Here it is guys, the APS has thrown a wrench into the "GW Mess".
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.
Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880
Here is the link. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
I will be glad when this big mess caused by the environmentalist is behind us.
Deron.
I haven't grazed the article yet, but before I do, let me point out that whether or not the projection models hold true is not vital. Even if human-produced co2 does not have the warming effect anticipated, it is still highly acidic and is being absorbed into our water with drastic outcomes. Even the Supreme Court has agreed that co2 is a pollutant and we are producing a whole hoard of it. Runaway co2 production needs to stop ASAP for lots of different reasons. Even if this one paper successfully debunked the myriad of cross-disciplined scientific work from both the university and government agency sectors in the field of projected global warming, it does nothing to change the actions we as individuals must still take if we wish to preserve the diversity of our biosphere.
Vinnie
Broomfield, CO
Deron, can I just call you Gman? Have you seen the very first page of APS?:
So, APS did not "throw a wrench" into anything - it looks to me as one lone individual is pathetically misinformed. Nice math and purrrdy graphics, but most of us live in the real world and actually see what's going on, not just scratching out fuzzy logic on a chalkboard.
.
I wanted to read more of the article, but like usual, was stopped on the first thing I tried to double check: this image...
Mean global surface temperature anomalies
I don't know where this guy's information came from, but when I did a check on the NOAA site, I found this contradictory image:
So I guess, Deron, you think there is no global warming just because it was cold yesterday - neverminding the record-breaking heat that's been going on for the past decade.
LOL!
<table border="0" style="border:1px solid #999999; padding:10px;"><tr><td>
<a href="http://www.BaseStationZero.com">[img]http://visforvoltage.org/files/u419...
[size=1][color=black]www.[/color][color=#337799]BaseStationZero[/color][co
You've given me a headache, Deron. Why don't you do your own investigation before posting your BS? Why do we have to do it for you? Have you heard of the term, "sheeple"?
The article that you linked to:
1) Although is on the APS site, does not reflect the views of APS.
2) Is not written by any member of APS - it is written by "Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor."
Chris is a writer, not an investigating reporter, not a scientist, not anyone really. Oh look, he's a British politician and an inventor. Interesting how you think this guy's posting hold any weight against all the scientific proof that nearly everyone on the entire planet has found.
On Chris' profile on Wikipedia, did you happen to read this part?:
[emphasis mine]
Read about his career, his associations, his political views... the guy is a failure in everything he does. And this is the person you're saying is your "common sense" that proves GW/GCC is just hype?
LMMFAO!
<table border="0" style="border:1px solid #999999; padding:10px;"><tr><td>
<a href="http://www.BaseStationZero.com">[img]http://visforvoltage.org/files/u419...
[size=1][color=black]www.[/color][color=#337799]BaseStationZero[/color][co
Deron...
Ok, don't accept the callaborative "real" science on this...
Don't accept anyone's opinion. Just go out in your backyard and sit down and observe natural activities going on around you.
I'm not a "fear monger" on this. I'm simply a realist. Look at what the natural world is telling you about "balance" and "interaction." It's simple and you don't need a degree from Cambridge or anywhere else to understand it. The idea that human beings can create this or that day in and day out without the potential of creating negative effects on this planet is ludicrous. Anyone who denies that basic truth is simply turning a blind eye toward the interconnectedness that undeniably exists on this planet.
Gushar
Gus
Guys,
GW is all speculation, it can not be proven. Science (up till now) has always been theory, they used to do this (until GW came along) because theories change. They are always testing theories, the theory of relativity, is one of them. Even the theory that mass extinctions were caused by asteroid impacts is being challenged. Scientist are constantly wrong, even in the short time I have been following science, I have seen them have to reverse themselves constantly. ALAR on apples, Killer Bees, Dental fillings, the coming Ice Age in the 1970's, peak oil predicted to happen twenty years ago, the overpopulation bomb, Y2K, flat earth :) ... Right now they even cost the tomato industry millions by announcing the tomatoes were making people sick, now they are not so sure it's the tomatoes and are still speculating about the cause.
Answer me this,
If these scientist are so smart and their theories are so perfect that they are able to predict fifty years from now what the temperature is going to be, what the sea level will be, how much ice will be on the planet, how much drought there will be, how many floods there will be, what storms will be doing, how many animal and plant species will go extinct, what the agriculture yield will be, what the population will be, how much more widespread diseases will be...
How come with all their infallible knowledge and computers they are not able to predict any of this stuff one month out, six months out, one year out, two years out... Why does it always have to be ten, twenty, fifty years down the road, what are they afraid of, being proven wrong? Losing their grants to study this stuff?
Can not you guys see how ridiculous this is, they can predict and not be wrong about all these things that are going to happen fifty, one hundred years, one thousand years from now, but they can not predict what will happen in hours, days or weeks out.
With all their knowledge and modern science they can not even figure out something as simple as which vegetable has been making people sick. Yet they have no problem blaming it on tomatoes, only to change their minds. "Never Mind".
Deron.
I should give a example of why they do not try to predict things that can be verified so quickly.
Just lately there was a record setting number of hurricanes in 2005, the scientist were totally wrong, predicting too few hurricanes. In years 2006 and 2007, the scientist predicted too many hurricanes.
Yet you guys want to believe that these same scientist can predict how many hurricanes are going to happen year in year out in fifty years!
As a side note, all these junk predictions cost homeowners increased insurance premiums in the years that forecast above average number of storms. I can see it now, there will be a Global Warming surcharge on your homeowners insurance for areas predicted to be affected by scientist predictions of impending doom. I hope you guys do not fall for that one.
Deron.
Deron-
You simply miss the point. That is, that every action has a consequence...no matter how small or large, how negative or positive. That isn't "theory." That is fact.
And here we are discussing a specific predicted consequence. Sure, scientific investigation could have this wrong. But what makes you think that they don't have it "right?" If we based our actions on your "thinking" most technological innovations, medical cures/practices, etc. would have never come about. We humans are given the ability to use cognitive thinking to solve problems...mostly by "predicting outcomes" based on scientific principles and testing. Are you suggesting that the indicators that have resulted from scientific inquiry which suggest global warming as a result of what we are doing on this planet should be ignored?
You sound like the folks who at one time in this planet's history argued that the world was flat...even though others had reasonable "evidence" to indicate that it wasn't.
Gushar
Gus
Deron,
One of the problems that you are struggling with here is that you are viewing 'science' as some kind of quasi-political belief system and you are grouping 'scientists' together as if we are some sort of collective of soothsayers with a universal conscience, acting with a common agenda. Please understand that science is term we use to describe the methodology we use to catalog and organize our comprehension of the world around us. I keep reading and hearing phrases like "the scientists are wrong"...
Where exactly would you like your information to come from? When I want to know where a disease originates, I am going to look to the small group of folks with the training and expertise in tracking bacteria and infectious disease.
Do you have any idea how ridiculously complex the climate change simulators are? The amount of research and data gone into them is immense. You ask about predictions. I need to refer to discrete mathematics for that. You are fundamentally asking the difference between theoretical probability and experimental probability, and need to refer to the Law of Large Numbers to answer your question. We can calculate the probabilities that something will occur, and the larger the sample, the closer the experimental probability will mirror the theoretical. Juxtapose that with meteorology and then go ahead and let yourself be very impressed with the surprising accuracy DAILY weather prediction actually is!
The call to take action against co2 emissions is not based on some magical glass that let's us look into the future, but rather the view that the probabilities of undesirable futures have increased and we need to decrease those risks...
Vinnie
Broomfield, CO