backtop


Print 218 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Jul 28 at 2:54 PM


Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change
"Considerable presence" of skeptics


Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a  statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large. 


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.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." 

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming.   "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 1:17:58 AM , Rating: 1
with the idea that anthropogenic CO2 emissions is likely not the primary source of the increase in global warming during the period of the Industrial Revolution, I just wanted to point out that the post you are quoting from, is an Editor's Comment, and does not represent a "change in the viewpoint" of the entire APS, as it would take much more than the commentary of the editor to voice a change of opinion of over 10,000 APS members (and I think it's important to note that he also stated "considerable", and not "majority", so I believe the jury is still out regarding the APS' official viewpoint.

I also think in regards to this:
quote:
The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."


It's important to point out, that as far as I recall, their statement being that global warming evidence is incontrovertible, was a rather generic, all-inclusive statement, simply referring to what was this generally considered to be a strongly-supported stance: that data shows the earth is warming up, and warming up faster than previously recorded, and thus by definition, "global warming" is occurring. As far as I know, in regards to their generic viewpoint on the matter, it still hasn't changed - it's simply that they're calling into question the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit.

I'm glad though that they're not taking the path that many media, news and research outlets take in only publishing material from one side or the other (in this case, as you stated and as the Editor's Comment states, that they've published articles from members of both viewpoints, and now calling for rebuttals to those as well).




RE: While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 1:21:40 AM , Rating: 5
Oh, and one other thing I forgot to add:

They're only calling into question the viewpoint regarding anthropogenic CO2. They're not questioning (neither disavowing or supporting) the impact of other green house gases from human origin (such as methane, CFCs, etc.)


RE: While I do agree...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2008 9:41:30 AM , Rating: 4
CO2 is a proxy for all GHG influences. The debate -- and the associated papers themselves -- speak to all greenhouse gases, not simply CO2 itself.


RE: While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: While I do agree...
By kbehrens on 7/18/2008 12:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
When they say "CO2", they generally mean CO2 equivalent, which is the sum of all greenhouse gases, converted into their equivalent mass of CO2. The debate is on the science behind radiative transfer and forcing from all GHGS, not just CO2 itself.


RE: While I do agree...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
That's rather a knotty little recursive problem then isn't it? Since there is vast territory between those who assert that CO2 is strongly linearly warming, and those who consider it to be weakly logarithmic, or even log-log, in its effects. Considering that water vapour has a much wider and deeper absorption spectrum, and that many of the most crucial parts of the atmosphere (tropical, where the sun shines brightest, have you heard?) are generally saturated with said vapour, at vastly higher concentrations than CO2 is found ANYWHERE, even in the hot air spouted by Hansen, it is fundamentally implausible that fluctuations in small fractions of 1% of the atmosphere could drive runaway -- or even significant -- heating. These guys remind me of the kids who got lost in grade school math when their comprehension of multiplication and division narrowed to rote repetition of steps in a procedure, and never had a clue about whether the resultant was "reasonable" in magnitude. Modern equivalents are those who can't tell if their calculators' answers are off by an order, or several orders, of magnitude because a wrong key was touched.

Believe me, inability to do "reasonableness testing" is a sign of faith in ritual replacing reason.

Climatology has here branded itself "pseudo-science", little better than economics or psychology. It will be long and long, recovering.


RE: While I do agree...
By jbartabas on 7/17/2008 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just wanted to point out that the post you are quoting from, is an Editor's Comment, and does not represent a "change in the viewpoint" of the entire APS, as it would take much more than the commentary of the editor to voice a change of opinion of over 10,000 APS members


I do agree. And it is obvious that not all members of APS are convinced that GW is mostly due to greenhouse gas, but the stance of the APS as an entity is what it is, and it is not being reversed by the current issue of FPS.

quote:
It's important to point out, that as far as I recall, their statement being that global warming evidence is incontrovertible,


I have posted their statement in another post. I think your interpretation is correct.

quote:
it's simply that they're calling into question the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit.


That's what they do (I will jump ahead to your next comment and say that I believe that by CO2 they mean GHG in general for this debate). It's worth noting that GHG are identified by the IPCC itself as being part of the culprit with less certainty than there is about the climate being warmer. So debates to know exactly what part GHG play in GW are in no way "heretic" in the scientific community.


RE: While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's worth noting that GHG are identified by the IPCC itself as being part of the culprit with less certainty than there is about the climate being warmer. So debates to know exactly what part GHG play in GW are in no way "heretic" in the scientific community.


While I do wish they'd clarify over whether anthropogenic CO2 is actually in reference to GHGs in general, or if they're specifically targetting CO2, I do agree.

I would honestly hope that no one here would be ignorant enough to believe that global warming isn't occurring. It is, and evidence supports that. We also know that atmospheric concentrations of such GHGs as methane, N2O and CO2 are at their highest levels since 700,000 years ago at least, and that humanity is largely responsible for that increase.

Now, what we don't know, is the extent of the impact such GHGs have had as part of the on-going climate change. I tend to be skeptical of long-range forecasts, and so for me it's hard to trust computer model forecasts for decades if not hundreds of years from now. However, I also knew some very intelligent climatologists during my time in college, who strongly believed that humanity's industrialization will ultimately lead to profound changes in the earth's climate.

Even if we're not the primary catalyst for any major changes in the earth's climate, we'll have contributed considerably to that change, and it's ignorant for anyone to state that we shouldn't be taking measures to reduce our output of GHGs. What's next, denials of mass extinctions occurring?


RE: While I do agree...
By ilovephysics on 7/17/2008 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Fluxion, just bothered to create an account here at "Daily Tech" for the sole purpose of applauding your stamina in defending the facts. Thank you.


RE: While I do agree...
By porkpie on 7/17/2008 8:52:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I would honestly hope that no one here would be ignorant enough to believe that global warming isn't occurring. It is.
It was at least. Its a bit unclear whether or not its still happening. Temps have dropped since 1998.


RE: While I do agree...
By kc77 on 7/18/2008 7:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Temps have dropped since 1998.
Huh?? No they haven't only if you look at 1998 and then 1999. But if you look at a ten year span say 1997 to 2005 it's still a hell of a lot hotter than say 1980.


RE: While I do agree...
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 9:28:46 PM , Rating: 4
1998 was indeed an abnormally warm year, just as 2008 has thus far been an abnormally cool year. However single years are meaningless within the discussion of average global temperature changes over a period of time. Really you can't get any meaningful measurement until at least 10 years, and even then it's extraordinarily limited.

Expanding the study to 50 years is more of a starting point, but ideally you want to study the world for millions of years.

If one does just that, we can see that the earth has gone through a LOT of temperature cycles, most of which were clearly NOT man-made. That's not to say that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions aren't contributing to our current climate, more simply that climate DOES change and our impact is only going to be one of MANY factors involved. Trying to figure out just where we fit in to that whole equation is a matter of importance to science.

Are we just a tiny spec in a giant sea of things or a dominant factor? And will cutting GHG output by 20 or even 50% do much of anything? Those are questions I couldn't answer myself, but fortunately there are a few good scientists left working on the problem. Sadly many otherwise good scientists have been taken in by one of two competing religions and are so firmly entrenched in their beliefs that they refuse to do their jobs properly for fear that it will either prove or disprove (depending on which religion they follow) global climate change.


RE: While I do agree...
By Arctucas on 7/18/2008 3:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
So...

700,000 years, hmm?

Those damn dirty cavemen!

They are the bastards that started all this Global Warming!


RE: While I do agree...
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 10:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are the bastards that started all this Global Warming!


No, it was the Liberal cavemen in 50,000 BC that started this whole global warming thing. "What's happening to the ice?" "I don't know, must be the fire. Before us there was no fire. The fire melts the ice. Must be us! We'd better cut down on our fires."

Conservative caveman: "Hey, I will start a fire where and when I want one! First it's 'don't kill off all the mammoths', and now this!"


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki