Forum On Physics And Society: No Consensus On Global Warming

Forum on Physics and Society (FPS), a subdivision of the American Physical Society (APS) recently reversed its stance on human-induced global warming,

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 global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

This changed stance coincides with a paper by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, which posits,

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation

of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

  1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
  2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
  3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

It should not be long James Hansen call for the prosecution of the author for “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

yojoe out

16 Responses

  1. But, Yojo, the Viscount Monckton is not part of the scientific community, he’s certainly not a physicist, and the shorter version of his whole (non-peer reviewed) paper is “if I divide one parameter in one equation by 300%, well, climate sensitivity disappears”. With the Monckton equation, the whole athmosphere becomes irrelevant.

    His opinion doesn’t represent in any way the opinion of real physicists, and doesn’t doesn’t have any significance about the “scientific consensus’, because, once again, he’s not a climatologist or even a scientist.

    And his article is strewn with amateurish math errors, his biggest scientific error being the flimsiest rationale given for the chosen value of his parameter.

  2. _Arthur – How does one become a member of the “scientific community”? And, why would that matter?

  3. Dread, usually a Ph.D in sciences, and a record of publications in the appropriate domain (climatology), are considered.

    Remember, this paper has been offered as profe that there is “no consensus IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY”.

    The blogs Deltoid and Dua Quartuncia found gross errors in the viscount numerology. Real Climate even found more.

    No matter how poor the paper is, the GW denialists are using it to claim that there is a “controversy”, that’s all that’s matter to them.

  4. _Arthur – Were the errors similar to the errors found in the NASA GISS data?

    The larger point is that science does not rely on consensus. And, there should never be a silencing of opinions on a scientific topic. Would adherents to Newtonian physics sought to silence the new theory of general relativity? No. But, climate change, or is it still global warming, is somehow different.

  5. But science does rely on consensus. You win acceptance by presenting papers supported by solid data.

    Nobody is “silenced”. The viscount has presented similar botched numerology in the Sunday Telegraph. His opinion has all the scientific weight of the average taxi driver.

    Adherents to Newtonian physics did object loudly to Einstein’s far-fetched theories. Einstein gained acceptance by presenting peer-reviewed papers backed by solid math. By the way, Einstein was a physicist. The Viscount is a journalist.

  6. James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics
    Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics
    Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
    Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
    Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

    What’s this! The scientists crying shrilly that AGW is real and we must pay to stop it do not have degrees in climatology? Or even climate related sciences? Surely not?

  7. Hi. I repeatedly be familiar with this forum. This is the oldest period unequivocal to ask a ridiculous.
    How multitudinous in this forum are references progressive behind, knavish users?
    Can I depute all the communication that there is?

  8. Hello
    I’ve just registered to say your site is very useful and nicely done!
    Thank you very much for your work.


    Sorry for offtopic.

  9. I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…

  10. Hi All,

    I wanted to share with you a great site I’ve found for Wallpapers etc. is I’ve found everything on my list…

    let me know what you think!, Hope this helps 😉

    I’m Out

  11. There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

  12. Where reasonable download or purchase the films in be paid prettier the distinction and divers format ?

  13. Great study… Did you do all of it on your personal? This must’ve taken lots of time. Excellent Article.

  14. Man .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionallyI’m happy to search out numerous useful information here within the put up, we want work out extra techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: