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 UNs 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 CO2s effect on temperature in the IPCCs 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 IPCCs 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 IPCCs 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 Moncktons paper reveals that
- The IPCCs 2007 climate summary overstated CO2s 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 IPCCs values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
- The IPCCs 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, Neptunes 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.
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.
It's about time these clowns were held to account.
I read the indicated letter and the accompanying summary of the exchange between the author and reviewer. It turns out that I know the reviewer pretty well. He a theorist, and has a reputation of being VERY attentive to and demanding of details.
The reason I'm saying this is because, if the article got past this reviewer, you can be sure the article was extensively and critically reviewed.
Furthermore, I know the reviewer to have a strong interest in Science and Society and is no stranger to controversial scientific debates. He has hosted and refereed several Sigma XI debates on controversial scientific issues with exceptional fairness and objectivity.
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'
Very interesting. Would you be willing to tell me his name? It would be inappropriate I think, for me to publish it, until such time as he might go public on his own. Scientific peer-review is not supposed to be done under public pressure. But I’d be interested to know anyway - just to bolster my own background knowledge about what’s going on. Send me a private message if you’re willing to tell - and also, how do you know?
bttt
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.