapse rate. [then blames the data and opines that it doesn’t matter anyway because it doesn’t mean AGW is wrong]”
Oh sure. Stop dancing around and think this through.
It’s the Convection Stupid!
If the lapse rate is wrong what ELSE does that imply? The lapse rate is a major physical component of the process of convection! And? If convection is not parameterized properly what does that imply? The theory is fercocked. The feedbacks are screwed. The numbers are wrong!
No wonder the globe is cooling!
Joel Shore:
“Jeff Alberts basically answered your question about the absorption lines.”
Not if you think the molecular absorption bands change with altitude!
Once again you don’t answer the real question.
Of course the radiative properties of CO2 and H20 are well understood (in the lab). But, where’s the evidence that a change in relative concentrations in the atmosphere triggers a magical multiplicative positive feedback from water vapor? And, I note you didn’t provide references.
(At least Svensmark has experimental data to back up his theory.)
Second, you actually made my point about the logarithmic nature of CO2’s absorption of solar radiation. The CO2 concentration is increasing LINEARLY. Each additional increase in CO2 has a decreased effect on the total absorption … and at some point we’ll reach saturation anyway. There’ll be no more solar radiation for additional CO2 to absorb. It’ll just be more free fertilizer for plants.