American physicists warned not to debate global warming

The Register ^ | 21 July 2008 | Andrew Orlowski

[BufordP]

Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?

It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.

"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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion," he wrote (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm).

American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm) the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm) by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that:

"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality."

But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.

The following 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.

Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.

"The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes (http://numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm) Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate."

Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:

"If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?"

---

Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion.

(Whether it's science is not in question - whether it's "good science" or "bad science" is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) by NASA's Gavin Schmidt on the believers' blog, RealClimate.org.)

But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's paper.

One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [our emphasis]

Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:

"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."

In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting"), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.

The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494), the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.

[GodGunsGuts]

...

[TigersEye]

You have an excellent handle on it IMO. I don’t know what to do about it other than help others see it as clearly though. I don’t think quiet acceptance is necessary but quietly leading others into developing the same kind of critical thinking skills you have is very powerful. It’s a slow process but it builds momentum.

[Robert A Cook PE]

There IS a specific and credible and predictable alternate “view” (That is, the effect of the sun's relative activity controlling BOTH the sun's magnetic fields AND the sun's brilliance. As it gets brighter (which has gone up slightly between 1970 and 1998-2005) there is more energy released and more absorbed on the earth.

More important, the sun's magnetic field increased between those dates, its shielding of cosmic rays increased at the earth's orbit, and fewer cosmic rays interacted in the atmosphere. Thus, there are many fewer cloud nuclei and much less cloud cover -> more radiation received on earth and hotter temperatures. The past two years, there has been almost no sunspots, less magnetic field by many percentage points, and much much less magnetic shielding. More cosmic ray interactions -> more cloud nuclei -> more clouds -> much lower temperatures.

Solar cycle 23 is not yet ended but has been near zero for months. Solar cycle 24 is now 18 months late, and solar cycle 25 is predicted to be very low as well based on low level sun circulation currents.

Notably, we still see NO new cycle 24 sunspots even now = the low temperatures will continue to drop for about another 2-3 years, then we will see a slight increase at the peak of cycle 24 (whenever THAT occurs!) and then a further drop until cycle 25 peaks, then - and only then - will we (possibly!) see a turn warmer.

Then again, we may face a century of very cold temperatures “whether” or not we double, triple, or quadruple the 0.03 percent CO2 from today's levels.

[TigersEye]

Absolutely! That is a more credible and better researched theory as to what drives changes in climate IMO. But the challenge put forth to provide an alternative theory in order to disprove the greenhouse gas theory is bogus. A scientifically driven theory either stands or falls on it's own merits.

If you were investigating a house fire and wanted to specifically prove that gasoline wasn't used as an accelerant you wouldn't need to prove that something else was. In fact that wouldn't prove that gasoline wasn't present. You don't have to prove the ignition source either. You just have to show that there is no evidence that gasoline was present using a positive method of analysis. It doesn't matter if an accelerant was used or not. It doesn't matter if the fire was set intentionally or not. There is only one thing that needs to be proven and direct evidence is the key.

According to the premises of greenhouse theory itself there is direct evidence that the greenhouse effect is not warming the planet. As long as that evidence remains as it is the seas could be throwing boiled lobsters onto the beaches and the greenhouse effect, as presently theorized and defined, couldn't have anything to do with it.

[reformedliberal]

Thanx. I was actually educated pre-1968, which, in my opinion, was the last year a true education was available in the USA. The story of my life, since, has been one of speaking out, being sanctioned or threatened with sanctions and, much later after each individual event, having others who were present tell me I was correct. No one, however, who eventually saw things my way, did a thing about the various precipitating situations.

I am math impaired, but I do fine with concepts. However, I have watched in disbelief as brilliant minds I knew personally were subverted by the leftist inculcation. In one case, I watched my physician brother absorb his childen’s elementary school inculcation, by proxy, and become a true believer, himself.

So, I have no leverage, myself, with which to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Even the skeptical scientists, one of whom I worked for about 10 years ago, was reluctant to go head-to-head with the irrationalists, because, as he said:”I may find myself in need of their support at some future time.”

Personally, I have chosen The Church of the Low Profile and just try to live my life without drawing a lot of negative attention. I have enough of a past reputation among those who know me that I am easily dismissed, as in:”Well, she is cynical.” (Cynical, in case you are unaware, is Newspeak for skeptical and is a very negative term used in this context.)

I do not think anything can be done until and unless scientists who are truly skeptical stand and be counted. They take great career risks in doing so, so I doubt it will happen. They must publish, or lose career momentum, not to mention credibility. It is expensive to found a journal and takes a long time to build its reputation to the point where there would be credible alternatives.

Over the decades, I have watched as educated people actually seem to have lost the ability to even recognize actual critical thinking skills. The moment something conflicts with the powerful inculcations of their education, they shut down.
Even if they respect the speaker for real accomplishments, it is as though they cannot allow themselves to even listen to refutations, let alone consider them. The conflict with their self image as a *good* person is immense. They will agree, point-by-point, but physically recoil from the conclusions.
I do not know how one leads anyone under these conditions.

[TigersEye]

It sounds like you're in the trenches or closer to them than I am. There aren't too many people around me to influence one way or the other. I know how you feel though. My sister isn't very political but she has absorbed the victimhood mindset. So when she does approach something political she usually comes down on the liberal side. An uncle was a chemistry major and worked as a chemical engineer his whole career but he believes in anthropogenic global warming. His wife was an NEA grade school teacher and oozes all things liberal. I think he just surrendered his mind to luv. It is frustrating.

I can't claim to have converted anyone and I'm not sure that one person can convert another. I do think a clear thinking person can be a catalyst for someone else when an opening arises in their thinking. All I can suggest is to be true to yourself, stay informed and clear and remain open for that window of opportunity in others. My faith is in the power of truth not in my ability to convey it or other's ability to receive it. Like a diamond truth may be buried under tons of mud but it isn't going to wear away or go anywhere.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Fascists never allow for free debate.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[GOPJ]

But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink. The following 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.

If he sued for defamation, the MSM would have to take notice - - and some people might discover that NOT everyone's standing with Al Gore...

[listenhillary]

Looks like APS stomped on the flaming bag.

Very well stated!

[lepton]

Anyone check the ‘hole’ in the ozone layer? It’s almost gone.

The ozone donut has mostly filled in. Why do I call it a donut? Look closely at those artificial color photographs.

[Axenolith]

The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494), the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.

Yea, but you CAN'T have that option because it wouldn't result in the cornholing of America...

[Still Thinking]

"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done ...."

That struck me as an extremely ignorant statement and biased as well. They haven't had to "prove" AGW works, but any alternatives must be proven to at least be plausible. Kinda like that slut Boxer who apparently gets to decide capriciously who is even allowed to play in the debate (giving Spencer a ration because he was called the "EIB chief meteorologist", as if that renders his testimony questionable, or even worthless).

[Still Thinking]

Yes! VERY funny!

[Matchett-PI]

bttt