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 dryer on 7/23/2008 8:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the earth is not increasing in mass? perhaps you should tell that to this guy:


As I said in my post

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.


So it looks like I agree with your link and the amount is insignificant.

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".


number 19 says
"The Earth's spin is slowing down by about 1.5 - 2 milliseconds per century, and that angular momentum is moving into the Moon's orbit, which is getting larger. The reason for this, and the reason a figure skater can only spin for so long, is friction. In the case of the skater, it's air resistance and friction with the ice. In the case of the Earth, it's the friction due to tides moving around the Earth."

Irrelevant to global warming or your crazy theory about the earth gaining mass.

#24 is about the apparent weight of objects on the earth and has nothing to do with the mass of the earth changing.

#36 is about cycles the earth follows in its orbit. This may be relevant to global warming but has nothing to do with the mass of the earth increasing.

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:


Gee I don't know, maybe it was something I always knew just like what your NASA link says:

"The final nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons, a nucleus of the most common form of helium. The mass of this nucleus is slightly less than the mass of the four protons from which it forms. The lost mass is converted into energy. The amount of energy can be calculated from the German-born physicist Albert Einstein's famous equation E = mc-squared (E=mc2). In this equation, the symbol E represents the energy, m the mass that is covered, and c-squared (c2) the speed of light multiplied by itself."

How about looking at #11

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#masseart...

"Although stars lose mass as they evolve, none lose enough to wind up anywhere near the mass of even the most massive planet."

Did you say something about checkmate?

You still have not explained the process of how energy from the sun is converted to mass on the earth. Is this a multi-photon process? What are the particles that are created? If this is something you can prove, you should get a Nobel prize. However, I have the feeling that you are just a crack pot.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














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