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 7/24/2008 1:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
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 though
it 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


ok, let's go with your hypothesis that i am an idiot, explain something to me so that even i can understand it: stars collapse in on themselves to form black holes (not all stars, just some of them), can we both agree on that? when a star does become a black hole it's gravitational field is so strong that light can't escape it once it's within the schwarzschild radius (nor can anything else), can we agree on this?

here's a question for you numb nuts, if a star's gravity field isn't strong enough prevent light from escaping before it becomes a black hole and gravity is a function of mass:

Fg - (M1 * M2) / D^2 * G

and as you claim the star's mass doesn't increase, then how exactly does the strength of it's gravitational field not only increase but increase to the point where light can't even escape it.

i'm dying to hear your explanation.

oh, one more little tidbit for you, fusion does not result in a loss of mass but a net gain, that's why if you look up the atomic mass of hydrogen and the atomic mass of helium you find that helium is roughly 4+ times as massive as hydrogen.

ooh, i'm sure i just pissed you off even more, or perhaps what's really pissing you off is that fact that you realize that your degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/24/2008 5:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
You are still an idiot, and not only that you don't seem to know it! The key is in the gravitation equation that you provided but evidently don't understand. Thus I will try to educate the ignorant.

Force of Gravity equation is typically expressed as

Fg = (G*M1*M2)/R^2

Where R is the radius, and M1 and M2 are the two masses involved.
Fg is a function of both mass and the star's radius.

So as Mass gets larger Fg gets larger true, however that is not the only factor. As you can see the star's radius is in the divisor of the equation and is squared, so as it gets smaller it has a much much LARGER impact on Fg. (Duh!)
The reason why a blackhole's gravity is so powerful, is due to the fact that an older star's fusion reaction can no longer overpower the star's gravity and the star's volume gets smaller and smaller. Thus, the star gets denser and denser, while at the same time the fusion reaction is still caausing mass loss.(If you don't know why look it up.) Eventually as R gets smaller the Fg (R2 is the dominant factor here.) gets so great that light cannot escape.

And as far as the proton-proton fusion reaction of stars, it takes three hydrogen atoms to form one helium3 atom, which is a net loss genius.
In detail
Hydrogen's atomic weight is 1.0079, and 4 hydrogen atoms atomic weight is 4.0316
The atomic weight of helium4 is 4.00260 which is a little less than 4 hydrogen atoms, this mass difference is converted to energy and some subatomic particles. End of story.

So deadrat stop trying to understand adult subjects until you grow up.

I am done with you.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














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