ManBearPig
Posted on 07/18/2008 12:26:32 PM PDT by RogerFGay
A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in a major, peer-reviewed journal; Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (page 6) demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –
“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:
“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”
Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
- The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
- CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
- Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
- The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
- The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
- “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
- Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
- The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
- It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
- Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
- In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
So the alarmists padded the model? Shocking.
Pay no attention to the man behind the green curtain.
Hmph - They can't predict whether I need to take an umbrella to tonight's ballgame or not.
No worries he will be taken away for reprogramming soon. /sarc
This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.
WTF?
BUMP
Ping
You’re a bit disingenuous Mr. Gay. Somehow you left off the bright red disclaimer at the beginning of the article:
This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.
Also interesting that the brief article immediately preceding this one is a peer reviewed bit of typical global-warming, hand-wringing clap trap.
Algore is the PT Barnum of the 21st century.
So there was no global warming hype?
They have too much at stake in keeping AGW alive.
Censorship of all ant-AGW discussion in Wikipedia, a total media suppression/blackout on negative info about AGW. Pravda would be so proud of what they are doing.
Thx for the pointer. Valuable article.
“So the alarmists padded the model? Shocking.” ~ Slapshot68
Allow Kerry Emanuel of MIT to explain how the deception began:
“.. “The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. .. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.
“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”
“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...”
“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
*
From what I can determine, the Rev. Houghton is one of the scientists (mentioned by Kerry Emanuel above) who was involved in _ deliberately _ misleading people. He admits it:
The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC said:
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
He then proceeds to do just that:
” .. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.” ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html
*
James Hansen of NASA is another:
Hansen has long employed stagecraft http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ=
for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room. Why was it so warm? As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.” June 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=
*
More first-hand admissions:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
*
[Therefore] “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” ~ Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Expert leaves IPCC 17 January, 2005, Resignation letter
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
*
“The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)
*
Personally, I think that these men (along with others like Al Gore), bear a large responsibility for the suffering and nightmares they have inflicted on adults and children around the world.
Here is merely the latest fallout, among the many examples I’ve read about, from such reckless behavior:
Climate Change Delusion Driving Boy to Kill Himself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html
Hopefully more mature, cooler heads will prevail so that this madness may end.
Thanks for this article.
Bump for later.
Does this mean the executive board voted to disagree with the conclusions in June, or that they're anticipating the meeting of the council in November will disagree, or it has previously stated a contrary opinion that does not agree with this article?
A startling statement you found, and shocking that they'd include such a piece. The editor made a sweeping statement that can not be in any way supported by actual events. Since the Council won't even meet for 4 more months, how can they disagree with a paper that was recently submitted?
IMMATERIAL. See my post #14.
WTF indeed! What are you talking about?
If this article is not peer-reviewed, it is completely worthless for the purposes of rebutting AGW fanatics.
Peer-review is the first thing they look for. Scientific "consensus," don't you know?
Get this article peer-reviewed, and then you'll have something.
Until then, you've got squat.
This entire arugment of global warming is built on numbers...and the Viscount is correct. If he can deny them their numbers....then they can’t quote various reports. They will find themselves backed into argument without foundation. My guess is that he’s about to find US legal means to challenge any use of the formulas used now....in any US-government product or NASA document. If this happens...alot of things start to slide fast.
Ummm, no, it doesn't.
The disclaimer that said the article was not peer reviewed is straight off the header of the article in Physics and Society. They say that the article was not peer reviewed and they disagree with it. Click on the link and see for yourself...
Mind you, peer review in this area means didly, since way too many pseudo-scientists are in the (money) tank for AGW.
I agree 100%. My point was that calling this a peer-reviewed article when the article actually has a disclaimer on it saying it was not peer-reviewed is dishonest and doesn't help illuminate the truth.
But they are not smart enough to articulate why. They just know it can't be true based on their global warming religious beliefs.
Holy Crap! That wasn’t there when I checked the article before submitting mine for publication. I’ve sent email to see what’s going on.
Holy Crap! That wasn’t there when I checked the article before submitting mine for publication. I’ve sent email to see what’s going on.
ManBearPig
That explains it.
Algore must have gotten on his hotline.
Holy crap indeed. I’d be interested to hear their response.
Gotcha! Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Climate Change®!
Climate Change®!
Climate Change®!
Thanks to internet publishing, I was able to get edits to the original article, removing the term “peer-reviewed”. I read through the introductory comments in the journal which stated that the global warming debate articles were invited. Such papers do not need to be reviewed before publication. I’ve also, at least at this point removed the link to the journal itself - because there does seem to be something fishy going on and I don’t know what the hell it is at this point. All I can say is - stay tuned. If I get responses from both the author of the press release and the person at the journal who added the disclaimer, maybe I’ll have a new story to tell.
And thanks for catching that and telling me about it. This is the first time I got caught by something like that. It’s weird. Now I’m starting to imagine people hearing about this amazing disproof only to be told it’s not true - thus shutting down the debate once again - a la Al Gore. I hope I haven’t become a pawn in such a game - well, that might be a little paranoid to think of it that way - as if someone planned it. But it could turn out that way. Always bad to get the story wrong.
Fantastic points in this paper, except for this one. How can this be proven?
The way to fight bad information is with good information. All of the good info is undone if opponents can point to one lie.
Thanks for the info. Sorry to imply that you did that on purpose. I need to stop jumping to conclusions...
I’m pretty confident that I’m performing a public service by bringing news from “the deniers.” But it can be a tough gig. There’s a whole lot-a shit goin’ on.
That is my take on it. If they could find errors in the paper or disprove the papers conclusions, it would not have been published. So they published it with the disclaimer, because they do not personally agree with or welcome the conclusions.
BUMP!
The article written by Hafemeister and Schwartz "A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change", features several errors of logical. Furthermore, the general line of reasoning of the paper follows the method of pseudo-science rather than traditional science.
For a definition of pseudo-science, I refer to Karl Popper and his theory of demarcation[1]. Essentially, Popper rejects conclusions arrived at by induction. He argues that it is easy to find evidence that supports virtually any theory and he calls that pesudo-science. H&S have clearly taken this path by only presenting supporting evidence for their hypothesis while making no attempts to test falsifiability. For example, if their hypothesis is true, there are necessary (non tautological) consequence that we should observe. The authors don't address this.
The article's conclusion highlights many errors in logic and method.
1. H&S argue that Earth is getting warmer.
Atmospheric models predict that additional greenhouse gases will raise Earth's temperature.
Therefore the additional greenhouse gases produced by man must be the cause.
This reasoning is a common logical error, known as a converse error:
if p then q. q, therefore p. This is an invalid conclusion.
2. H&S claim that, "To argue otherwise [against the GHG theory,] one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming." This is an invalid assertion. For example, we can know that X causes Y without understanding the mechanism by which X acts on Y. In the case of climate, we know that natural processes have changed global temperatures many times without the presence on Man. Therefore, whether we understand the mechanism of these changes or not, we know that it is within the power of Nature to cause them. Therefore, if one wishes to argue that current temperature changes are not caused by Nature but are instead the result of Human activity, the burden of proof rests on the arguer. The arguer must show that (a) Earth's temperature is getting warmer. (b) The warming is beyond the limits of natural variability. (c) The warming can be explained by human activity. (d) The 'Human' explanation is consistent with observations.
Neither a, b, c nor d have been shown to be true. (a) The temperature has been *decreasing* for the past ten years. (b) Recently observed changes in temperature are within the range of previously observed natural variations. (c) The greenhouse gas explanation fails for at least one obvious reason: If warming were due to to GHG, we would observe hot spots in the tropical troposphere. Since we don't observe this necessary signature, either the model is incorrect or GHG warming is not significant. (d) The "Human" explanation is inconsistent with historical observations of falling temperatures coincident with high and increasing CO2 levels.
3. The authors claim that "Sunspot and temperature correlation do not prove causality." However, if A and B are correlated, but B cannot cause A, then either A is the cause of B or some other C is the cause of both A and B. In the present case, unless the authors can suggest some mechanism "C" (not initiated in the sun) but is capable of simultaneously affecting the sun's activity and the surface temperature on the Earth, we must conclude that the sunspot/Earth temperature correlation implies cause and effect.
One other possibility is that the correlation is simply a coincidence. But to argue that, and then to also argue that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature change is to argue that uncorrelated events are stronger indicators of cause and effect than correlated events. This is because CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated, as we've seen during the last hundred years, while CO2 has risen steadily, we have observed two significant periods of decreasing temperatures (1940-1970, 1998-2008.)
The arguments, as presented in the H&S paper literally turn the accepted scientific methods on its head and their conclusions are entirely unsupported.
Please note: If you haven’t downloaded the Science and Society issue, the Hafemeister and Schwartz article I criticized above is an *accompanying* article which claims that human activity is the cause of global warming.
Very thoughtful letter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
