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)
Peter says: “Really? So ‘outsiders’ are people who are incapable of making up their own minds, and therefore must be told what they should or shouldn’t believe?” No, it is outsiders who are likely to be unfamiliar enough about the APS that they would believe the lies spread by Monckton and associates regarding the article being a major peer-reviewed piece or would believe it represented a shift in the APS’s position on AGW.
Peter says: “I find that patronizing in the extreme. It’s not only those who inhabit the hallowed halls of the APS who are capable of understanding scientific arguments.” I don’t doubt that this may be true, although I am rather disappointed to see that so few of the people in the “skeptic” sphere have been willing to own up to the fact that the paper’s scientific arguments are completely flawed. However, since the APS was having its position on AGW and its publication of that paper willfully misrepresented by Monckton and his associates, it was necessary to set the record straight.
Peters says: “If they felt it necessary to add that disclaimer then they should have added a similar disclaimer to all the other ‘non peer-reviewed’ papers published in their newsletters.” Well, there is a general disclaimer in that newsletter. However, this specific disclaimer was made necessary by the fact that the author and his associates used the paper as part of a propaganda campaign with willful misrepresentation of it. That has not happened, as far as I am aware, of other articles that have appeared in that newsletter. Frankly, I think the editors of the newsletter were naive to not have expected something like that to happen…but scientists can sometimes be a bit too trusting in that way, since we don’t deal with this sort of politicization and willful misrepresentation very often.
REPLY:”but scientists can sometimes be a bit too trusting in that way, since we don’t deal with this sort of politicization and willful misrepresentation very often.”
Hogwash! (and that’s the nicest word I could use)
No, THAT’S never happened in the global warming debate before. My goodness, do you live in a cave? Just read any news article recently saying “global warming does this or climate change will do that”. Just today I came across two more absurd articles like the penguins spin and the whitewash for the sea that are just so unbelievably absurd, I can’t fathom how a rational person could report them.
I haven’t seen you denounce articles like these, thus I am forced to conclude that AGW proponents such as yourself simply don’t care if the science is right or not, as long as the cause is furthered.
Please don’t lecture about propaganda until you are prepared to renounce some the pro AGW propaganda that has been showing up in news articles.
Presentation released by R Spencer Just now backs up Mocktons work 110%
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
Evan, close those italic tags every chance you get. Maybe it’s just my poor old eyes. But, reading italic on more than a string of a few words is difficult.
Ah. my bad. Not at all, sorry, and other phrases.
Netscape closes them automatically every paragraph, so they are coming through with only quotes in italics. But I will close them out from now on.
Joel Shore:
“…to further his own propaganda campaign.”
And a very effective propaganda campaign it is too. Why, if it weren’t for all this brouhaha caused by that disclaimer, I woudn’t even have heard of Monckton.
Nota bene: I had not checked the site before, however at this time, the disclaimer is the same color as the article and I saw the same disclaimer at the top of the “believers’” page.
So noted. That is very good to hear. It also implies that the debate will continue. I approve of this action on the part of the APS.
It would have been better if no comment were appended to either, but if this must needs be, then let it apply to both.
Perhaps the story by Andrew and those of like mind have contributed to balance in the debate. Remember, while I am a skeptic, A.O. is of mixed mind on the subject and advocates hearing from both sides. (Very Commendable.)
Joel,
Why is Monckton claiming that it was reviewed?
I think it wise to find out what his basis is for that claim, before calling it a lie or dismissing it.
Does this sound plausible? Maths isn’t one of my strong points, so don’t ask me to prove it
The AquaSat seems to indicate the low cloud formations and albedo you describe. Whether it is CO2 negative feedback (thus limiting CO2 effect) or whether is a direct sun/ocean mechanism I couldn’t say.
Joel Shore:
“No, it is outsiders who are likely to be unfamiliar enough about the APS that they would believe the lies…”
If they’re that unfamiliar about the APS then who cares what they think? Why should the APS care about the uneducated rabble?
“I am rather disappointed to see that so few of the people in the “skeptic” sphere have been willing to own up to the fact that the paper’s scientific arguments are completely flawed.”
I don’t care whether it’s completely flawed or not, that’s not the point – besides I haven’t had the time to do anything more than skim over it, I would have to give it a proper read to make up my mind one way or the other. On the other hand, I’ve seen more than enough glaring flaws in ‘mainstream peer-reviewed’ literature.
“but scientists can sometimes be a bit too trusting in that way, since we don’t deal with this sort of politicization and willful misrepresentation very often.”
Uh huh, so the vast amount of cringeworthy, sensationalist rubbish appearing in the media every day is in no way ‘politicization and misrepresentation’ of your science, is it?
smokey
Your points are well taken with regard to Albert Einstein.
However, he did not publish a document entitled Annus Mirabilis. The term is used to describe the year 1905 when he published four foundation papers. Annus Mirabilis is latin for ‘miracle year’, and it was appropriate for the physics community to use this term to describe his output in 1905.
The five paper he published dealt with:
1) Brownian motion, proving the existence of atoms.
2) Determination of Avogadro’s Constant, determining the size of atoms and molecules.
3) Photo-electric effect, the basis for quantum mechanics and our solid state revolution, as well as other fields.
4) Special theory of relativity.
5) Mass Energy relationship (E=MC2).
Here is a wonder book I stumbled on back in 2005 while walking through the Denver Public Library.
http://www.amazon.com/Annus-Mirabilis-Albert-Einstein-Relativity/dp/B000EPFVIW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216763201&sr=8-1
Here is an excellent web page describing the details of his work and why Einstein was, well, Einstein.
http://mclibrary.nhmccd.edu/einstein.htm
The era Einstein lived in at the turn of the century was very unsettling. In 1890, the physics community felt they really understood all there was to know about the physical universe and the only task remaining was to add some more digits to some of the universal constants.
Then came the discovery of radiation. Also the total radiant energy emitted by a black body did not match the predictions of classical physics. That is, the formula for predicting the total energy radiated by a black body failed when the experiment was attempted. As the formula broke down in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum, this was referred to as the ultraviolet catastrophe.
Physics was looking for a rescue, some sort of explanation for these breakdowns in their expectations. By 1905, they were desperate.
Einstein provided the explanations.
Any one of these papers would have earned Einstein a prominent place in the history of physics. And he did five in a period of about 8 months.
Miraculous indeed.
Today, we have a situation where a lot of people are extremely confident of their models of the climate, just as the physics community was confident of their’s in 1890. However, in 1890 there was a large collection of real observations accumulated since the time of Newton (another giant in science) confirming their models. Today, we have just the opposite. A collection of models that are not predicting accurately. Yet, there is this hubris the models are correct, even without observational confirmation.
Einstein most definitely would not have done well in this environment. He really was a radical in his approach to science.
Thanks for your observations that caused me to recollect the joy of reading the book mentioned above.
Re: Jack Simmons
Perhaps someday AGW catastrophe theory will be known as the Carbon Dioxide Catastrophe? That is, well regarded theory not living up to what’s observed. What’s different is black body radiation wasn’t a politically charged issue like AGW is today–so it may take awhile for us to own up to it.
Parliament has a rule, as I understand it, which forbids any member from specifically calling someone a “liar.” It is a good rule. “Liar” is a vicious and provocative term that is used only as an ad hominem personal attack. It is what’s known as a “fighting word.” Credible people do not label as liars those with whom they disagree, especially regarding matters of science.
I note above that Lord Monckton is called a “liar,” in addition to being subjected to repeated slurs such as “willful misrepresentation,” and: “(Monckton’s) whole sentence is a downright lie…”
This is substantially more rude than even the APS changing the rules after the fact, and singling out Monckton for not toeing their AGW/catastrophe Party line. Being deliberately rude and insulting to someone does nothing to advance the AGW/disaster hypothesis. It only indicates desperation.
Unless someone specifically admits to being a liar [good luck with that, with anyone], or is convicted of lying [eg: perjury], then it is improper and extremely insulting to label them a “liar” just because you don’t agree with what they are saying, or because you prefer to accept a different version of reality from someone else – and you assume that only your cohort’s version consists of unimpeachable veracity [good luck with that one, too].
Lord Monckton has been writing well reasoned, widely published articles for many years regarding the UN/IPCC and global warming. He is very well respected, and an acknowledged international expert — otherwise, he would not have been invited to submit his paper for publication.
Monckton’s articles are pointed, well researched, and credible. When the opposition has nothing left but personal, insulting ad hominems, that is a sure sign that they’re losing the debate.
It is also a sure sign of poor upbringing to publicly label someone a “liar,” simply because you disagree with what they are saying.
As we’ve seen, Lord Monckton reads these threads. Although I don’t expect it, an apology is certainly in order in this instance.
Is anyone aware of any paper discussing the sensitivity of the equations used in the models? Are there data from model runs where climate sensitivity parameters have been varied under fixed CO2 scenarios? Certainly something like this would lend validity to models.
Smokey says: “As we’ve seen, Lord Monckton reads these threads. Although I don’t expect it, an apology is certainly in order in this instance.”
Well, if you are referring to my sentence that said, “That whole sentence is a downright lie …”, I will be happy to apologize and amend it to read, “That whole sentence is downright untrue …” and leave it to others to decide if the untruthfulness was purposeful or due to delusion or what have you. Likewise, you can replace “willful misrepresentation” with simply “misrepresentation”.
As for your characterization of Lord Monckton’s writing as “well reasoned, … well-researched, and credible” and the claim that he “is very well respected, and an acknowledged international expert,” we’ll just have to agree to disagree completely on that.
To quote that most famous of philosophers: “Curiouser and curiouser”.
Jack,
Thanks for your great post. Yes you’re right, of course. The current formalized peer review process didn’t even exist in 1905. Scientists, many of them amateurs, simply sent around manuscripts for proofing and comment.
The great Indian mathematician Ramanujan sent manuscripts to the English mathematician Hardy, which Hardy promptly threw in the trash. Later, Hardy noticed an interesting equation on a paper he’d thrown away, and picked it up. That act upended the world of mathematics, as well told in The Man Who Knew Infinity, the fascinating story of Ramanujan the Tamil.
That was peer review back then. Now, unfortunately, in modern, formalized climate peer review, the system has been gamed and everyone scratches their colleague’s back for mutual grant funding. Wegman’s statistical analysis remains unrefuted, and it clearly shows how the game works: a few cash in, taxpayers lose, and the truth is buried if climate funding is threatened.
“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.”
Where did I get the notion that Monckton had been through at least one cycle with of review by qualified editor(s), had made changes suggested (requested? demanded?) by the reviewer(s) all before publications. Oh, I know, from his letter of outrage at the shoddy treatment. Is this revenge for Sokol?
“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 cannot recall where this quote came from, I know it has been wobbling around this site for quite a few days, but I would like to say something about it.
What troubles me is the second sentence and the reasoning behind it. Starting from the premise that models predict additional GHG will raise temperature, I cannot see how that gives rise to a presumption which must stand unless disproved in a particular way.
In principle one can challenge a model’s predictions without proving a contrary case simply by undermining the modelling process. If the material going into the model is questionable there can be no presumption that what comes out of the other end is accurate. Equally, if the way the model is constructed is open to question then even feeding in correct data cannot give rise to a presumption that what comes out of the other end is accurate. In other words, if the model does not prove anything then there is nothing to disprove.
There is, I believe, a burden of proof issue in this debate, but it is the opposite of what the passage I have quoted suggests. This is my take on it:
http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/07/wise-old-saying.html
“As of yet, no one has responded to my argument, so I’ll re-iterate it:
The bottom line is that Monckton’s paper was not peer-reviewed.”
I have, several times, here and elsewhere.
My strongly held belief is that Monckton refuted it before you made it (suggesting that perhaps you are somebody’s sock puppet and have not actually read any of it yourself).
counters, I mostly agreed with your post, except on one specific point (see below). However, I would point out that fighting with moderators is a waste of time. Make your point and then move on. Whatever you say, plenty will misinterpret you.
APS had reversed their stance on global warming.
As I pointed out earlier, the APS statement doesn’t say AGHG is the cause of GW. I find the ommission striking. Now if you have a statement from the APS saying AGHGs does cause GW, then post it, but I was unable to find such a statement.
“American physicists warned not to debate global warming”
Thank goodness! I’m having enough trouble keeping up with the traffic here as is.
Keep up the good work….
Parliament has a rule, as I understand it, which forbids any member from specifically calling someone a “liar.”
That’s a convention in congress, actually. Used to be, anyway. (You could bash his head in with a cane, but you couldn’t call him a liar.)
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
‘Active’ sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
Less active sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
It’s a hypothesis, but at least it is a hypothesis with suppurting experiments. A CERN experiment is planned; hope it’s not blocked by politics. I have never seen or heard of experimental support for the GHG models.
The 95% correlation with sunspot peak frequency for warming and cooling, the correlation that presented no causation was published in Science (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991). The causation was presented by Svensmark at al in, I believe , Proceedings of the Royal Society in 2006. You can check the Danish web site. The ball is in the AGHG court as deeply as it was in 1991 when the correlation paper was published. Read the editors comment in that issue.
This thread is very off topic and dissappointing. I do not think it will attract serious participation. I’m looking at this as a geologist and have read what I can. Most of you do not seem to think outside the USA church of what’s happening now. My apologies for the insult …in advance.
Joel Shore: “Basically, Monckton is using the APS in a propaganda war to lend credibility to his views.”
Monckton is a slick and audacious operator. Press releases don’t write themselves, and they are created for a purpose: to persuade the media and others to a particular point of view.
The point of view expressed in the Science and Public Policy blog is that the APS supported Monckton’s contention that he had disproved AGW. This is false. Clearly, the APS panicked when it became aware of the way the sceptical blogosphere was running with the story.
One could fault the APS for its inept initial handling of the matter, but one cannot fault it for taking action to head off the false impression put about by Monckton and his supporters. The APS had the right and the duty to do so. Its members would have been justified in hauling the executive over the coals for failing to deal with the problem.
The subsequent reaction is an interesting case of cognitive bias. Sceptics expect an AGW-supporting scientific body to be heavy-handed and authoritarian, even fascist, and then interpret its actions in this light.
Perhaps some good may come of it, if sceptics can learn to contain their eagerness to topple AGW, and claim no more than the facts allow. This farce should also dispel the notion that AGW is a vast conspiracy. After all, the APS executive were such incompetent conspirators that they failed to bring one of their own editors in on the secret.
Fran, I’d say you are right, and no insult taken. As Spencer pointed out, there has been an agenda since the late 80’s to focus on carbon emissions. This led to a miseducated generation that thinks hypothesis with no correlation to observations is science, that a flimsy CO2 theory can only be rebutted with a proven hypothesis. That generation needs to put down their Blackberries and Ipods and go outside and experience weather so they can understand the components of climate. The AGW via CO2 acolytes simply chose the wrong idol to worship, and won’t admit it. I live in a climate that dumps 30-50 deg. F every night. Lacking that in the long term would build enormous heat. An evening shower that raises humidity followed by a clear sky, or even thin cloud cover sans rain results in a night that cools only 1-3 deg. F. With all other factors being equal, this results in a 5-10 deg F higher daytime temperature the next day. Water vapor, not CO2, obviously has an exponentially greater impact on the thermal status of the atmosphere. Look to Anthony’s Tucumcary expose of the irrigation effects on temperature. It may still be AGW, but its not CO2. Brendan, Joel and their ilk make ad hominum attacks, and offer nothing other than group-think derision to bolster their entrenched position, while the skeptics offer many theories based on observations. It is peculiar that there is no observational CO2/temperature connection other than the ice cores offered, which are flawed by virtue of temperature rising before CO2 levels. The only “eagerness” I see is to find the truth on one hand and evangelistic insistance on the other.
According to this link: http://www.iceagenow.com/Is_the_American_Physical_Society_being_honest.htm
This was Monckton’s response to why he said his paper was peer-reviewed:
“Oh, yes, it was peer-reviewed, all right, and by no less a personage than one of the editors, an eminent professor of physics, who went through it with a fine-tooth comb and then sent me a long list of reviewer’s comments, asking – rightly – that I should explain the derivation of every equation so that a non-climatological physicist could understand exactly what was going on. My amendments in the light of his questions lengthened the paper from 5000 to 8000 words, making it easily the largest paper they’ve published. The only sense in which it was not peer-reviewed is that the editors did not send it out to a third party for his comments. However, one is surely splitting hairs here – one editor commissioned the paper and liked the first draft very much: the other editor then reviewed it and also liked it very much, and was therefore prepared to devote some considerable time and effort to reviewing it and recommending revisions and clarifications, which I was o f course happy to provide.
“However, we must stand by the editors here: the APS is plainly furious with them for having allowed free speech on a subject that had been declared closed. It will no doubt dawn on the APS in due course that the correct response, rather than red-flagging the paper as they have, and rather mendaciously stating that the paper was not peer-reviewed, is to invite an alarmist to tear it to shreds in the next issue. I’m sure that is what will happen, and will be interested to see the extent (if any) to which the demolition of my equations is done ad rem rather than ad hominem. – C”