 |
The debate is back on with dueling experts as the Physics and Society Forum unit within the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 50,000 physicists, now proclaim that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
The Physics and Society, one of 39 units of the American Physical Society will be sponsoring a public debate on the validity of global warming science.
On the APS' Physics and Society Forum, which is only 1 of 39 units of the APS itself, has an editors note declaring that "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."
They go to say that because of the ramifications of any conclusions that are made will have "immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere" they will be presenting a debate within the pages of Physics and Society concerning the conclusion.
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.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
Although this unit of the APS is arguing against the stated position of the APS itself, the APS has not changed their official position since November 2007, which is that global warming is from human activities, and they make it very clear that the Physics and Society paper is at odds with their official position and the newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed and that the Physics and Society forum is only one of 39 units within their organization.
In an email that Lord Monckton, who was the science adviser to Britain's Thatcher administration, sent to DailyTech, he says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
What this goes to show is that even physicist experts within the APS group, that has held and still holds, the official stance which says evidence of global warming is "incontrovertible", are still debating the issue despite that official stance.
What the Physics and Society Forum is doing is opening up the debate, publicly, that many have tried to declare as over.
The debate starts with Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley with the first article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion. In favor of the IPCC conclusion we have a jointly written article from David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz from from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
Scientists and experts from a variety of different fields are still arguing about this issue and with this new debate starting within the Physics and Society, the dueling experts are putting on their gloves, coming out of their corners and getting ready to rumble.
-
Another good article, Sue...and I think this debate is going to go on and on and on...
-
Be interesting to see how this unfolds.
-
@ Bob Ewing
Be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Bob, they will be publishing each and every one of the responses they get, for and again the consensus, taking their internal arguments public so we can all see it. You are right, this should be very interesting to see the battle of the experts, not as one story at a time in the papers, but with two opposing pieces presented by experts coming out in conjunction with each other. They are presenting graphs, charts and statistical data as well. -
@ Susan Duclos
...with two opposing pieces presented by experts coming out in conjunction with each other. They are presenting graphs, charts and statistical data as well.
Good! This will help the public to decide what is truth and what is assumption. -
It's about time that "global warming" is debated in something other than the media. I've always agreed that our (humankind's) actions have some effect on the world around us, but the way in which this has become an all-or-nothing argument leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've gotten very tired of the scare tactics from one side and the "live and let live" attitude from the other.
If I've learned anything from my recent interest in Mars – and long discussions with Reach Around (my geology source ...lol) – it's that we don't understand more about our environment and our effect on it than we do.
Excellent article Sue. =D
-
Oh, one other note.... now we need our own physicist here at DJ to explain some of the things I see in those papers that I linked to.
-
@ Susan Duclos
Oh, one other note.... now we need our own physicist here at DJ to explain some of the things I see in those papers that I linked to.
Now that would be awesome! -
@ Sykos Masters
It's about time that "global warming" is debated in something other than the media. I've always agreed that our (humankind's) actions have some effect on the world around us, but the way in which this has become an all-or-nothing argument leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've gotten very tired of the scare tactics from one side and the "live and let live" attitude from the other.
If I've learned anything from my recent interest in Mars – and long discussions with Reach Around (my geology source ...lol) – it's that we don't understand more about our environment and our effect on it than we do.
Excellent article Sue. =D
Thanks. I still have not managed to get through the first paper although I am still trying. Once I think I am following along pretty well and then they present something which forces me to go back and reread. -
@ Susan Duclos
Oh, one other note.... now we need our own physicist here at DJ to explain some of the things I see in those papers that I linked to.
I'll ask Reach Around if he knows anyone ;) -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Good! This will help the public to decide what is truth and what is assumption.
Yup and I have a feeling both sides are going to end being proven "right" about certain aspects while they blow away the extreme positions on both sides as well.
@ Sykos Masters
I'll ask Reach Around if he knows anyone ;)
Yes, good idea because when reading these papers, we may need a translator. Thanks. -
@ Susan Duclos
Thanks. I still have not managed to get through the first paper although I am still trying. Once I think I am following along pretty well and then they present something which forces me to go back and reread.
Great .... now you know I'm going to have to read the articles too. Well there goes my afternoon of watching the clouds roll by :) -
@ Sykos Masters
Great .... now you know I'm going to have to read the articles too. Well there goes my afternoon of watching the clouds roll by :)
ROFL!!! They are interesting, even to a layman. -
@ Susan Duclos
ROFL!!! They are interesting, even to a layman.
Oh dear ... now I remember why I hated physics ... don't get me wrong, I love math ... I just hate all the theoretical bases.
So my general read (from skimming the longer article) is that the 2007 IPCC has made a number of mathematical assumptions where they've used constants or equations designed for linear models for predicting climate change, which is by definition non-linear.
Sort of like predicting the time one needs to reach a distant object based on "as the eagle flies", while not taking into account the spherical surface that one is traveling. It may look 1 hour away, but when you get there 3 hours later, you realize it's because of the unseen things that interfered in your travels.
I'm going to print it out and give it to Reach Around to decipher for me. Now my head hurts ... lol -
@ Sykos Masters
Oh dear ... now I remember why I hated physics ... don't get me wrong, I love math ... I just hate all the theoretical bases.
So my general read (from skimming the longer article) is that the 2007 IPCC has made a number of mathematical assumptions where they've used constants or equations designed for linear models for predicting climate change, which is by definition non-linear.
Sort of like predicting the time one needs to reach a distant object based on "as the eagle flies", while not taking into account the spherical surface that one is traveling. It may look 1 hour away, but when you get there 3 hours later, you realize it's because of the unseen things that interfered in your travels.
I'm going to print it out and give it to Reach Around to decipher for me. Now my head hurts ... lol
Don't forget the second article which argues the other side of the coin.
They will be presenting more of these papers as well, for and against. I will happily provide you with the link to where those papers will be listed if you want. -
@ Susan Duclos
Don't forget the second article which argues the other side of the coin.
They will be presenting more of these papers as well, for and against. I will happily provide you with the link to where those papers will be listed if you want.
I skimmed the second article first .... it presented some interesting mathematical models, but I was initially skeptical bc the only confirmed data was 200 yrs old at most. Everything before 1800 was as much conjecture as the future forecasting models.
An interesting thing that I've learned from Reach Around is that rocks are actually an excellent record of climate change over time. Much like rings in a tree, the shape, density and arrangement of various "ground" layers gives a fairly clear picture of the global environment during that period. -
@ Sykos Masters
I skimmed the second article first .... it presented some interesting mathematical models, but I was initially skeptical bc the only confirmed data was 200 yrs old at most. Everything before 1800 was as much conjecture as the future forecasting models.
An interesting thing that I've learned from Reach Around is that rocks are actually an excellent record of climate change over time. Much like rings in a tree, the shape, density and arrangement of various "ground" layers gives a fairly clear picture of the global environment during that period.
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that both were seen. I had to minimize those screens so I could get some writing done and will go back to them later. -
@ Susan Duclos
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that both were seen. I had to minimize those screens so I could get some writing done and will go back to them later.
Same here. I'm so-o-o-o behind in my news excavating!!! -
I have a feeling both sides are going to end being proven "right" about certain aspects while they blow away the extreme positions on both sides as well.
this is a likely outcome. -
My main concern is a focus on warming rather than climate change, global cooling can have serous consequences as well.
-
@ Bob Ewing
My main concern is a focus on warming rather than climate change, global cooling can have serous consequences as well.
True but the issue I believe is trying to influence the outcome of either one.
For example: Can anyone stop a hurricane from hitting once they spot it? No, they can only warn people it is coming but even those warnings fly out the window when it changes course.
Why? Because mother nature cannot be "controlled".
It will be interesting though to see the statistical figures of why the dueling experts are dueling.
Instead of being informed of their conclusions, finally we will have the ability to see how they come to these conclusions, what process they use, which angle each separate expert uses to view the situation. -
finally we will have the ability to see how they come to these conclusions, what process they use, which angle each separate expert uses to view the situation. hopefully this at least will be an outcome. -
interesting. but i would still vouch for the original version. with the way things have been going, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis' and the rate of their occurences certainly leaves alot to think about. even if the only excuse for global warming remains us, I still think it's more or less true, with the simple reasoning that one look at the world now, compared to what it used to be, tells us more than enough, how much its changed or rather, degraded!
Nevertheless, a really good article, will want to see the outcome of this debate.
-
@ Vinay Chand
interesting. but i would still vouch for the original version. with the way things have been going, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis' and the rate of their occurences certainly leaves alot to think about. even if the only excuse for global warming remains us, I still think it's more or less true, with the simple reasoning that one look at the world now, compared to what it used to be, tells us more than enough, how much its changed or rather, degraded!
Nevertheless, a really good article, will want to see the outcome of this debate.
But how exactly do we know "what it used to be". Actual physical records have only been kept for the past two centuries. Most of what came before is either conjecture, "historical" accounts of the society and times, and growing archaelogical / geological evidence. The second paper actually shows that there is little evidence, from the weather perspective, to arrive at any long-term conclusions. -
@ Sykos Masters
But how exactly do we know "what it used to be". Actual physical records have only been kept for the past two centuries. Most of what came before is either conjecture, "historical" accounts of the society and times, and growing archaelogical / geological evidence. The second paper actually shows that there is little evidence, from the weather perspective, to arrive at any long-term conclusions.
I adore when people actually click on the links and research before commenting. Thank you so much Sykos! -
@ Susan Duclos
I adore when people actually click on the links and research before commenting. Thank you so much Sykos!
Aww shucks ..... I said I had skimmed them =D -
@ Sykos Masters
Aww shucks ..... I said I had skimmed them =D
I know but so many times people comment without bothering to click links that take forever to hunt down that I truly do appreciate seeing people click them and show an interest in reading the information provided. -
Any Bets that Gore will not be participating in this SCIENTIFIC Debate???
GREAT POST SUE!!!!!
-
@ redhawk
Any Bets that Gore will not be participating in this SCIENTIFIC Debate???
GREAT POST SUE!!!!!
Thanks. -
@ redhawk
Any Bets that Gore will not be participating in this SCIENTIFIC Debate???
GREAT POST SUE!!!!!
Only if he can fit it between meals and speaking engagements =D -
There are SO many articles and websites that make an extremely compelling case for "Global Warming" being produced by solar activity. As well, they call into disrepute the notion that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, asserting that increased water vapour is a more likely contributor. The new theory seems to be that the northern hemisphere (due to its land mass which heats more readily than water) has warmed slightly, and with it the warmer oceans have released C02 in proportion. Ocean currents have transferred the energy to the southern hemisphere (mostly water) and volcanism beneath the ice shelf has caused melting of the ice shelf. All of this is diametrically opposed to the received wisdom from the Al Gores and his ilk who are marketing an end of the world scenario.
I think there is going to be howls of disbelief from the public when they realize they have been played for dummies, which is going to make the "energy crisis" all that much harder to sell. Its too bad, because the energy crisis is probably grounded in reality.
-
@ RobertSM
There are SO many articles and websites that make an extremely compelling case for "Global Warming" being produced by solar activity. As well, they call into disrepute the notion that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, asserting that increased water vapour is a more likely contributor. The new theory seems to be that the northern hemisphere (due to its land mass which heats more readily than water) has warmed slightly, and with it the warmer oceans have released C02 in proportion. Ocean currents have transferred the energy to the southern hemisphere (mostly water) and volcanism beneath the ice shelf has caused melting of the ice shelf. All of this is diametrically opposed to the received wisdom from the Al Gores and his ilk who are marketing an end of the world scenario.
I think there is going to be howls of disbelief from the public when they realize they have been played for dummies, which is going to make the "energy crisis" all that much harder to sell. Its too bad, because the energy crisis is probably grounded in reality.
Agreed and if people would stick to the reality and not the hyperventilation of the speculation and interpretation of said reality, this whole topic might have already come to a conclusion and actual plans implemented to do what we can. -
There seems to be a genuine interest in developing alternate power sources form electrical generation to alternative fuels for automobiles. I hope it is more than a knee-jerk reaction to temporarily inflated fuel prices. But I would much rather see our hydrocarbons used for paint, plastics, fertilizers and the thousands of other gifts that come from them. I know that Alberta (in Canada) claims to have enough oil to last a hundred years at the present rate of consumption, and its neighbouring province, Saskatchewan, is only just realizing vast oil fields yet untapped. There is little evidence of an oil shortage, and just as much evidence that oil is a renewable resource. Nevertheless, it is a dirty business, and we would all be healthier if it was scaled back.
But the problem remains that the "renewable electrical alternatives" are equally dirty, in their manufacture if not consumption. and the impact on land usage, wildlife and environmental enjoyment are going to be high prices to pay. I wish there was an easy answer to all of this, but at least we are no longer blythly carrying on as though all this energy was as free as rain.
-
@ RobertSM
There seems to be a genuine interest in developing alternate power sources form electrical generation to alternative fuels for automobiles. I hope it is more than a knee-jerk reaction to temporarily inflated fuel prices. But I would much rather see our hydrocarbons used for paint, plastics, fertilizers and the thousands of other gifts that come from them. I know that Alberta (in Canada) claims to have enough oil to last a hundred years at the present rate of consumption, and its neighbouring province, Saskatchewan, is only just realizing vast oil fields yet untapped. There is little evidence of an oil shortage, and just as much evidence that oil is a renewable resource. Nevertheless, it is a dirty business, and we would all be healthier if it was scaled back.
But the problem remains that the "renewable electrical alternatives" are equally dirty, in their manufacture if not consumption. and the impact on land usage, wildlife and environmental enjoyment are going to be high prices to pay. I wish there was an easy answer to all of this, but at least we are no longer blythly carrying on as though all this energy was as free as rain.
All solutions must be kept on the table and as new technology becomes more cost effective and able to replace older technologies.. however our dependency on oil might as well be domestic and not subject to foreign Whims to jack up prices... BTW ( name escapes me) but one of the Early Globe warming scientists has "defected" from that Group saying that there is No Correlation between Emission and warming.. The artic Ice cap which Gore says it is rapidly disapperring in Fact it is Thicker now than a Year ago... But Tom Brokaw allowed the lioes to go on unchallanged on "meet the Press"..... -
@ Sykos Masters
Only if he can fit it between meals and speaking engagements =D
Or going on "Meet The Press" and being allowed to pontificate on 7 years old misinformation of his making ... Alphonse baby you boring BIG one.. The artic Ice Cap is thicker to day than a Year ago.. and Yes Ice Melts in the SUN, and Floods happen when the snow melts and lightening fire happen whenver they strike dry wood... and Brokaw let him get away with it!!! Not to say the NBC is biased or anythig... -
The Southern ice cap loses and gains a vast percentage its area every year due to seasonal change, and in fact is the largest now it has been in a quarter century. The film crews keep going to the penguin-rich peninsula where melting is taking place due to warm ocean currents and submarine volcanic activity. Now don't tell me there isn't deliberate deception taking place!
They talk as though the penguins didn't know enough to change their nesting sites, just as the krill and fish they eat know enough to move with changing conditions. These "scientists?" are manipulating information just as astutely as a car salesman...larger than a VW, faster than a Prius...more trunk space than a Cavalier...without really telling the whole story about what it is they are trying to sell is.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622-
@Robert
Shhhhh!!! Don't upset the apple cart. Don't you know? "Environmental Activism" has become Big Business. Think of the Penguins!!!!!
-
There is a scientist (Mehta) in India complaining that a new hydro dam planned for the north is being railed against by Western environmental activists who complain about the 125,000 people who will have to be relocated. They express the sincerest concern about the pressure placed upon indigenous culture, but those same groups had no compunctions about relocating 95,000 people in order to establish a tiger compound in that same country.
Being Indian, he understands how colonialism works, and he applies the term to the Western environmentalists with no reservations. The suspicion grows that these environmental guerrillas are really out to keep the developing world in a constant state of developing, while the West continues to exploit their resources- including cheap and disposable labour.
-
@ RobertSM
There is a scientist (Mehta) in India complaining that a new hydro dam planned for the north is being railed against by Western environmental activists who complain about the 125,000 people who will have to be relocated. They express the sincerest concern about the pressure placed upon indigenous culture, but those same groups had no compunctions about relocating 95,000 people in order to establish a tiger compound in that same country.
Being Indian, he understands how colonialism works, and he applies the term to the Western environmentalists with no reservations. The suspicion grows that these environmental guerrillas are really out to keep the developing world in a constant state of developing, while the West continues to exploit their resources- including cheap and disposable labour.
BUT Gore is not interested in mere deatils about 95,000 people , after all his fat bank account and ever incresing usage of Natural resources by Gulfsteam and Huge residences are not applicable to mere people... His Crusade is to keep on fostering scare tactics like Chjicken Little while gaining more cash>>>> -
@ RobertSM
The Southern ice cap loses and gains a vast percentage its area every year due to seasonal change, and in fact is the largest now it has been in a quarter century. The film crews keep going to the penguin-rich peninsula where melting is taking place due to warm ocean currents and submarine volcanic activity. Now don't tell me there isn't deliberate deception taking place!
They talk as though the penguins didn't know enough to change their nesting sites, just as the krill and fish they eat know enough to move with changing conditions. These "scientists?" are manipulating information just as astutely as a car salesman...larger than a VW, faster than a Prius...more trunk space than a Cavalier...without really telling the whole story about what it is they are trying to sell is.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622
Mere facts that seem to totally Confuse Network Giddy Talking heads whenever Al Gore gases up in their faces... Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Email
Print
Share
American Physical Society Sponsors Debate On Validity Of Global Warming Science
