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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.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.
Alan J, if you check the cited post listing in Anthony’s original post, you will see that the editor of the Forum of Physics & Society, a division of APS, has opened a debate on the science of AGW. This is significant in the sense that an established branch of a major scientific union is acknowledging there is a controversy, and giving a forum for both sides to present arguments. The APS as a whole body is not retracting its position statement concerning AGW, but it is a victory that it is even being allowed to be discussed in an academic setting.
(1) 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.
(2) Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate
_____________________
The above 2 statements are NOT inconsistent. Indeed, I would be willing to bet a good amount of money that both are correct.
“If the computer climate model generated images are not “the hot spot” then what are they, what do they mean and why were they generated?”
They are the individual contributions of each forcing for the years 1890 to 1990. The bottom right image is the total for all forcings.
“From what I understand greenhouse effect = 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor in stratosphere…”
I’m not sure what you mean. CO2 contributes around 13% to the GHE. The stratosphere is really dry, so WV there is not much of a factor. Perhaps you meant percentage of the anthropogenic effect? Even then anthropogenic WV in the stratosphere is a small player.
Jeez: Actually, Toronto … National Post.
I was in Calgary Last month when Obama spoke out about Canadian Oil Shale. Every front page in every news rack was on it.
Glenn, thanks for the response.
Those points may well have been why Anthony posted this. This wouldn’t excuse DailyTech from telling obvious falsehoods that even a moment’s research would have exposed. It seems very apparent that the editors of DailyTech either didn’t bother to check and see what the APS’s actual position statement was, or simply didn’t care. Either way it doesn’t exactly raise my confidence in the quality of their journalism.
Not living in Alberta, but the up and coming energy giant, Saskatchwan 🙂 , I missed the Obama fracas. What I was referring to was that our National Chains have consisantly reported on the IPCC failings.
Reply: this link for reference only. The reaction was much stronger in Calgary.~Charles the moderator aka jeez
Also, I find it significant that this story is now being trumpeted across the Internet as, “50,000 Scientists Reverse Position on Global Warming!” And i find it more than a little plausible that this was, in fact, DailyTech’s intent in posting it.
HAHA! YES! Oh Al Gore, your reign of thought control is crumbling beneath you! I just returned from Glenn Beck’s national comedy show, and now this! What a wonderful day!
I have been conducting a thought experiment. I imagined that I am at a jury trial and I am one of the jurors. The plaintiffs are: Al Gore, the IPCC and Dr. James Hansen. The defendants are all producers and users of carbon based energy. The plaintiffs claim that continued use of carbon based energy will irreperably harm the world by causing Global Warming. I am assuming that followers of this blog are well aware of both prosecution’s and defence’s arguments. Would you convict the defendant based on the evidence presented?
The APS has not reversed its position. http://www.aps.org
REPLY: The editor has, and has opened debate on climate change, that is what the article is about.
Paul Marek is right. The Canadian press has been forthright and impartial regarding climate articles, unlike in the U.S. mainstream media.
Here’s a typical article written by Monckton: click
Try and find a similar article in the biased U.S. press.
Any trade, from laborer to doctor of medicine to scientist, that is married to profit and self-survival cannot be trusted. The solution to global warming (myth or fact) viewed outside of politics and economics, appears to be hydrogen energy. Car that runs on hydrogen is already a fact, a reality.
Gee, I did not know that we have 50 thousands-that many physicists there in just one corner of the globe. Maybe they should concentrate on making hydrogen cars become practicable, economical and feasible. To do that means more research. And researches need funds. And the problem there seems to be Politics and economics. I guess the world cannot keep from turning on its present axis that is petroleum and petrol-dollars. The present world is totally built around them and it is not interested in anything else yet as long as there is Crude, it seems?
The world is hooked to crude. Fuels cost like narcotics today.
The article states: “The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change…”
Yet, the editor of only one division out of 39 total divisions wants the stance reconsidered. Very big difference.
REPLY: Perhaps, but that it happened at all within the confines of a pre-existing position statement is remarkable. If there wasn’t some agreement elsewhere within the APS higher ups, this would be squelched because it contradicts a previous position.
It seems like APS is testing the waters, and they wouldn’t be doing that on a whim.
Living here in sub-tropical Brisbane in the depths of winter at 75 degrees F, I can understand how Canada would be very worried about whether the world is cooling or warming. I think that we Aussies could cope in a warming climate -through a possible lack of water- by the introduction of desalination plants and lots of pipes (if we had any monies left after our Labour Governments carbon tax) but how would Canada cope under extra depths of snow and ice covering its vast grain plains in a cooling climate?
“REPLY: The editor has [reversed his position on global warming], and has opened debate on climate change, that is what the article is about.”
In his statement, the editor of the newsletter Physics and Society doesn’t take a position on global warming, so it’s not clear whether or not he has reversed any position.
A history of the Forum on Physics & Society makes these comments:
“One of the most important activities of the FPS has been to sponsor sessions at APS meetings on topical science-and-society issues…
“The goal of Forum sessions is to present both sides of an issue in a no-holds-barred debate.”
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/history.cfm
The editor is acting within these guidelines.
This thread is headed: “APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming”, and the lead para says: “The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change…”
The impression given by both headline and lead para is that the APS has reversed its stance that “The evidence [for global; warming] is incontrovertible…”
No such reversal has occurred.
“(1) climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. ……….
(2) Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate
The above 2 statements are NOT inconsistent. Indeed, I would be willing to bet a good amount of money that both are correct.”
Indeed. Every time I breath out I change the atmosphere and so have an effect. The key question is how much of an effect.
Thinking about this I am not sure the APS debate will lead anywhere. As far as I can gather, the science is:
1) The world temperature has been rising.
2) The world CO2 output has been rising.
3) We know CO2 causes higher temperatures, so it must be that.
All papers on the subject are simply attempts to quantify this effect, and there is inadequate information to do this. So science is really powerless – each side makes it’s own guess at the degree of forcing, but neither can be PROVEN wrong. On occasions dodgy data may be found, but this does not PROVE that the initial theory is wrong, it just shows that that particular calculation is wrong.
So I think the debate is interesting for political reasons. It looks to me like the APS are quite annoyed at this call, so it will be intersting to see what happens to Jeffrey Marque! But I don’t know what papers would be useful to submit to this. Has Steve McIntyre got anything he can put forward?
[…] Mathematical Proof: IPCC’s Computer Models Wrongly Programmed, No Climate Crisis UPDATE: 50,000 physicists of the American Physical Society deny global warming! […]
Tenney Naumer (17:09:04) :
I have never witnessed so many people grasping at so many straws.
Are you at a straw grasping contest?
Brendan H:
“REPLY: The editor has [reversed his position on global warming], and has opened debate on climate change, that is what the article is about.”
The original:
“The APS has not reversed its position. http://www.aps.org
REPLY: The editor has, and has opened debate on climate change, that is what the article is about.”
Translation: the *editor* has reversed *its* position. “Its” as in the APS, not his personal position.
Opening a debate is a little like saying “There is no consensus”, don’t you think, Brendan?
No need to go into further analysis of your post or intent.
Boris,
how long are you going to talk around the fact that you are wrong?????
Graph C shows the “fingerprint” if well mixed GG’s cause the warming. This “fingerprint” is a temperature increase more than double that of ground level around 300hpa in the tropics. It is also obvious it is much higher than the other possibilities shown in Graphs a, b, d, and e. Even with the kludge, created by the same models, of wind shear computed “observations”, it still isn’t hot enough to scare a small snow flake!!
Graph A is solar and shows only slightly faster warming around 300hpa than ground. In other words, the “fingerprint” shown by the data would indicate solar, volcanoes, and ozone depletion as better POSSIBILITIES. Well mixed GG’s are excluded by the observations.
Conclusion: The models have their physics wrong and your argument is both fallacious and disingenuous.
Alan,
I don’t see where this story is trumpted across the internet with a numerical figure attached to it at all. And the DailyTech author only reported how many were in the APS, not that they all had reversed their positions on GW.
As to your claim about the author telling lies, I’m not sure that assuming an editor would be able to speak for the APS is an “obvious falsehood”. There has undoubtedly been more than a little creative license taken here, and I agree this is bad journalism. But welcome to the world of news. And the editor is an editor of the APS, regardless of which unit he belongs. The higher up response to this today:
“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.”
So clearly and APS editor made a statement “at odds” with the official statement made last year. And as I said before, the editor is not an “author”.
No such reversal has occurred.
It occurs to me that if there is no evidence that he has changed his stance, there is, by the same token, no evidence that he has not.
OTOH, one might safely infer that if he considered a position to be “incontrovertible”, he wouldn’t have all-of-a-sudden called for both sides of a “no-holds barred” debate in the first place.
In either case, we shall see.
REPLY: It is way to early to make any such claims, and this blog is just a flyspeck compared to the reach of mass media.
Oh, I could probably come up with a few comments concerning fulcrums, levers, and moving worlds . . .
“Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.”
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm
Those editors are almost unknown to the scienctific community. Jeffrey is an audio physicist and Alvin isn’t a climate scientist either.
They do not reflect the opinions of APS and their statement does not change the official statement of APS. But hey, they got a huge amount of free publicity to their internet journal no one had ever hearf of before.
The headline is fallacy and should be changed.