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

RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/22/2008 9:24:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I, too am saddened that this paper received an A. I would downgrade for the following as well:
Were there to be an added mass, the earth-moon system would actually move farther from the sun. The only way for it to move closer to the sun (fall in, so to speak) would be for the orbital velocity of the system to decrease.
I would assign a "B" - because his stand was meritorious, but one of his presentations was fallacious.


i too am saddened because i had no idea that the education system in this country was so lacking.

i am dying to hear why you believe that an increase in mass in either the earth or moon (or both) would result in the earth (and moon) moving further from the sun.

the earth has 2 angular velocities (1 in relation to itself and 1 in relation to the sun) and the moon has 3 angular velocities (1 in relation to itself, 1 in relation to the earth and 1 in relation to the sun), what makes you think that an increase in mass of the earth would result in a faster angular velocity of any of the above mentioned velocities?

let me guess: because newton explained the orbit of the moon as a series of continuous falls, right? perhaps you have heard of curvature, you know that pesky little property of matter that "distorts" the space around it and is immortalized in Newton's law of universal gravitation as 'G', you know that silly little value we know as the gravitational constant (in case you didn't know, that's what 'G' describes, though newton didn't realize it at the time, curvature). any of this ringing a bell?

an increase in the mass of the earth would result in an increase in the curvature of space around it, resulting in a greater attraction between earth and moon and earth and sun.

do i really need to post a complete physics lecture on mass, energy, angular velocity, curvature and gravity in this forum?


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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