Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | July 18, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

[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.

[pepsionice]

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.

[green iguana]

The posted article summarizes information from a peer-reviewed article. There's even a link in it to the peer-reviewed scientific article. The article states the name of the peer-reviewed journal that the article appears in.

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.

[green iguana]

IMMATERIAL

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.

[Always Right]

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.

But they are not smart enough to articulate why. They just know it can't be true based on their global warming religious beliefs.

[RogerFGay]

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.

[RogerFGay]

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.

[txroadkill]

This is all well and good, but it does nothing to address the REAL threat to all mankind.....

 

ManBearPig

 

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Holy Crap! That wasn’t there when I checked...

That explains it.

Algore must have gotten on his hotline.

[green iguana]

Holy crap indeed. I’d be interested to hear their response.

[Matchett-PI]

Gotcha! Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

[RogerFGay]

Algore must have gotten on his hotline.

Well something happened. My article is based on a press release from the Science & Public Policy Institute. I'm thinkin' maybe the APS thought the press release might be a bit strong and decided to post a disclaimer in direct contradiction to the press release. Very unsporting of them to over-compensate, saying they and the rest of the whole world disagrees. I wrote to APS as well - I think it was a weenie trick to play.

[mikey_hates_everything]

That's why it's not called Global Warming anymore. It's...

Climate Change®!

Climate Change®!

Climate Change®!

[RogerFGay]

The Council of the American Physics Society

OK, it could very well be political - Algore hotline.

The main governing body of the American Physical Society is the Council. The Council, which meets twice a year, sets policy and has the ultimate responsibility for the actions of the Society. It is composed of representatives from Divisions and Forums as well as eight General Councillors, the Chair of the Nominating Committee, the Chair of the Panel on Public Affairs, an International Councillor and two representatives from geographical Sections. Additionally, the Presidential line and the Operating Officers are members of the Council. Advisors to the Council include representatives from the American Institute for Physics, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the Mexican Physical Society, and the Canadian Association of Physicists.

[RogerFGay]

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.

[RogerFGay]

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.

[wbill]

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

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.

[RogerFGay]

What I know is that the conclusions are consistent with the scientific evidence that I've seen - the only type of conclusions that are actually supported by scientific evidence; rather than Al Gore's propaganda ramblings and the models of the UN's political committee.

I'm sure I'm not just jumping on a bandwagon re: the IPCC. I have a background in scientific modeling. I know what that is. I've done it myself, and reviewed political reform directed models in the past. It is well within my comprehension that computer models are created by people programming their own ideas into them, are laced with fudge when the problem is too complex, and are obviously wrong if they don't fit the facts. It breaks my heart a little - because every time I point out what a poor thing computer models are (as done by others, especially when political reform driven) - it's like I'm devaluing part of my own resume - I'm a professional scientific modeler - and now that's a bad thing. (It wasn't when I did it.)

But I digress. All the IPCC ever had was the computer models which were designed to give the answers that they gave, and the answers have never matched reality. The debate has been over for a while as far as I'm concerned - but there's too much money in the ongoing debate for many scientists to admit it's over. Al Gore is a liar. The IPCC is a political organization producing junk science.

Global Warming: Has Anyone Noticed that it’s Over?

[RogerFGay]

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

I really did digress. I don't know how they know what the sun was doing 11,400 years ago. I have some contacts that I can ask. Interesting question.

[RogerFGay]

The article itself cites two papers re: information on solar activity over the past 11,400 years. I'm sure this doesn't answer your question other than that he got the information from academic sources. I'll let you know if I get more insight from one of my contacts. But suffice it to say that it appears that he didn't just make it up - so I seriously doubt if he'll ever be called a liar on account of the statement.

HATHAWAY, David H., and Wilson, Robert M. 2004. What the Sunspot Record Tells us about Space Climate. Solar Physics 224: 5-19.

SOLANKI, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J. 2005. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature 436: 174 (14 July 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436174b.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !