The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”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.”
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
(h/t to about a dozen of you)
*Note: Using the same inclusiveness as the IPCC bureaucrats when citing the number of authors they represent who allegedly support their AGW “consensus”.
Important Update – Christopher Monckton is demanding answers and an apology of the American Physical Society.
John Cross, don’t your ears hurt after all that boxing?
Instead of you setting the biased, and irrelevant questions. Let’s answer these basic, and very relevant questions.
1. Is the planet warming?
2. Is the warming caused by CO2?
3. Is the CO2 mankind produces enough to produce this warming?
4. Is this warming bad?
I want to see your answers then I will respond, and then you can counter and then I will wipe the floor with you.
hey, John Cross, I’m waiting.
personally I think its the oxygen thats of most concern.
note ferinstance there’s TWO of them for every carbon atom in the much reviled CO2.
not a whole lot of burning going on that doesn’t involve oxygen.
“Seriously guys, to continue to pretend that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact makes about as much sense as thinking that it’s perfectly safe to swim in an unchlorinated pool after somebody took a shit.”
And yet it’s safe to swim in a lake. Go figure.
What’s with this unchallenged assumption that fecal matter makes water unsafe to swim in. Lakes are full of the stuff. And they’re safe enough to swim in.
“”””””How’s about this. Fire burns. If you apply it to the pool of gasoline you are standing in (which also burns), you will die.”””””
just gata luv these fools
no, gasoline does not BURN
if you took basic firefighting , you would know that vapours from heated gasoline burns, not the liquid gas
and that distintion is very important if you want to fight a “gas” fire
OK I’m going to bed now, but I want it recognized that my challenge to John Cross to answer my very simple questions has not yet been responded too, and still the challenge remains open.
Of course, John Cross, you may think you can continue to post on this subject without responding. Unfortunately for you, you will have no credibility. You must take the chhallenge or STFU.
Is John Cross going to finally start answering questions?
Is he going to clear his backlog up first?
Hmmm.
Then perhaps, he can point out the unstoppable human-induced global warming in this graph.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
Then perhaps, he can try to explain this away….
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf
It’s interesting how the mandate for the IPCC specifically mentions “human-induced climate change” but specifically leaves out solar and other factors such as PDO. Thus we have a bureaucracy with a skewed, narrow mandate and a vested interest in playing up the least likely factor and trying to suppress the most logical.
Hey
“John Cross”, I posted a response within two minutes of your posting. I think it is reasonable to figure that you have seen my response.
But … you do not respond.
Well, I tell you this: the fact that you have not responded tells me, and the rest of the world, that you do not have a response, to very simple, and quite innocent, questions.
I think you are a shill without credibility. Perhaps you do strange things in the dark. One thing you most certainly do not do is discuss in daylight. Until you engage me in a discussion of my very simple questions, just go away.
And yes, I am being very agressive because I sense that the global arming hysterical thieving sandbaggers are on the run so I attack and pursue.
John Cross, your lack of response speaks volumes.
Cross said:
1) We are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.
No we are not, and you can’t prove it, unless of course you find appropriate apostle for your statement. The CO2 fluctuates over time by natural action of other variables.
2) CO2 will absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation
And? It has been doing it for billions of years.
3) Enhancing the downward long wave radiation will cause an object to warm (or to cool less quickly).
Simply stating a scientific fact, without regard to the religion of AWG.
Although there is no chance in hell that Cross will believe the science, he might have a peak at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html, just to have another perspective on things.
While it does not agree with the dogma it makes a lot of interesting reading.
RW – good for you. As is always the case when these capricious little trolls have their feet held to the flames by demanding that they answer specific questons, they run.
Will John learn anything from his encounter here, hardly.
DrD @ 3:37
Another one bites the dust. Dr Evans …
Tks for the link. Powerful “infidel” ammo against “AGW cultists”. I’ll spread that link around.
1. Is the planet warming?
2. Is the warming caused by CO2?
3. Is the CO2 mankind produces enough to produce this warming?
4. Is this warming bad?
Good one RW
As a Canadian, I really like #4, in that my vehicles run better when not stuck on the cold enrichment fueling schedule.
John won’t be responding promptly, as his call to Suezucci (re scripted talking points)has been put on hold. Rumor is Suezucci is furiously shoveling something and won’t be available for a while.
(don’t tell John; he’s still on hold)
RW: Lets see . . . . stick around on the SDA site just in case someone responds or take my kids to the playground? Decisions decisions. OK, it was not actually that much of a decision – but if you wish to criticize me for it then so be it.
Now, lets review what was said. John Luft posted about the scientific basis of AGW and I responded with what I thought formed the scientific basis. All your comments have done nothing to address what was under discussion! Instead you want to change the discussion and then claim victory if I don’t respond withing a certain time frame. If you think this is a valid form or argument then I would be happy to supply you with a list of discussions from this site which according to that criteria I have “won”.
However I am always willing to look at the science involved so I propose this compromise. I will answer your first question and then listen as you respond to my first question. After that we can discuss and then after you have finished mopping the floor with me on the first question we can go on to the second. Deal? You, of course, have 2 minuted to decide to respond before I claim victory! 😉
In regards to scientific creditability – well it may come as a surprise to you but I don’t post on SDA to gain creditability. Whether my posts have it I leave up to the individual reader to decide for themselves.
Regards,
John
Four minutes have elapsed with no response from RW. John Cross–you win!
Dr. D and G: I was not aware of Evans, but I notice that Tim Lambert has a look at his argument over here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php#more
Good night,
John
John Cross
I was not aware of Tim Lambert , but I notice that J.F. Beck has a look at his argument over here:http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2005/12/tim-lambert-humourless-gutless-and.html
Good night,
G
John said;
“Well, I would consider the basis of AGW to be the following 3 statements:
1) we are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.
2) CO2 will absorb and re-radiate longwave radiation
3) enhancing the downward longwave radiation will cause an object to warm (or to cool less quickly).
So, which one do you disagree with?”
Let me see if I can answer just off the top of my head…..
1) We are responsible for only 3% of global CO2 emissions.
No point in bothering with the other 3 points since without #1 his case is lost.
Dirtman: your error is that you equate increase with emissions – they are not the same thing. So my point 1 is still very much in play. In fact if you wish to look at my argument in more detail you can find the most recent discussion on this thread. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009023.html
Using RW reason I have clearly won since no one posted after me, but I suspect that others would disagree with that criteria.
Regards,
John
Good Lord! Why does anyone bother arguing with John Cross? Over the years, the best way I’ve found with dealing with people like John is to say “Oh, really?”, “Fascinating!”, “You don’t say!”, “Uh-huh, uh-huh, ya…”, and “Well!”
The AGW theory says “x” and the climate is showing “y”…to me, if the observations don’t match the results predicted from your theory, then your theory is no good. Also, if you can determine other possible mechanisms for the observations to occur, then your theory becomes just so much speculation.
I’m no atmospheric scientist or chemical engineer (and, not surprisingly, neither is John Cross), but let’s say for the sake of argument that John’s three points are correct. What’s missing is the quantum. What’s also missing is: the GREATER EFFECT that WATER VAPOUR is having on those same three points and the (likely) GREATER EFFECT that SOLAR ACTIVITY is having on the climate and the GREATER EFFECT that VOLCANIC ACTIVITY under the north pole is having on the ice thickness at the north pole.
I liken the AGW theory to the “Butterfly Effect”…the flapping of a butterfly’s wings (CO2 increase) causes a hurricane on the other side of the planet (global warming).
John Cross, we are not responsible for ALL the increase in CO2.
CO2 levels vary all the time and no one factor can account for the increase just as no one factor will account for the coming decrease. How do I know there will be a decrease? Historical cycles.
CO2 will absorb and re-radiate longwave radiation. Since there is not an infinite amount of longwave radiation increasing absorbing material will not increase capture. Since nitrogen is capturing the same radiation increases of the CO2 has no effect whatsoever.
Then of course are all the other factors that effect climate sun volcanoes etc. AGW is a crock designed to make rich people richer and employ civil servants.
“Here’s another… an object in motion stays in motion. If you are in a moving car which suddenly comes to a stop, and you are not strapped into that car, you will continue to move… right through the windshield.
Those are two basic predictive bits of science that work in the real world. Climate change is admittedly far more complex, but believing that we can continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere without any consequences is not a smart move.”
Huh? That’s helluva intellectual non-sequitor, lad.
“we can continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere without any consequences is not a smart move.”
And who says we are, exactly? Human interaction with the atmosphere is a homeostatic event, because, in the context of humans and atmosphere, we’re in a closed system, one in which we evolved in. The operative word here is “homeostasis” Human s are, in the short term, redistributing the proportions of some components, perhaps (and even that is unproven in any significant way), but the planetary feedback mechanisms will compensate in due course. The zone of human perturbation is indeed small, as is our atmospheric zone, relative to the mass and physical dynamics of the planet, both extra and intra.
The future risk to us on this planet lies in over-population, not AGW, and guaranteed, Mother Earth has some interesting compensatory mechanisms to drag out when we reach that point. AGW alarmists spend so much time pissing into the wind, they’re beginning to stink.
Hi John cross, I must admit, I went to bed.
But in case there were any doubts the FACTUAL answers to my questions were No, No, NO.
No, temperatures aren’t increasing at present, haven’t for 10 years.
No, MMCO2 is not the cause of the slight temeprature increase over the past 150 years.
No, any increase in temperature and CO2 will be beneficial for the planet.
BTW I apologise for playing a cheap trick argument on you.
Joe: As long as we produce more CO2 than shows up in the atmosphere then we can safely say that we are responsible for all the increase. This is a simple statement of logic, but I can go into it in more detail if you wish.
In regards to CO2 absorption of IR, the bands are not saturated yet and even if they were there would still be some increased warming associated with CO2 increases. Also, the CO2 molecule is tri-atomic while the nitrogen is dia-atomic. They do not capture the same wavelgenths of IR.
Regards,
John
Skip, I think I love you.
RW: From the Garnaut Climate Change Review DRAFT REPORT. They were asked the question “Is there any indication that there is a break in any trend present in the late 1990s, or at any other point?”
The asked two econometricians who concluded . . . The warming trend becomes steeper after the mid-1970s, but there is no significant evidence for a break in trend in the late 1990s.Viewed from the perspective of 30 or 50 years ago, the temperatures recorded in most of the last decade lie above the confidence band produced by any model that does not allow for a warming trend.
Regards,
John
RW: Forgot to say – apology accepted and my comments about not responding are hereby retracted.
Regards,
John