RIP: Man-Made Global Warming Fears 1988-2008

Vogelzang · Heavy Crude Joined: Jul 03, 2008 Posts: 110

RIP: Man-Made Global Warming Fears 1988-2008 – Stick a Fork In It

Science Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Reverses Stance, Admits 'Considerable Presence' of Skeptics

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
"Considerable presence" of skeptics

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."

----------------------------------------

13 Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ - 14th of July, 2008

Excerpt: Dear Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, The UN Climate Change Panel must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices

- Policies based on false science must be ended - We, an independent group of experts in various aspects of science and the environment, ask you to redress the lack of scientific integrity of the UN’s Climate Change Panel (IPCC) and to stop them making reactionary and futile ‘Climate Change’ recommendations that hold back the developing world. […] For your illumination we refer you to: (i) The chart in our letter of 14 April (page 3) which shows, using official data, that for the last decade World Temperatures have been falling whilst CO2 keeps rising, and (ii) A geological (Greenland ice core) chart of polar climate covering the last 10,000 years (Ref B) which shows that while CO2 levels have been rising, temperatures have been falling since the Bronze Age around 4,000 years ago (see page 2). The assertion that the recent rapid rise of CO2 is unique and dangerous is both deceptive and irrelevant because CO2 does not drive the world's climate. Claims that such rapid rises have not happened before are not supported by ice-core or other geological records (ref C). […] Either the IPCC is simply failing to notice these gross discrepancies or it is consciously evading or covering-up observations that challenge its theories. Yours sincerely, Piers Corbyn - Astrophysicist & forecaster, WeatherAction, UK - Vincent Gray IPCC Expert Reviewer, Climate Consultant, NZ - Richard Courtney IPCC Exp. Rev., Energy & Envir. Consultant, UK Hans Labohm IPCC Expert Reviewer, Economist & Author, Holland Will Alexander Prof. Em. Dept. Civil & Biosystems, South Africa - Don Parkes Prof. Human Ecology (Ret.) Australia & Japan - Joseph D’Aleo Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow AMS, USA - Svend Hendriksen Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland - Alan Siddons Climate Researcher, USA - Bob Ashworth Chem. Eng. (Energy & Environment), USA - Norm Kalmanovitch Geophysicist, Canada, - Jim Peden Atmospheric Physicist (Ret.), USA - Hans Schreuder Analytical Chemist (Ret.), UK

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

-------------------------------------------------

Lots more here: http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/MarcMoranoEmail7-17-08.htm

Lore

Pure bunk!... as usual.

From the front page of The American Physical Society website.

Ludi · Last edited by Ludi on Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Maybe they should update their website or something, if they've changed their minds....

I'm writing them to ask if it is true they have changed their position.
_________________
"...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy

Zardoz

CelticCross · Coal Joined: Apr 21, 2007 Posts: 6

http://www.aps.org/

APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.American Physical Society

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
Email | Print

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

mos6507

americandream

Vogel's bread, I'ld suggest you go about your business deforesting and such like. Clearly, our activities, as far as you are concerned ar inconsequential. Go pursue your activities unabated. And take up the art of Russian roulette whilst you are at it.
_________________
Bugger me, I hear oil's runnin out mate!

erl · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 795

...but, but, but...

Al Gore says, "the debate is over."

Heineken

JoeW

fuel oil at $4.50 a gallon... bring on the global warming, please! i think it insane that anyone here concerns themselves with global warming. it is not likely a problem we can solve. you really think the whole world is going to agree on doing something about it?

i wish all these scientists were spending their time trying to find a cheaper way to keep us all from freezing to death this winter. now that would be useful. maybe they could find a way to harness all the hot air we're getting from U. S. politicians these days...that would be more likely than solving the global warming problem.

kjmclark · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 326

Even Vogelzang's link says he's full of it. Check out the disclaimer at the bottom of the DailyTech article:

ttowntom · Coal Joined: Mar 01, 2008 Posts: 13

Pure bunk? No of course not. An APS editor made the statement that a "considerable presence" of skeptics exist (its still up on their site in fact) and a unit of the APS opened a debate on the subject, publishing two competing papers from each side. As a matter of fact, they're planning on publishing more in their next newsletter.

So this story hits the presses, the APS begins to feel the heat, and they disavow the statements of their editor. That sort of damage control doesn't make the story bunk at all, as I'm quite sure you actually realize.

Canuk

Releasing stored carbon dioxide does not affect the Climate.

The last time that the carbon dioxide stored in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere was before mammals evolved.

Boy I think that its a worthwhile risk that we let it out again - and while were at it lets cut down every possible plant that could store it again.

What could possibly Happen.....

rockdoc123 · Light Sweet Crude Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 1715

Gents
it's great to say what press release is "bunk" and which is not. Moncton's paper (albeit non peer reviewed) is there for you to argue. Whether or not the reporter who saw this intepreted one way or another is hardly worth worrying about.
Moncton isn't a tosser by any stretch of imagination (Maggie thoght he was OK, God bless her soul)...if you read the paper, you have the opportunity to argue with his maths. Otherwise please STFU.
All this says to me is something I've been saying in numerous threads in this forum and others for the past few years....it is not settled yet...as scientists we don't really understand the system yet but somehow the whole thing got sent to the modelers who are quite happy to ignore the lack of understanding with regards to the imputs. Get a model that somehow matches...wohoo...publish, lets get some of that few billion in research bucks!
If you folks aren't the least concerned about the fact the last decade of "average climate" completely disagrees with the predictions made based on models and if your completely happy to believe the diatribe that "trust us, whether it matches now or not in the next 50 years it will" I do have a bridge to sell you.
Buyer beware.

jbrovont · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jun 16, 2006 Posts: 701

True, someone wrote the paper, the gist of which is "there is debate." That's fairly obvious, or at least it should be. However,

[quote]
RIP: Man-Made Global Warming Fears 1988-2008 – Stick a Fork In It

Science Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Reverses Stance, Admits 'Considerable Presence' of Skeptics
[quote]

is sensationalism at best, and at worst an attempt to make the reader jump to an inductive conclusion that "scientists agree that climate change is not from human activity." Sorry bud. I'll give you that yes, there is debate. So far however, the best correlation I've seen, is that we started industrializing, and shortly thereafter the temperature of the Earth began to rise anomalously breaking several thousand years of trend.

That's not a theory, it's an observed correlation. The theory you're calling into debate is "human activity has caused this anomalous climate change." That the two events chronologically coincide is a good indicator there's a connection, but does not causality make.

There's no way to settle this debate unless we have a 100% accurate model of the Earth's climate - which we don't and probably never will. The best we can do is compare theories as to why climate change is occuring, select the most plausable, perhapse the least destructive, and act accordingly.

Using information like this to render false credence to your current paradigm is disingenuous. Suppose someone who isn't well informed reads your post and thinks "oh they reversed their thinking and now scientists think global warming isn't man made?" You'll have made a liar out of everyone involved. You should be ashamed.