Jul 18 2008

Group Representing 50,000 Scientists Says “Hold On” On Global Warming

Published by at 7:00 am under All General Discussions,Global Warming

Major Update Below!

The science regarding the cause of the recent warming trend across the Globe (which in the past decade as actually been a cooling trend) has just become un-settled. I have posted on this matter many times (see here for all my posts on Global Warming) and note lots of data that conflicts with the theory that man-made CO2 is the major driver behind the temperature swings.

From evidence of ‘global warming’ detected on Mars and Jupiter to measurements taken from over 20 years disproving all of the UN IPCC predictions for this time period, the evidence has been mounting against the ‘settled’ theories from the Church of Al Gore/IPCC. Major new finds, such as massive underwater volcanic action under the norther ice cap, have begun to hint at other natural forces at work (which explains why the sea ice is growing in the south and shrunk in the north).

Accurate prediction of future behavior of a system is mandatory to prove scientific theories, it is an core element of the scientific method. Nothing moves from ‘theory’ to ‘fact’ without showing the theory works under all conditions. And when the IPCC came out, after 10 years of flat Global temperatures, and changed their prediction to foresee a decade of Global Cooling they basically admitted their original theory was wrong and they tried to ‘fix’ it on an unsuspecting public, naive of the riggers of the scientific method. Before we spend Trillions of Dollars and negatively disrupt the lives of just about every human being on the planet, we deserve to know our actions are based on solid evidence. And most scientists agree.

This week a body representing 50,000 physicists has publicly declared the science of Global Warming open for debate and unsettled.

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.”

Let the debate begin, and let the facts (not hype) lead us to an answer. BTW, all this goes to show laurels and citations like the Nobel Prize don’t always convey correctness in science, and too many times only reflect political correctness in the eyes of an elite (and out of touch) few.

Update: More here.

Major Update:  A recent peer-reviewed analysis of the UN IPCC global climate models used as the basis for their Chicken Little cries that the sky is falling (or, in their case, the sky is overheating) shows that the IPCC models are in serious error.  And I mean ‘serious’. The problem with the models, as now shown mathematically, is they over state the effect of CO2 on global climate by 500-2000%:

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 Æ’.

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 CO2emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

The IPCC overstates the radiative forcing caused by increased CO2 concentration at least threefold because the models upon which it relies have been programmed fundamentally to misunderstand the difference between tropical and extra-tropical climates, and to apply global averages that lead to error.

The IPCC overstates the value of the base climate sensitivity parameter for a similar reason. Indeed, its methodology would in effect repeal the fundamental equation of radiative transfer (Eqn. 18), yielding the impossible result that at every level of the atmosphere ever-smaller forcings would induce ever-greater temperature increases, even in the absence of any temperature feedbacks.

The IPCC overstates temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the high-end values that it has now, for the first time, quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2 concentrations almost 20 times today’s, and temperatures up to 7 ºC higher than today’s.

The assessment these errors introduce errors of 500-2000% are from this summary of the scientific paper. To try and put this into some perspective let’s say you wanted to drive 5 miles to your friends house and you overestimated the drive as the IPCC missed the mark on CO2.  At 500% (5 times) overestimation you would drive 25 miles, or 20 miles too far.  At 2000% you would drive 100 miles and miss your destination by 95 miles. Folks, this is not even close.

Meant to add this diagram the paper and some explanation:

The Black line (A) and Blue line (B) show the predictions in 1988 from ‘scientist’ James Hanson if nothing was done about CO2. As I noted before, the IPCC in 1990 agreed to the general prediction shown in the Yellow Line (D). For the record, nothing was done about CO2 in the intervening years and it has increased pretty much as expected. The Green Line (A) is what Hansen predicted would happen if we held CO2 levels constant – which we did not do!

Now for reality. Lines E-F and G-H show actual measurements and projections. These measurements show that despite Hansen’s and the IPCC’s claims that CO2 levels had to be held steady to control warming, the actual data shows the climate acting AS IF CO2 levels were held steady to 1988-2000 levels.  QED: since we did not hold CO2 steady and the trends STILL followed the projected recovery path, CO2 cannot be the driving force on Climate.

 H/T to the website Icecap for reference.

35 responses so far

35 Responses to “Group Representing 50,000 Scientists Says “Hold On” On Global Warming”

  1. gwood says:

    I remember when the first catalytic converters were installed on vehicles in the mid 70’s. Remember, the culprits then were particulates and carbon monoxide; the new converters were touted as emitting only “HARMLESS carbon dioxide and water vapor”.

    Here we are 33 years later and the vilification of carbon dioxide is near complete, except for voices of sanity like the ones on this blog. I happen to like capitalism, and I’m glad others see that the war between capitalism and socialism is being fought right now on the CO2 battlefield.

  2. crosspatch says:

    AJ, also check this out in The Australian.

    The guy that set Australia’s carbon emission standards has fallen off the bandwagon too.

  3. crosspatch says:

    And here is a funny one over at Anthony Watts’ site. Seems those RADAR technicians up on the DEW line in the 1960’s would sometimes “guestimate” a temperature rather than venture out and risk being eaten by a polar bear (seriously!). They had no idea that anyone would be using that data these days to claim there was some kind of global crisis. He says the data is junk. Much of it is made up:

    Some of the reasons why the reports were fabricated:
    1. Their purpose was only to help with, what was considered, the futile efforts at weather forecasting, not studies on global warming. (The significance of the difference between -55F and -45F was not appreciated. Both temperatures would freeze your b@lls off. So why split hairs?)
    2. Often, this activity interfered with our primary objective. This was because of manning problems which would take a lot of explaining and which I will not go into.
    3. Some of the other reasons for fabricating reports:
    (a.) physical discomfort of leaving a warm environment and venturing out into the extreme weather conditions to read mercury thermometers located about 200 ft. from the living modules.
    (b.) fear of frost bite, getting disoriented by limited visibility, or being mauled by marauding polar bears. (Did you know that more Eskimos get killed from polar bears in Greenland than die of heart attack? I have always been stoic about dying, but being mauled by a polar bear was my greatest nightmare.)
    (c.) plain old laziness.

  4. browngreengold says:


    The article you linked in the update has NOT been peer reviewed.

    There is a caveat at the very beginning of the article to that effect.

    As much as I want to see the whole Global Warmening thing debunked I know how quickly the detractors will swarm to any errors made on blogs, etc.

  5. pjo says:

    If this was a business, I believe the term that would be used is cooking the books and people would be thrown in jail over it, only after Congress would hold it’s Kabuki Theatre hearings.

  6. crosspatch says:

    “The article you linked in the update has NOT been peer reviewed.”

    If you go to the end of the paper, there are several rather prominent individuals who HAVE reviewed the thing. It hasn’t gone through the “official” peer review process but it HAS been reviewed by peers.

    Also, the main thrust is that the data simply do not match the models. Our policy would be based on a computer simulation that someone has built but the reality does not reflect what the models predict. He shows that, and then gives some ideas on WHY the models might be wrong. The crux of the matter, though, is that the data refute the models.

    The only data that show anything close to the models are created by an individual who is an outspoken proponent of the models. He “adjusts” the raw data. He also doesn’t use real arctic data in his calculations, he “extrapolates” what the arctice temperatures “should be” in part from those very models. In other words, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy when Dr. Hansen at GISS takes what the models are showing SHOULD be the arctic temperatures and plugs that into his “adjustment” process and claims his data matches the models. Of course it does, his data is partially CREATED by the models.

    Satellite measurements that actually read lower troposphere temperatures in the polar regions show significant cooling.

    That is how we end up with the situation we have had this past month where people such as Hansen are screaming that all the arctice ice is going to melt while this year’s ice is currently 1 million square kilometers GREATER than last year’s.

  7. AJStrata says:


    The fact the IPCC models are failing means they weren’t peer reviewed (for real) either.

  8. browngreengold says:


    Are you referring to the individuals listed in the “References” section?

    I’m not sure if that is what I (or anyone) would refer to as “Review”, not that I am that even slightly enamored with the whole peer review thing anyway since that has been shown over and over and over again to be influenced by bias, etc.

    This line in the caveat is what caught my attention:

    “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review.”

    I wasn’t sure if it had perhaps been added after it was originally referenced here or if it had simply been overlooked.


    I have no doubt that you are completely correct about the IPCC stuff.

    I recently read some info regarding the IPCC and peer review specifically.

    Please understand that I am not being critical of your opinion regarding AGW.

    I simply wanted to make sure that there wasn’t an error being made by saying that the referenced article was peer reviewed.

  9. AJStrata says:


    The IPCC will find infinite excuses to ignore reality – but thanks!

  10. browngreengold says:

    Here is an interesting article about the peer review process, or lack of, regarding the IPCC report.


  11. hey norm says:

    from the american physical society web page…
    APS Climate Change Statement
    APS Position Remains Unchanged

    The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

    “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

    have a warm day.

  12. crosspatch says:

    I was referring to the ones in the Acks section who reviewed the work in process.

    This isn’t a matter of “belief”. It isn’t a matter of if someone “believes in” global warming. I had no doubt that there was warming from 1976 to 1998, that it stayed roughly stable to slightly cooling until Jan 2007 and then has cooled significantly since Jan 2007.

    Climate is pretty much ALWAYS warming or cooling. It cooled significantly from 1933 to 1975. This corresponds to a negative phase in Pacific Ocean temperature oscillations (PDO, ENSO). It warmed in 1976, which also corresponds to a change to positive phase of those oscillations. And the cooling in 2007 to present corresponds to a switch to negative again.

    Also, total solar irradiation has been steadily dropping for the last two years. The current lack of sunspots notwithstanding, radiation output from the sun has been falling. Previously it had been at record highs and at the same time we saw “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies in the solar system.

    There is absolutely no evidence that atmospheric CO2 has caused any measurable temperature rise. Temperatures at the South Pole are at record lows. Ice extent in the Southern Ocean have been at record highs and growing the past three seasons. Ocean levels have begun to fall. Greenland ice is accumulating. Antarctic ice is accumulating. Temperatures in North America have fallen 0.63 degrees since 1998 … which is more than the 0.5 degrees we were said to have warmed due to CO2 in the 20th century.

    THIS interglacial has been colder than the last one. We are still not as warm as temperatures were previously in this interglacial in both the Holocene Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period. If you look at a plot of temperatures derived from ice core samples over the past 2000 years, we have been in a rather steady cooling trend. We bump up in temperature and go back down, each low a little colder than the previous one and each warm period a little cooler than the last one. The Little Ice Age might have been the coldest temperatures experienced since the Younger Dryas.

    I would be much more alarmed at the prospect of cooling than warming. Warming means increased food production, increased rainfall, generally more favorable living conditions. Cooling means famine. Global famine. Previous warm periods brought innovations such as agriculture, the Roman Empire, and great periods of exploration and expansion. Cold periods brought things like The Great Migration, The Great Famine, the 100 years war, and the end of the Roman Empire.

    Cooling scares the heck out of me much more than warming. And we have ABSOLUTELY NO DATA that show we have had any abnormal warming in either degree or speed of change. We slipped from interglacial to ice age conditions at the end of the last interglacial in about 50 years time with most of the change happening in a decade. Rapid climate change is natural and is not caused by CO2.

    The only “proof” people have is a computer simulation. But one can build a simulation to show whatever they want.

  13. Dc says:

    This group of scientists who are updating their findings (and revealing that some of their own earlier “peer review findings” were flawed, how they were flawed, and why they were flawed) represents a large block of scientists who are withdrawing their earlier findings (peer review) from APS. This issue is far from being undisputed, no debate needed, etc. at this point, as it was earlier described before this data has come to light.

    So, your “peer reviewed” global warming is now 50k members shorter. You can’t continue to use their earlier findings (now corrected by data and updated) to insist that until their “new” findings are peer reviewed their old one stands! That’s ridiculous. Their previous “review” was based on assumptions. Data has now come in that, as pointed out, completely undermines the assumptions that were made earlier as part of their “peer review”.

    Let me say that again…their earlier conclusions, and contributions to the “peer reviewed” issue, were not based on data, but on assumptions from a model.

    They have exposed the political and other pressures to go along with this from the beginning based on alarmists who believed that there was little time to make a course correction. And so..they “assumed” projected results based on the data and models they had at the time to encourage action to be taken…in the belief that such action would have been necessary and that the data would support these conclusions as it came in.

    Since then…they have discovered the flaws and errors in those models because additional proof/data has come in over time “because” of the money being poured into it and the research. They list a couple of things…like that other planets atmospheres experienced the same warming that Earth did during this last warming period—ie planets that would not have any athropogenic sources. And that the actual warming (not the projections from the models) measured during this time…was consistent with older data and nothing unusual (showing that the data models had skewed results).

    It may be warm today…but it’s not because a bunch of cows are farting….nor is it warmer today than it ever has been.

  14. dude1394 says:

    If the top of the article-says it isn’t peer-reviewed then it hasn’t been peer-reviewed by this organization. That seems to be in error imo.

  15. AJStrata says:

    As folks point out, the peered review previous models have now been proven seriously in error. They are no good. Which means, at best, there is no conclusion one way or the other.

    BTW, all the peers in the world cannot change reality. Reality changes the view of the peers, not the other way around.

  16. conman says:


    Whether you like it or not, Hey Norm is correct. As Hey Norm indicates in his comment, the APS issued a statement clarifying that the article you referred to is merely a newsletter from one of its members and does not represent APS position on global warming. It is easy to find – it is on the front page of their website. The newsletter is based on a recent publication by Lord Monckton of Brenchley which concludes that the IPCC overexaggerates the threat of man-made global warming. APS’ website posts the Lord Monckton publication and includes the following statement at the top of the publication – “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.” Here is the link – http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm. In other words, it is the complete opposite of what you claim – APS actually reaffirmed its conclusion that global warming is man-made and that this conclusion is supported by the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community.

    Also, your claim that the “massive underwater volcanic action under the northern ice cap” may be causing the significant thining of ice melts in the north is laughable. As I previously pointed out to you, the article you cited on this point a few weeks ago does not make that connection or even suggest such a connection. You are the one that arrived at that conclusion without any scientific basis. Other than over-excited bloggers like yourself, I have yet to see a single scientific report or publication supporting your specualtive theory.

    I’m wondering when you are going to issue an update correcting the portion of your post that incorrectly states that APS has changed its position. Not only do you look silly having Hey Norm and me reveal how easily you were duped into believing that the entire APS organization changed its position, but I assume you want an honest debate about global warming based on the scientific data. While I believe that raising levels of CO2 are likely the main cause of global warming, I acknowledge that the science is not conclusive on this issue and there is still much to debate about the extent of raising global temperatures, the consequences of such warming and how to best respond to it. We need an open and honest debate to address these issues. It is very frustrating to me because people on both the right and left of this issue constantly misrepresent scientific data to support their pre-conceived conclusions rather than let the data lead them to the correct conclusion.

    So AJ, where do you stand? Are you going to acknowledge your original post was mistaken about APS’ position on global warming in the spirit of an honest debate about this issue? Or are you going to prove that you are no better than the Church of Al Gore – ignore, twist and misrepresent the facts in order to neatly fit your pre-conceived conclusion?

  17. dude1394 says:

    Still imo…the statement on the blog about a “peer-reviewed analysis” is an error in and of itself. Especially when you go to the front of the linked article and there is a red-highlighted section saying specifically that it has NOT been peer-reviewed.

    I think it reflects poorly on the veracity of the post, it may be correct, but it starts out in error it appears.

  18. dude1394 says:

    Still imo…the statement on the blog about a “peer-reviewed analysis” is an error in and of itself. Especially when you go to the front of the linked article and there is a red-highlighted section saying specifically that it has NOT been peer-reviewed.

    I think it reflects poorly on the veracity of the post, it may be correct, but it starts out in error it appears.

    I respect your opinion greatly and your adherence to accuracy. I use this blog many,many times in discussions because the points are always honestly put and backed up. This one makes it tough.

  19. hey norm says:

    i’m sorry – but the post in itself is proof that there is little interest in what conman calls “…honest debate about global warming based on the scientific data…” it took 10 seconds to google the aps and get to the truth. how long did it take to cherry pick all the factoids and graphics? if your argument is based on mis-representations then it is not much of an argument.

  20. AJStrata says:


    We have had this discussion many times. You have trouble with HS math – suggest you stop broadcasting how ignorant you are on all topic scientific. It so far beyond your grasp it would take a lifetime to demonstrate how clueless you are.