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)
Fran Manns says “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).” That is a bit out of date. Lassen himself later updated the data (correcting an interpolation error near the end of their previous series) and his co-author on the updated study concluded, “The curves diverge after 1980, and it’s a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate…It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect.” ( http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/globcat/globwarm/solar-00.htm )There are also some other issues with the Friis-Christensen and Lassen paper and other papers that claim solar correlations as discussed by Damon and Laut here: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
Frank Ravizza
I am expecting the AGW CO2 hypothesis to collapse, eventually. Hopefully this will occur within the next year or so.
For the true believers in AGW, this set of circumstances will definitely be a Carbon Dioxide Catastrophe. Won’t bother me a bit.
However, if AGW catches the fancy of the politicians, we could see some horrible things done to the economy in the name ‘saving the planet’. In this case, Carbon Dioxide Catastrophe will be catastrophic to almost everyone on the planet. In particular, the poor of the world will suffer disproportionately, just as they have suffered from other environmental fads such as the ethanol debacle and the restrictions on the use of DDT in controlling mosquitoes.
So the real question is: what will the catastrophe be? Egg on the face of the AGW believers? Or a true economic catastrophe inflicted on the human family?
Of course some societies will not be as affected as others. The Chinese and Indians have already decided that if there is a choice between suffering from poverty or suffering some of the consequences of global warming, they will take the latter. Neither country is even slightly interested in curtailing CO2 emissions.
While we’re in the process of naming big events, what are we going to call the big Dalton or Maunder type solar slow down? Something else I am expecting. Perhaps (as has been suggested by others) we could refer to it as the Al Gore Minimum. And the resulting little ice age? The James Hansen Little Ice Age?
Thus these gentlemen will be memorialized as they so desperately desire.
The comparison to religion seems to come up a lot and while it is off topic, I think we do the environmental movement a great disservice by characterizing them as a new “eco/Gaia religion”. While it can seem religious, it is nevertheless reasonable to desire that people and humanity as a whole become more caring in general, and more caring of nature. It is in this sense that man-made Global Warming need not even be a correct model as far as environmentalists are concerned. I’d wager that if AGW was eventually proven wrong, but in the meantime we collectively showed we were willing to implement lifestyle cuts for the sake of nature, and did so to great economic cost, environmentalists would be 100% satisfied. See, it would all be a step in the “right” direction. And in one specific sense it is, humanity does need to learn to care about the environment more. The problem however, is that most of the world doesn’t care and won’t for a long time, because most of the world can’t afford to care. This leaves environmentalists pushing scare stories to try to make us behave as if we cared, which kinda misses the whole point anyway. I know this is off the radar, but if we’re going to accuse them of being “religious”, I think we could more respectfully simply question of them whether their tactics are actually going to get them what they want.
” FatBigot (16:42:17) :
“Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth.”
They do, but that does not mean they are accurate.
Miskolczi (2007) offers a theory in which the optical depth remains constant based on energy conservation, local thermal equilibrium and energy minimization etc.. He predicts that increases in CO2 will result in decreases in H2O to maintain energy balances.
* Ferene M. Miskolczi, Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, IDŐJÁRÁS, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January-March 2007, pp. 1-40
* Ferene M. Miskolczi, Physics of the Planetary Greenhouse Effect, 2008 International Conference on Global Warming, New York March 2-4, 2008., Audio or Powerpoint
* Miklós Zágoni, Some paleoclimatic consequences of Dr. Miskolczi’s new greenhouse theory, (2008)2008 International Conference on Global Warming, New York March 2-4, 2008 Audio & PowerPoint presentation (PDF format)
* Miklós Zágoni Developments in greenhouse theory 2008
Chihlingar & Khilyuk offer a theory that increasing CO2 will DECREASE warming.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Authors: G. V. Chilingar; L. F. Khilyuk; O. G. Sorokhtin
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1 January 2008 , pages 1 – 9
Brief discussion at: http://www.henrythornton.com
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
Environmental Geology Volume 50, Number 6 / August, 2006
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/fulltext.pdf
Rebuttal of ‘‘On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s
climate. Are humans involved?’’ by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar W. Aeschbach-Hertig, Environ Geol (2007) 52:1007–1009
http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/fulltext.pdf
Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of ‘‘On global forces
of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?’’
by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
G. V. Chilingar Æ O. G. Sorokhtin Æ L. F. Khilyuk
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl7536426072q7j7/fulltext.pdf
Obviously these are very controversial, especially in the present political climate. These complement Roy Spencer’s new discoveries of very low climate sensitivity. It will be interesting to see whether these contrary theories or AGW proves to be correct.
David L. Hagen (14:43:34) :
” FatBigot (16:42:17) :
“Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth.”
Mr Hagen, I was citing someone else’s quote. My role here is to throw out (ill)considered opinions not to say anything scientific; I’m as qualified to comment on technical scientific issues as I am on the benefits of a low calorie diet.
I’ll just refer to the work cited by Danish geophysicists as refereed and serious . They had the scientific courage to make corrections and continue to perform exeriments. I think we san still see that there was a strogrer correllation than that from CO2 increasing in the 40s – 60s while temperatures dropped. Iknow I had to walk to school through the snowdrifts.
I would like to change my drift and offer an insight into fluid inclusions in ice. Fluid inclusions are valuable in genetic studies of hydrothermal mineral systems because they give insight into chemistry and PT relationships at the time of formation of a mineral. Quartz is useful, but not often interesting in todays world except as an academic study. The other mineral used is sphalerite (ZnS). Fluid inclusions in sphalerite can be frozen and evaporated and yield (given statistical constaint N= large number) regarding the saliity of the mineralizing solution and the temperature (I am oversimplifying sorry). Fluid inclusion data, is only used if it can be shown to be from a closed system. No inclusions are allowed that sit on fractures, odd bubble shapes, etc. which indicate secondary inclusions that are unreprentative and possibly corrupt. There are stats tests as well.
Is it totally crazy making to see inclusions from ice used in a refereed paper on ancient climate. Unless I am missing something, it takes centuries for snow to become firn and firn to become ice. During that time it is certainly an open system and light isotopes migrated and heavy isotopes build up proportionately. Even the crystaline structure of ice is an open system. Does it not expand upon freezing? There are a few posibilities we do not even fathom on this , but it is an open system. The difficulties lead me to suggest that the referee system for ice work needs an independent qualified person to evaluate the data and the conclusions prior to publication of such work. CO2 may trail warming, or it may lead. Who knows if the raw data comes from an open system.
I regret that there has not been more discussion about Lord Monckton’s actual science in the APS paper, on this blog. To have had this would have immediately refute statements like “Monckton is a slick and audacious operator” and other statements that suggest he is incapable of good and honest science. This excellent science paper has been treated as such by several who are formally qualified to recognize its scientific excellence, and who are not afraid to support it in the present climate of repression of dissent, as you can see by reading the paper’s acknowledgements http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm and by reading Monckton’s comment that it has been effectively peer-reviewed http://www.iceagenow.com/Is_the_American_Physical_Society_being_honest.htm.
I’m not formally qualified either but I can see when the heart of an issue is being fairly addressed, and we have this in Monckton’s paper. Perhaps people have been put off commenting because there is too much erudite mathematics for them to cope? I would love to have some bite-size assessments of the maths that ordinary people can begin to grasp! But never mind that, there is still the sheer length, the acknowledgements, the formidable list of references, and the very pertinent, humane conclusion from which I will only quote one line:
“In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong…”
And although I believe Gavin Schmidt still claims to have disproved Lord Monckton’s science http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/ , this too is refuted by Monckton’s reply http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/chuck_it_schmidt_a_science_commentary_on_web_posts_at_realclimate.html
Lastly, Monckton himself is waiting for “ad rem” ie scientific rebuttals at APS, rather than ad hom.
I look forward to WattsUp and similar blogs doing more scientific analyses on this excellent paper in future.
Joel Shore said,
“‘Mathematical proof that there is no ‘climate crisis’ appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.’ That whole sentence is a downright lie….”
Let’s see. A mathematical proof is a series of mathematic equations used to provide a logical series of assumptions to explain that a certain relationship exists. Did Viscount Monckton provide such a series, validity of such series open to being contested and argued? Yes, he did.
Did it appear in Physics and Society, and is that a journal of the APS? Yes, it did appear. Physics and Society is officially classified as a newsletter by APS, but the definition of journal does not imply a publication size, just a periodical published by a learned society. Meets the criteria, in my eye.
Was the the paper peer reviewed? This seems the contentious point to some, citing that Dr. Saperstein read the paper for presentation clarification purposes. Based upon Dr. Saperstein’s listed academic accomplishments compared to Viscount Monckton’s, I’m sure that Joel Shore would consider the good Doctor was more Monckton’s superior academically rather than peer, but that should improve the status of the paper based upon his reputation.
Did he review the paper? He provided criticism and suggested corrections that Viscount Monckton implemented. This meets the definition of review.
Was this a major paper? It was the first paper of its type to appear in a “recognized publication” of a scientific society of the stature of the APS. That certainly makes it groundbreaking and important. Comes close to the definition of major.
Based upon a strict breakdown of the sentence, I cannot find a lie in it. Where do you see the lie, Joel?
Source definition of Proof – Dictionary.com “Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.”
Source definition of Journal – Dictionary.com “a periodical or magazine, esp. one published for a special group, learned society, or profession”
Source definition of peer – Dictionary.com “a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status”
Source definition of review – American Heritage Online dictionary through Dictionary.com “To examine with an eye to criticism or correction”
Source definition of major – Dictionary.com “great, as in rank or importance”
Report Junk E-Mail
Report and Block Sender
From : Anne Nolin
Reply-To : nolina@geo.oregonstate.edu
Sent : July 24, 2008 8:02:05 PM
To : CRYOLIST@lists.Colorado.EDU
Subject : Climate Change and Mountain Snowpacks: AGU Session C14
Here is an example of how the science is biased currently.
I was taught that the minute I began to believe my own hypothesis, I was a dead duck as a scientist. It was absolutely true. I received this from a list I monitor…
“Dear Colleagues,
We invite you to submit an abstract to the following session at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting:
“Climate Change and Mountain Snowpacks: Observations, Future Projections and Potential Impacts”
Current analyses of climate change impacts show rising temperatures resulting in diminished snowpacks, leading to hydrologic, ecological, economic, and other impacts. This session will focus on observations of snow water equivalent, snow depth, and snowpack dynamics from ground based, airborne, and space borne sensors; snowpack and streamflow reconstructions from tree ring chronologies; modeled simulations of mountain snowpack dynamics; and potential impacts of changing snowpack on water resources and mountain ecosystems as well as potential economic impacts on ski areas and other components of mountain economies.
The AGU Fall Meeting will be held on December 15-19, 2008 in San Francisco, California.
To submit an abstract to this session, please go to the following URL:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm08/?content=program “{
Keith,
You can believe whatever you want to believe in your own world. But, no serious scientist or mathematician would call Monckton’s diatribe a “mathematical proof”. There are, in fact, no proofs in science since it is deductive. (You can prove things in, say, mathematical physics but the proof will be about a mathematical model of the physical system, not the real world.)
At any rate, your own source noted that the steps in a proof must “lead to a valid conclusion”, which Monckton’s does not. His final equation [Eq. (30)] is not even self-consistent for heaven’s sake: He uses one value of the forcing for doubling CO2 in deriving his value for kappa from empirical data [Eq. (26)] and then another one when he wants to multiply everything together to get the climate sensitivity!!! That is like saying x*(3/x) = 6 is true if x=2 where we want it to (in the first term in the equation) and x=1 where we want it to (in the second term).
As for it being peer-reviewed, I think the Forum on Physics and Society and the APS know better than you if it was peer-reviewed. And, I think you take the definition of “peer review” too literally when you say it just has to be by someone of Monckton’s own standing or better. Does it mean that any 3-year-old can submit a paper to a seriously scientific journal and they can send it out for a review by a 5-year old because he is “superior academically”?
Like I said, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but I can guarantee you that almost nobody who reads that newsletter regularly is going to find that sentence in the press release to be at all accurate and most are going to be angry by those blatant misrepresentations. That is hardly a way to win converts from that community over to your side, but then, I think it’s pretty clear that this wasn’t Monckton’s purpose anyway.
Lucy Skywalker– Gavin has now put something up addressing this new article by Monckton specifically: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/langswitch_lang/zh It doesn’t really add that much to Tim Lambert’s dissection at Deltoid since it hardly takes a climate scientist to spot some of the most blatant errors in Monckton’s “article”.
Lucy Skywalker: “To have had this would have immediately refute statements like “Monckton is a slick and audacious operator” and other statements that suggest he is incapable of good and honest science.”
My comment about Monckton being a “slick and audacious operator” did not refer to the science, but rather to the man’s penchant for self-promotion. I’m not qualified to comment on the science – or in this case the mathematics – so have not done so.
However, I recognise self-promotion at work when I see it, and at least in this particular case Monckton and his associates worked assiduously to create a false impression that was favourable to his case.
Like you, I am also keen to see scientific issues settled by scientists, and am prepared to wait until a scientific view emerges. I only wish that Monckton were as patient, and not so eager to jump the gun and attempt to push the argument in his favour before it had a good airing.
By the way, there is a blog post here http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html where the reporter talked to Al Saperstein, one of the editors of the newsletter in question and the one who editted Monckton’s article:
Saperstein also explains how Monckton came to write the article for the newsletter:
I note that Mr. Shore has yet to refute any of the theories referred to by Anthony above. Not a one. And since Mr. Shore has had a full week to disown those “nutty” theories, but has declined while answering other critics, we can accept that Mr. Shore buys into the silly Penguin and lime-in-the-sea globaloney “solutions” that the AGW True Believers propose.
The truth of the matter is this: catastrophic global warming supposedly to be caused by an insignificant increase in an insignificant trace gas — the original, but now thoroughly falsified AGW/CO2 hypothesis — has been superseded by “climate change,” something which naturally occurs all the time. That underhanded moving of the goal posts occurred only because their previous AGW hypothesis has been so completely falsified.
This is not a scientific issue any longer. AGW/CO2 is strictly a political issue now, as Mr. Shore makes glaringly obvious with his vitriolic attacks against a mathematician who simply holds a contrary view. No real scientist would attack another scientist like Shore attacks Monckton, simply because they disagree about the science. Mr. Shore even disparages and attacks Monckton for simply accepting an unsolicited invitation that four others did not accept. How low is that?
No, this is no longer science. AGW is now 100% political. Either you toe the Hansen/UN/IPCC AGW/CO2/climate disaster orthodoxy, or you are a lying apostate. There is no middle ground, no reason left.
If the planet were warming instead of cooling, I would reconsider my thinking, and possibly decide that human CO2 emissions were the cause. That is what rational people do. As J.M. Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
The Hansen/UN/IPCC apologists know full well that the planet is cooling, not warming. Yet they persist in bucking the headwinds of empirical evidence. They only wish to score political points, which belong on a political blog like RealClimate, rather than on a science site that encourages critical thinking. Because at this point, those still pushing the AGW/CO2 [repeatedly falsified] hypothesis are only propagandists, nothing more.