Posted on 07/17/2008 2:03:05 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Here's something unlikely to make the cover of Time. From the Science & Public Policy Institute:
WASHINGTON (7-15-08) — Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
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.
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] 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.
The paper reveals the following:
• 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.
Someone had better get this news to Al Gore, since he won't be seeing it on TV. I'm sure he'll want to apologize for causing a lot of senseless hysteria over nothing.
Every graph I've seen shows that increased temperature precedes increased CO2, not the reverse. That's why I think that AGW is a fraud and a scam.
More accurately, statistics is the application of probability theory, which is a subset of a branch of mathematics called analysis.
Statistics is mathematics at work.
I've read that the atmosphere of Mars is such that the temperature varies greatly just a few feet off the surface. Your feet might be in 70 degree warmth, but your head will be at 30. Have you heard this also?
Gore has been all over TV today spewing his anti oil filth!!
I drove an extra 20 miles today for the pleasure of ticking Gore off and aiding my carbon footprint.
“Since 1998 was so much hotter than usual, with the strong El Niño, comparisons to it are cherry-picking.”
After 2000, the global temperature curve flattened out at a level significantly lower than the freak year 1998. The global-warming thesis is that as CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, so too should global temperatures. Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise to levels not seen since the distant geological past, temperatures have not been following suit.
No, but there will come a time, not too far off, when the subject will have been exhausted of it's financial and political potential. It then will simply disappear from the media with no further comment. No more news flashes, no more Algore absurdities, no more alarmist rhetoric from money-gulping global conferences. It will merely slip down the memory hole while the idiots and hysterics go off in pursuit of some new exciting and ominous natural catastrophe-in-the-making.
The IPCC members will divvy up the spoils of their fat government budgets and retire to beaches in the tropical zones. Over- paid tenured college professors will find other sources of grant money and go back to chasing co-eds..
“Every graph I’ve seen shows that increased temperature precedes increased CO2, not the reverse. That’s why I think that AGW is a fraud and a scam.”
This is true as well. It was my point #2. My first point being that his temperature line is not continued to present day because it would have shown a gross flattening not corresponding to the CO2 line.
If it did correspond all the way to present day, the weather channel would be reporting temperatures for our northern cities between 210 and 240 degrees Fahrenheit this time of year. This would be for cities that he identified such as Detroit in his example. Like I said, if we assign a number between 70 and 80 to represent the unit of measurement he called “a pleasant day” which I am assuming is between 70-80 degrees in places like Detroit in the summer.
He CONVENIENTLY left out the present day temperature line because the weather channel is not reporting temps like this.
-ccm
Yes...
yup, has to do with the much thinner atmosphere = no significant heat trasfer via convection.
Just because there is no problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t spend billions solving it. < /sarc>
“We are adding carbon.”
Yes, thats true, but I can also say that when I strike a match, I am increasing global temperature. If I take a grain of sand from Tennessee and drop it on the South Carolina beach, I am increasing the land mass of the east coast, and when I pee in the ocean, I am increasing the sea level ;)
Since absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, Figure 7 confirms what the recent temperature record implies: the causative link between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature cannot be as strong as the IPCC has suggested. The implications for climate sensitivity are self-evident. Figure 7 indicates that in the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration was ~25 times that which prevailed in the IPCC’s reference year of 1750, the temperature was some 8.5 °C higher than it was in 1750. Yet the IPCC’s current central estimate is that a mere doubling of CO2 concentration compared with 1750 would increase temperature by almost 40% of the increase that is thought to have arisen in geological times from a 20-fold increase in CO2 concentration (IPCC, 2007).
lol now why would they do that?
First of all, that's not true.
The APS has reaffirmed their stance, and have posted on their website:
APS Climate Change StatementAt least Daily Tech has added a fine-print correction at the bottom of their column and changed their headline.
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.
Read: APS Climate Change Statement
And secondly, even in the newsletter position, the APS's view contradicts the one that you put forth (what your son reported). Read the article--the APS is agreeing that there has been global warming. The disagreement is just whether the observed warming has been caused by man.
Kinda scary that a national lab dealing with national security has broken or low-sensititivy instruments!
Yeah, I note that men-in-black have been going back and changing all the old IPGW reports to read IPCC. ;-)
I tend to agree with Lord Monckton, that the sensitivity is where there's a problem. Likely, CO2 does have a minor effect, but not to the extent we are led to believe.
Not true. Perhaps I stated it awkwardly, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion.
I alwao have a friend with a 30 year career as a weather forecaster (now a state legislator) who reports the same thing.
But, apparently you have drunk Al Gore's GW Koolaid, so it is senseless to discuss this further with you.
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.