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."
quote: BTW, I have PhD in physics
quote: The earth is not increasing in mass. Yes there is a little equation E=mc^2 which obviously you know very little about. Are you assuming the energy from the sun is being converted to mass? Ok fine, let's go there. The amount of energy received by the sun per year is approximately 3850 zettajoules. Assume all of that energy is converted to mass. That would be an increase in mass of the earth of 4.28 * 10^7 kilograms per year according to E = mc^2. The mass of the earth is about 5.97 * 10^24 grams. That is about a 10^(-16)% change in mass per year. Or put another way, it would take about 1 quadrillion years for the mass of the earth to increase by 1%.
quote: Your explanation of black hole formation is completely false. Stars lose mass as they age. They convert mass into energy. That is how they burn. Black holes form when the fuel of a very large star is consumed and there is not sufficient heat to keep the gravitational forces from collapsing the star. I will not go into the nuclear physics involved since obviously you need learn the basics first.
quote: Well you obviously can't read or follow conversations longer that five words. So when did you drop out of the fifth grade?
quote: As the previous conversation was about gaining mass due to energy absorption alone. He was isolating the affects of the earth gaining mass from energy only, NOT from ANY cosmic particles and it was a hypothetical calcluation in any case as he assumed 100% energy to mass conversion. Which does not happen right? right?
quote: Would it not also be true to say that the magnetic fields are repelling one another instead of attracting? What of the outward force of the solar wind? What did does this even have to do with the conversation at hand?
quote: Go back and learn how to read bozo.
quote: This f**cking idiot has pissed me off so much I have to write another post.So let me get this straight. The sun gains mass even thoughit loses mass due to fusion, loses mass due to solar flare coronal ejections, and loses mass due to the solar wind?I have to say it again, you are an idiot
quote: the earth is not increasing in mass? perhaps you should tell that to this guy:
quote: The earth is bombarded with cosmic dust and from ions from the sun, but the masses are insignificant and will not alter the orbital path of the earth in any measureable way.
quote: go to number 19 (Speed of Earth's Rotation Slowing?) and then number 24 (Weight Changes if Earth Stops Rotating) and for the coup de grace check out number 36 (Changes in the Earth-Sun Distance). there's plenty more there that adds support to my theory but allow me to just say: "checkmate".
quote: where did you get the idea that stars lose mass as they age? some links, the information taken together should be enough to convince you that a star's mass increases with time not decreases: