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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.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.
Engineer,
Wow, he is right, the red ink was not at the top of his article when I read it day before yesterday. And the other article from Hafemeister & Schwartz does not have any such disclaimer added. Guess they feel no need to alert the readership to that one not being reviewed and what the APS Council thinks about it.
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
Wow, they claim to represent the whole world of scientists!
Jeff Alberts:
I don’t understand why the pressure differential would cause the absorption bands of molecules to shift?
I regularly calculate effective absorption and scattering cross sections for compounds based on the cross sections for the component elements. We get the total value based on weight percents.
I know the overall values would be adjusted for air pressure/density, but if the relative concentrations are the same I don’t understand why the absorption bands shift.
So now I have 2 questions.
1) Why do energy absorption bands shift with pressure/altitude?
2) Is the CO2/H20 ratio changing (not constant) as a function of altitude?
Please enlighten me, part of the ‘fun’ of this debate is learning something new. But, I am a skeptic, so please provide references. ;->
ScottW says: “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.”
I did not say that the atmosphere is extending further into space. What I said is that the average level from which photons are radiated moves to higher in the atmosphere as you increase the concentration of CO2. See here for further explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Having said that, one expected result of global warming is in fact an increase in the height of the tropopause, which is the dividing line between the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere closest to the earth) and the stratosphere. See here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030106082326.htm
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.”
McGrats: “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”
Either way it matters very little because it is the process of ultraviolet passing through glass and changing to infrared that is the major cause of heating in a car. That process can push the interior temperature 20-30 degrees above the outside temperature. It is why small children and animals die in both black and white cars that are parked in direct sunlight with the windows closed. Having lived in both New England and Florida for substantial periods, I know that this effect is more pronounced when the sun is higher in the sky. I only say this because the strength of the sun’s energy hitting the Earth does make a difference in temperatures, weather and ultimately climate.
Jeff Alberts says: “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.”
I think you are correct about the absorption bands. However, the reason why the upper troposphere is expected to warm faster than the surface has nothing to do with this or, indeed, with the specific mechanism causing the warming (see here for a figure comparing the pattern of warming simulated by climate models for greenhouse gases vs the pattern for an increase in solar luminosity: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/langswitch_lang/in ). Rather, it is a consequence of moist adiabatic lapse rate theory.
Anthony, your headline is “APS Editor Reverses Position.” It seems rather clear that is not the case.
Daily Tech doesn’t write your headlines, as I understand it. If I complain to them, how does that correct the error here?
Syl says: “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!”
However, the moist adiabatic lapse rate theory (and the models incorporating it) do a good job of describing the data for temperature fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;309/5740/1551 It is only for the multidecadal trends that, depending on which data set you look at, the observational data deviates from the expectations of the theory. Thus, if you want to explain this as a failure of the models, you have to come up with some physical process that causes deviations over such timescales without causing deviations of timescales of months to a few years…which doesn’t seem particularly easy to me. That, combined with the fact, that the radiosonde and satellite data sets have known deficiencies for discerning the longterm trends (and dramatic differences between different analyses) is why many scientists believe this discrepancy is likely a fault of the observational data and not the models.
Smokey rants: “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.”
Oh really? Yeah, I guess the Sierra Club is completely unconcerned about fisheries: http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=fisheries&Image1.x=9&Image1.y=9&sp-a=sp1001da90&sp-x-1=collection&sp-q-1=National&sp-t=site_wide
And, Greenpeace seems unconcerned too: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/search/result?cx=006365659792415701065%3Aqjtac-0qbwo&cof=FORID%3A11&q=fisheries&sa=Search#1179
As for the rest of your rant, it really isn’t worthy of a response. Claiming that man is responsible for 3% of the CO2 emissions is a canard. There are large exchanges between the oceans / biosphere and atmosphere but these were in equilibrium before the industrial revolution. We are responsible for basically ALL of the ~35% increase that has occurred in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And, the fact that CO2 makes up only a small portion of our atmosphere is irrelevant. About 99% of the atmosphere consists of diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 which don’t absorb in the infrared at all. Thus, the more complex molecules that make up the remaining ~1% have an outsized influence on our climate.
Tom in Florida (04:09:10) : “It is direct sunlight that causes the internal heating of a car as ultraviolet light passing through the glass is changed to infrared which cannot pass back out through the glass and is trapped inside the car. ”
Why do you think infrared can’t pass through glass? My camera is quite good at taking infrared photos with glass lenses and filters. Also, if what you say is true then why are glass houses the hardest to insulate? If you take an infrared photo of the shady side of a house on a winter day, the windows are often the brightest (provided they aren’t specially designed to have an R15 rating). NB: the sunny side of the house will have the reverse effect.
The following are all illuminated by sunlight:
http://www.pbase.com/catson/image/26639177
http://www.irphotography.org/index.ir?s=0119388e7fdd587367a7a7d79d953254&showtopic=82&st=0&#entry551
It’s hard to find pictures of the shady side mostly because it runs contrary to accepted photographic practice. I’ll see if I can make one for you. The only difficulty is that it is now summer. Maybe a night photo will show it.
The primary method of cooling of objects on the surface is by convection and NOT radiation. The Earth can only reduce its heat content by radiating into space. A closed car stays warm because convection is severely reduced. It has little to do with infrared transmissivity of glass.
A closed car is a bad analogy to use to explain the atmospheric effects of CO2. anna v’s use of it though, to show effects of convection, was correct.
—
swampie (18:40:35) : Since greenhouse owners have been supplementing their greenhouses with CO2 for years … 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.”
Supplementary CO2 is added because the plants like it. Since it’s not to increase the temperature, why would anyone bother making the comparison>
By the way, as near as I can tell, the press release regarding Monckton’s paper at the Science and Public Policy Institute website (that he serves as “Chief Policy Advisor” for) has been removed: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
Slight correction to my previous post (10:30:12). I don’t want to leave the impression that house heat loss is primarily through radiation. It is a combined effect of radiation and conduction with conduction being the principal factor. The windows are brighter than the walls mostly because of conduction vs. radiation. An infrared photo shows both. If the windows have the same conductivity as the walls, they will still be brighter but perhaps not noticeably so to the untrained eye.
In a closed car, most of the heat is transferred through the steel doors and roof but, make no mistake, the glass windows are also radiating infrared in addition to physical conduction.
“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.” – Anthony Watts
Which is precisely why it is appropriate for the Forum on Physics & Society to be examining the issue. This unit of the APS is charged with examining the effects between Physics and Societal Issues. The AGW hypothesis is a physics explanation of observed environmental trends. The proponents of this hypothesis are urging severe societal changes in order to prevent their worst case scenario, even though their only proof is a series of computer models of questionable accuracy. Skeptics have advanced arguments offering alternative explanations as well as calling into doubt the accuracy of the data used for the models. They also are providing evidence that invalidates some of the conclusions of the models. To me, FP&S is the perfect setting for this discussion to be aired.
ScottW, sorry, I don’t have a reference. I remember reading it in an abstract, I think from a link from a ClimateAudit post or comments. It talked a lot about the experiments by Arrhenius and afterwards. It made sense to me, sort of 😉 , but I’ve had no luck trying to find it again.
I don’t know if such separation of the absorption bands is the reason for more expected upper Troposhere warming, or if it’s as Joel says. I aint no scientist, nor a math whiz, nor, well, much of anything. If you want to know about WWII Armor, then I’m your man! 😉
Joel – still seems to be there as far as I can tell
OldJim – Well, I’ll be damned. Maybe it was just a glitch at their website…but it was telling me that I was trying to access a page that I didn’t have authorization to or something like that. But, it seems to be fine now.
“By the way, as near as I can tell, the press release regarding Monckton’s paper at the Science and Public Policy Institute website (that he serves as “Chief Policy Advisor” for) has been removed:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html”
Just click on the link you provided, Joel. Or go to the homepage and look down the list. And he is the Chief Policy Advisor:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html
Perhaps “they” did remove it, were watching to see you post this, to then put it back up to make you look “bad”, Joel. Or “as near as I can tell” is about an inch in front of your nose.
There are large exchanges between the oceans / biosphere and atmosphere but these were in equilibrium before the industrial revolution.
I assume they were in equilibrium during the times when CO2 was at 3000ppm in the Devonain Period and I assume they were in equilibrium during the Jurassic at 2000ppm. Why would they not be now?
Here is a followup on Monckton’s response to stir the pot further:
PeerGate review scandal at Applied Physical Society
The American Physical Society alleged that Lord Monckton‘s paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered was not peer reviewed when Monckton in fact thoroughly revised his paper in response to APS peer review. Monckton immediately demanded retraction, accountability and an apology.
The Editor of the Applied Physical Society‘s Forum on Physics and Society launched a debate on global warming, inviting Lord Monckton to submit a paper for the opposition. After news that a major scientific organization was holding a debate on IPCC’s global warming, someone at the APS posted an indirect front page disclamation plus two very bold red disclamations in the Forum’s contents, and into the paper itself:
————————-
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
Email | Print
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley . . .”
————————-
Alleging that a Peer of the Realm violated scientific peer review – when in fact Lord Monckton had spent substantial effort responding to the APS’s peer review – is just not done! As circulated by Dr. Benny Peiser to CCNet, and as noted by Dennis T. Avery at ICECAP,Lord Monckton responded immediately, emphatically demanding redress and an apology as follows:
—————————
19 July 2008
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com
Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall,
450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.
By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
Physics and Society
The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.
I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.
Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?
Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?
Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
———————————–
Monckton’s demand for redress and an apology from the APS is being picked up on the internet.
How will the American Physical Society respond to Lord Monckton’s procedural and scientific gauntlets?
As of noon on Saturday July 20, 2008, the offending paragraph in the table of contents had been removed. However, this offending paragraph was still very much evident in Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Revisited. It was also evident in the Forum’s full PDF of its July, 2008 newsletter Physics and Society Vol 37, No 3, p 6.
The APS’s PeerGate scandal may well prove to provide much greater publicity and serious examination of Monckton’s thesis than if the disclaimers had never been posted. It also exposes the superficiality of statements by executives of the American Physical Society and other scientific organizations supporting the IPCC’s global warming. Those statements were typically not submitted to the rank and file for scientific peer review, nor were they typically voted on by the rank and file. Whatever will come out of this PeerGate Scandal?
why many scientists believe this discrepancy is likely a fault of the observational data and not the models.
I don’t understand this statement. How is it the fault of the observational data? Surely what is observed is the truth. If I observe a car driving down the road, this must be the truth, I can’t change that. Unless I’ve turned into Keanu Reeves and swallowed the red pill…
“It is direct sunlight that causes the internal heating of a car as ultraviolet light passing through the glass is changed to infrared which cannot pass back out through the glass and is trapped inside the car. ”
Actually, in many modern cars, UV can’t pass through the glass as the manufacturers have designed the glass to prevent this. Try wearing reactive lens specs in a modern car and the lens won’t go dark. Sorry to pee on your chips.
David Hagan – What it sounds like the editor of the newsletter did was to make some suggestions to Monckton basically regarding presentation. It does not sound like a formal scientific peer review…and, in fact, I would be surprised if such a scientific peer review had occurred given that the newsletter is not a formal peer-reviewed journal (and also given the many things that would not have made it past a competent peer review). It is simply a newsletter.
Paul Shanahan says: “I don’t understand this statement. How is it the fault of the observational data? Surely what is observed is the truth. If I observe a car driving down the road, this must be the truth, I can’t change that. Unless I’ve turned into Keanu Reeves and swallowed the red pill…”
The point is that neither the satellite data nor the radiosonde (balloon) data was developed with the ability to distinguish long-term trends in mind. And, the satellite data is not simply raw observational data…There is considerable processing involved to synchronize time of day, account for decay of the satellite orbits, synchronize the sensors on the different satellites used over time, etc., etc. The three groups who have independently analyzed the satellite data (RSS, UAH, and U Maryland) have all gotten different results for trends. One problem with the radiosonde data is that over time the methods of shielding the temperature sensor from the sun have gotten better…which has tended to produce a spurious cooling trend in the data.
It is telling that the model and observational data agree quite well over the timescales when the data is known to be reasonably reliable (i.e., it should be reasonable at accurately measuring fluctuations over timescales or months to a few years) but don’t agree well for the long term (multidecadal) trends, which is exactly where the data are questionable. And, like I said, most physical mechanisms one might propose to explain why the models could be wrong (e.g., they aren’t handling convection quite right) should show up already on the shorter timescales.
Joel Shore
Please reread Lord Monckton’s letter:
That sounds to me like a major first pass of peer review.
“peergate scandal” lol
Monckton’s paper did not go through anything resembling a scientific peer review. He doesn’t even fully cite the figures from the IPCC report. I had to go through a couple chapters before I found the figure he used.
REPLY: At least Monckton has the courage to stand up and publish what he believes in, unlike the anonymous drive by sniping you do. Even if Monckton’s paper turns out to be wrong as you assert, he has the character to put it out for all to see and criticize and to put his name behind it. I really grow weary of the intellectual cowardice of those who criticize from the comfort of anonymity without taking any risks themselves.
[…] APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming- cites “Considerable presence” of sk… […]