Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don’t read this, they say – we don’t agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?
It’s an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS’s newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.
“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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion,” he wrote (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm).
American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm) the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm) by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that:
“Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”
But within a few days, Monckton’s piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.
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.
Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.
“The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie,” writes (http://numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm) Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. “The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate.”
Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:
“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)?”
Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of “peer review”, and the weight of validity that should be placed on “publication”. Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion.
(Whether it’s science is not in question – whether it’s “good science” or “bad science” is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt on the believers’ blog, RealClimate.org.)
But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the “state of the science” there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton’s paper.
One is how small the field of “experts” really is. The UN’s IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the “scientific consensus” and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:
“It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.” [our emphasis]
Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers’ climate models are verified:
“Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied,” writes Monckton. “Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture.”
In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth’s climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate “model” that’s theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect “hind-casting”), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It’s safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.
The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet’s biomass every year, notes Dyson (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494), the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the “climate scientists” models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That’s not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes … climate scientists.
Comments welcome
(mailto:andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk?Subject=aps_monckton)
How did the Council of the American Physical Society determine that the “conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”?
Did they do a survey?
This story just refuses to go away. If the APS had never uttered a peep, there would have been a great deal of buzz for a day or so and then it would have sunk to obscurity, left to continue on in the depths of APS, on one of its newsletters that no one knew existed. Now, here we are a week later and the story continues with this third post on the blog. Saturday I posted a comment on the second post about an email I was sending, in which I tried to keep the tone as neutral as possible. I just received a reply a few moments ago which I share here with you:
On 7/19/08 4:28 PM, “LeBroz at aol dot com” wrote:
I applaud the bold initiative of Jeffrey Marque, one of the editors of the newsletter of the Forum of Physics and Society, for opening the pages of the newsletter to an open public debate on the scientific merits of different views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
At a time when science is being dangerously corrupted by dogmatic politicization in which differing views of AGW are viciously attacked through appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, this move represents the truest spirit of scientific inquiry. In placing this discussion in the pages of the newsletter, the public, both scientist and layman, can see the purest expression of peer review over the coming issues as opposing views on the significance of man’s influence on the changing climate are presented and reviewed on their scientific merits.
Regards,
Leon Brozyna
Thank you for your note.
Our job is to promote discussion – if necessary by occasionally telling the emperor that he is not adequately dressed. Hopefully we have done that. As far as I know, the issue of anthropomorphic impact upon climate is not as well settled as the flatness or roundness of the Earth; more discussion may help bring the issue to that state. (Occasionally, it is very difficult to get alternative viewpoints; we go with what we can get.) We read submitted papers for clarity, not for content – so we do not claim that we are a peer reviewed journal, nor do we only publish stuff that we agree with – as is clearly stated in the “boilerplate”in each issue. (Speaking personally, I am much more in agreement with Hafemeister than with Monckton, though I do not claim to be a peer reviewer.) We would welcome a contribution from you pointing out to our readers some of Monckton’s errors. All of us would benefit from such rejoinders.
Alvin M. Saperstein
Dept. of Physics
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
313/577-2733
ams@physics.wayne.edu
Co-editor: Physics and Society
Quarterly journal of APS Forum on Physics and Society-
See us on the web: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/
It seems that it is now officially politically incorrect to debate – god forbid doubt – man-made global warming theory. All Hail Mr. Gore!
The problem with this statement is that no one has been able to show that any warming has occurred that is outside natural variability. The statement does more than just put the cart before the horse.
American physicists will have to decide for themselves whether bullying debate out of science is tolerable. I hope more and more will stand up and realise what a bunch of madmen charlatans like Gore and Hansen really are.
This may sound harsh, but what else can you label people who demand we live in a fantasy world?
“The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie,”
This sentence actually does a better job of representing this article, not the APS disclaimer. The bottom line is that Monckton’s paper was not peer-reviewed. Peer-review involves the work being sent to reviewers who are either employed by the Journal involved or are considered experts in their field, and then analyzed for accuracy and screened for error. The process typically takes a while, and optimally, a paper will be scrutinized quite in depth. If the paper is up to snuff, it may be accepted for publication; if not, it will be rejected, and occasionally notes from the reviewer will be passed back to the author for consideration.
Monckton had a Physics professor look over his paper for errors. Having a professional proof-read your paper is not peer-review. It’s as simple as that. And, even with good, professional help going into the paper, Monckton still manages to screw it up.
This is getting ridiculous. Mr. Orlowski’s other comments are the same old skeptic arguments we see time and time again, but the big picture here is the APS meme, which is ridiculous.
The fabled “debate” over global warming is still going to continue at this APS newsletter. Monckton’s flawed paper and politicking aside, you skeptics are going to get your debate.
The APS has done nothing wrong. If you all are so convinced with your evidence, then submit papers to the newsletter in question and persuade more people. Quit attacking the APS.
MODERATORS DISCLAIMER: The above comment stating that “Monckton still manages to screw it up” has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the majority of participants of this forum. The moderator disagrees with this comments conclusions.
The idea that one would tell people with degrees in physics not to read an article lest they be deceived . . . how funny is that. If the administration of the APS had stood back and tried to visualize how that looks to the bystander, or to people belonging to the APS who hold MAs or Phds in physics . . . it just maks me shake my head.
“Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”
I realize that in science, a theory stands until it is replaced by one that better fits the observations. However, the theory in standing can still be just as wrong when it does not match the observed data.
One does not go charging off, changing the world on a theory that has simply not yet been replaced by a better one.
And for anyone who may have missed it in my comment above, in his reply, Saperstein refers to an anthropomorphic effect rather than the correct term of anthropogenic, two rather different concepts.
Moderator:
Normally I’d appreciate a bit of wit, but not at this moment. I applaud you on your rhetorical strategy; I blundered and you exploited a pivotal weakness in my post. Congratulations; you’ve successfully diffused the point of my comment based on a single sentence that I neglected to edit out (I changed the direction of my post twice before submitting it).
I ask for you to please remove your comment as well as the sentence in question. In return,you can edit this comment to be comprised of simply the sentence in question so that you may still have your tongue-in-cheek comment.
I’ll admit – I want a debate just as bad as skeptics do, although I have different motives for it. If the skeptics continue the behavior shown at this site – an utter cynicism towards the peer-review process and the scientific establishment as well as a stubbornness to let go of a non-issue – then we will all lose this opportunity to have a legitimate debate. This was the point of my comment.
Please consider my proposal. If you disagree to it, then please delete this comment.
REPLY: I don’t need to forge bargains. In making this request, you are doing exactly as Monckton has requested, removal of a disclaimer that negates your writings from the get go.
So now the APS is doubting the intelligence of their members? That they don’t have the brains to distinguish between fact and fantasy so they shouldn’t read Monckton’s paper? What a hoot and an insult to the APS’s members.
Richard deSousa:
Nowhere does the APS direct its readers to not read the paper.
“Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”
The problems with this statement is that while everyone agrees that increasing CO2 will cause an increase in temperatue, nobody agrees on how the feedbacks will play. The AGW’ers assume that there are strong positive feedbacks that will dramatically increase the affect of CO2 increases. However, nobody has demonstrated the existence of these proposed feedbacks. A number of recent studies have concluded that H2O feedback is negative, not positive.
Finally, regarding the crack about correlation not equaling causation. I wish the AGW’ers would apply that logic to their own theory.
Andrew: Good show. It is a great shame when invitation to open debate gets the backhand shot. One might even begin to suspect that the emotions are rooted more deeply than in the scientific facts of the case and the normal channels of free and open inquiry.
But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?
Just buff up the trusty old Shield +1 and bask in the reflection.
But for anyone without a dog in this race
Well, as it is the human race, I will admit to having a dog in it.
“radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture.”
When it rains, it pours.
That’s the point. CO2 won’t do it alone. There have to be hugely magnifying positive feedbacks involved. But the Aqua satellite data says no. So what if they ain’t? AGW is a bit of a wet firecracker, that’s what.
Dyson has a good point–if natural absorption can be enhanced, the whole question could be made moot. But I do wonder about the ins and outs of the persistence factor of atmospheric CO2. I have heard too many reasonable-sounding answers that badly conflict.
(BTW, I’ll be back to you today.)
John Riddell:
“How did the Council of the American Physical Society determine that the “conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”?”
And how would the world scientific community know that they disagreed with the conclusions, unless they had all read the paper?
Oops, I forgot – they’re not allowed to 😉
Counters:
My, aren’t we being picky… reading Monckton’s paper is essential to debating… the APS wouldn’t dare to tell it’s members not to read Monckton’s paper. You obviously failed to get my sarcasm.
So this is what science has become … political, no truth. I wonder, do the scientists involved realize the damage they are doing to their own chosen field by this politicization of science?
Still there remains no verifiable proof of AGW, just computer models, which can prove anything you program them to say — So where is the beef? Why not just offer up the proof? AGW has been declared to be going on for 100+ years, there must be proof. Well, except for the recent years … It’s getting complicated.
Meanwhile, the sun does not seem to be responding to NASA’s proclamation.
I too appreciated the wit of the moderator’s rejoinder to “couters” original post. “Counters” made a thoughtful and resonable point with regards to the manner in which constructive debate should be conducted and the spirit of his post is commendable. The moderator’s rejoinder detracts from “counters” good intentions moves this blog in an undesirable direction. Therefore, I fully support “counters” request for an edit of the post and removal of the moderator’s comment.
Mr. Orlowski’s other comments are the same old skeptic arguments we see time and time again, but the big picture here is the APS meme, which is ridiculous.
Actually, “Mr. Orlowski” is an agnostic on the issue. He questions both sides. He advocates and encourages open debate in order to help clarify the issue.
Things have come to a pretty pass when a call for debate and fairness is considered to be “the same old skeptics arguments we see time and time again”.
Well . . . ?
Is it me or are the Global Warmists starting to act like four-year olds sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs, “I can’t hear you!”? Geesh. People who don’t want to debate know that the facts aren’t on their side. Those that have the facts on their side are more than willing to debate. Unless, of course, they are debating four-year olds with their fingers in their ears.
an anthropomorphic effect rather than the correct term of anthropogenic
It makes my blood boil and steam shoot out of my ears, thus contributing to positive feedback loops.
Disclaimers in advertising are usually so that the company can make a claim which they otherwise would not be able to uphold.
I see this disclaimer more as a means of getting the article published and noticed, rather than an attempt to stop it being read.
James, I appreciate your support. Apparently, though, the current moderator here is not interested in debate, but rather in playing “gotcha.” My post was not meant to be published publicly – hence the address to “Moderator” prior to it. However, since we’re having this discussion in the open let us continue it:
Moderator, you conflate separate issues in your reply to my request. Specifically, as I’ve already stated, your comment on my first post is disingenuous in nature; it does not address the substance of my comment, and instead opts to hit an Achille’s heel within the post itself. You refuted my post by knocking down a strawman. In the case of Monckton’s paper, there was no “refutation” involved. Rather, the disclaimer was a clarification of the APS’ official policy which had been lost during the heavy dissemination and politicization of the issue at hand. The disclaimer was not meant to address Monckton’s paper – it was meant to dismiss the legions of skeptics on the internet who were being guided to the paper under the false pretenses that the APS had reversed its official policy.
You’re entitled to not honor my request as this is your own webspace. However, it speaks quite vividly of your intentions with this blog and the subsequent promotion of this story, which is at heart and motive dishonest.
REPLY: I think the object lesson is clear, Monckton disliked the disclaimer conditions that were added after the fact. Under the same situation, you’ve reacted identically, to the same type of disclaimer, but at the same time maintain that you’ve been wronged and that I’ve been disingenuous. That that I say: BUNK. If you don’t want a comment published, put up NOT FOR PUBLICATION on it. I can’t read your mind.
The disclaimer and subsequent comment stand.
BTW if I was “not interested in debate” as you assert, none of your comments would be published. Thus, your assertion fails. If you want one sided debate, go to RealClimate.
James Burnham,
Is ad hominem what passes for “good intentions” these days?
Finally, regarding the crack about correlation not equaling causation. I wish the AGW’ers would apply that logic to their own theory.
Pretty hard to do, Mark, since the only close correlation between increases in atmospheric levels of C02 and temperature existed briefly during the 80’s and 90’s and has virtually vanished during the last decade.