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"
I've linked the webpage for the Physics and Society newsletter. There are two articles in the newsletter. One is the article by Monckton which is mentioned in SIS' link. The other article by Hafemeister and Schwartz takes a different approach. As always, I encourage you to open your minds and read the actual articles instead of getting your news from, well, the news. I haven't read the two articles yet, but am doing so as soon as I hit post.
Edit: Having read both articles, Monckton makes a compelling case that the IPCC hasn't taken everything into it should into consideration, but doesn't really make a compelling case that human-induced global warming isn't happening either. As for the Hafemeister and Schwartz article, they do a good job of running through some of the basic math of climate science, but don't do a very good job of explaining why the IPCC report is correct either. In short, there's a reason neither of these articles are in a widely distributed journal, and its because neither one of them is very good.
This post was edited on 7/17 12:04 PM by student4ever
Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
Posted on 7/17 11:57 AM | IP: Logged
The argument that most intrigued me was the GHG temperature signature profile.
If the accepted mechanism for GHG global warming produces a recognizeable effect, and said effect is absent in the data, for me that seems like a reasonable argument against GHG warming at present that I'd like to see answered.
Then again, most of that was over my head for a quick read. It piqued this layman's interests, but that's all.
The pro-warming paper, however, gets two strikes in my book by appealing to the accepted fact of anthropogenic warming and by claiming its position was the one that had to be unhorsed, instead of working to prove its own theory. The maths are nice and easier for me to follow, but I didn't see much in the way of X CO2 caused Y Temperature change in the historical record, and I'm wary of their assigning "pre-industrial" CO2 levels at a fixed, single-year point in time. For something as big as the climate, the historical weakly-correlated Temperature/CO2 chart in the Anti-paper was much more interesting to me than a 1-year reference period.
Posted on 7/17 12:16 PM | IP: Logged
Below, is the plot most often used to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature. It doesn't cover 600+ million years, but does cover the last 400,000 years. The temperature reconstruction Monckton uses is from Chris Scotese's website and is intended only to distinguish between hothouse and icehouse conditions (hence the sharp swings). The CO2 reconstruction Monckton uses comes from a GCM paper by Berner in which through modelling, he shows that plants have an effect on climate (its far more complicated than that, but that's the basic gist), and one of the concluding sentences is "Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification." In other words, Monckton has combined two datasets that aren't meant to be taken as gospel, much less put together and taken as gospel. EDIT: I should also mention that Berner's modelled CO2 values are based on several factors, one of which is a global temperature which he inputs at different times, which don't particularly agree with Scotese's reconstruction
This post was edited on 7/17 1:12 PM by student4ever
Posted on 7/17 1:00 PM | IP: Logged
Historical records have been consistently altered with older temperature measures revised downward and recent ones revised upwards.
GISS (the surface station data for the US) doesn't agree with the satellite data. This site http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ (great site for info on the subject) has been visiting sites used to collect the temperature data. Using the siting requirements required to ensure the data isn't corrupted (they shouldn't be close to buildings, air conditioners, concrete, highways etc...) nearly all violate the requirements. This means temps should be adjusted downward according to the mandatory standards, yet they are consistently adjusted upwards by NASA. For instance, NASA now says June was one of the hottest Junes on record, while the satellite data says it was among the coldest in several decades.
There's lots more. Here's an article from a former true believer pointing out some of the problems with AGW. What is becoming apparent is that the claims of consensus and certainty are a fabrication.
This isn't nearly as widely accepted as the IPCC data, but this is the view I have a tendency to embrace. Below is a graph that shows how global temperature has changed since 1900 (the hot/cold variations are due to the pacific decadal oscillation), and then extends the same pattern from present until 2100. Instead of the 6 degrees forecast by the IPCC by 2100, this puts human induced warming at 1 degree by 2100...not nearly as drastic as some scientists and more importantly, politicians, would have everyone believe, but still occurring nonetheless.
Posted on 7/17 1:27 PM | IP: Logged
I hope and expect to see more significant cooling than what that graph shows and the next 10 years will be very interesting as this plays out. Solar Cycle 23 refuses to leave and SC 24 can't seem to get revved up. I'm intrigued by the theories that link the solar cycles to heating and cooling.
I agree there has been some amount of warming. It is also fairly certain that some portion of this warming is due to CO2 concentrations. What I'm waiting for is some proof through observation that human created increases in CO2 concentrations are a major cause of warming. Or even that CO2 increases cause the increase in water vapor necessary to cause significant warming. Finally, when it was even warmer than now in the past humans did quite well. When there was more C02 in the past, there was no runaway warming or we wouldn't be here. The conclusions and policies being suggested by the IPCC and politicians seem ideological more than scientific.
Posted on 7/17 1:51 PM | IP: Logged
I think we are in a "natural" warming cycle for the most part but maybe a little tick from C02 is making the warm up a little warmer and maybe a litte faster. Basically its inconclusive, who would have thought that.... scientists jump the gun on a theory and the world wide media and tree huggers buy it...
Posted on 7/17 2:59 PM | IP: Logged
Anyone here ever read the Michael Crichton book State of Fear? It poses a scenario where global warming is more or less a hoax perpetuated by eco-terrorists to get legislation passed. Granted, it's a work of fiction and should ultimately be treated as such, but the story itself and all the research Crichton put into writing it both promote some intriguing debate that, in his opinion (and mine too) is sorely missing today.
In one of the appendices he also writes a very chilling comparison of global warming to the eugenics movement.