New Report: Sun Major Factor behind Global Warming, Mars Warming as well
By Albert N Milliron, Opinion-Editorial
The American Physical Society, consisting of over 50,000 physicists were touted as the group who's research was used by Al Gore as the conclusive evidence that the debate over global warming was over. Portions, the of the APS is reversing it’s view on climate change and is publicly coming out against human involvement as the major factor in global warming as a whole.
The group is so sure of their new found truth that they are offering a publicly held debate on the subject. The group who are the real number crunchers and model generators in the scientific community are not social activists, they deal with real science. Previously this group of scientists called the human element involvement as the major cause of global warming controvertible. They have reworked their modeling to included previously unincorporated variables and the new data reviles something different then their former conclusions according to APS forum editor, Jeff Marque, “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primarily responsibility for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper called, "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" 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”
In an email to Daily Tech, Monckton 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.”
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, “in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low.”
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”
Additionally, the United Nations World Meteorological Association ( UNWMA) has has reported that 2008 will be be a cooling trend.
The United Nations World Meteorological Association has somewhat ruefully weighed in to agree with what climate researchers have been saying all year: global temperatures have indeed dropped, and are expected to continue to do so throughout most of 2008. The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998.
Even with the 10 year trend downward in global temperatures the WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects, and says it doesn't mean global warming isn't a serious problem. "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." Adam Scaife, lead scientist at the U K's Hadley Center for Climate Modeling, says he's confident that "within a few years" a new record temperature will be set.
The APC responded to the Daily Tech who first reported the email for Lord Monckton following their story
The APC statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
The above disclaimer was posted to let folks know that the APS has differing components. The scientists have changed their opinion, wile the society as a whole have not.
In fairness, the front page of the APS Website has the consensus statement on Climate Change and says the following,
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
The Above Statement was adopted and published in 2007. The new findings by the Physicists and Society Forum on the new modeling were reported this year. Obviously this is causing controversy with in the organization as a whole.
Here is an except from Christopher Monckton's findings: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
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.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
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:
Radiative forcing ΔF;
The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
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.
LOBALLY-AVERAGED land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlysideet al., 2008).
The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski&Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warming s and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
Mean global surface temperature anomalies (°C), 2001-2008
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. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions – – – – – – –
An early projection of the trend in TS in response to “global warming” was that of Hansen (1988), amplifying Hansen (1984) on quantification of climate sensitivity. In 1988, Hansen showed Congress a graph projecting rapid increases in TS to 2020 through “global warming” (Fig. 2):
Global temperature projections and outturns, 1988-2020
The Politisite Bottom Line: (Opinion) Al Gore and other scientists, while looking at data from the Earth came to the conclusion that the earth is on a warming trend based primarily on human involvement. The scientists failed to look outside of the Earth to see if there is a warming trend on other planets within our solar system. The Scientists came to the conclusion that since industry has caused increased emission during the industrialization of the earth that these emissions are solely responsible and humans are to blame.
What the scientists failed to see was that solar activity has caused other heavenly bodies to be effected as well. most of the Planets within our solar system have an upward trend in over all temperatures as well. Unless there are industrialized inhabitants on Jupiter or Pluto, Global warming is a result of solar system warming due to the Suns natural cycles and has very little to do with Human emissions.
Does this mean, stop conserving resources? We say no. Humans are more aware then t any time in history on conservation issues and have developed better lifestyle choices. No matter ones view of Al Gore, our country has become better equipt to deal with conservation of resources which can be significantly helpful in the event of a major global event. The worlds is better off by following some of the environmental steps outlined by those who have blamed humans for what has now been determined to be the natural cycles of our universe. By heating and cooling in periodic cycles our universe naturally takes care of waste products introduced naturally and due to human intervention.
We suggest that we continue keep those energy efficient lighting, recycling, and using clean technologies. All in all one does not need to waste ones time in therapy for causing global warming due to driving your Hummer on Saturday afternoons.
NowPublic Stories from Every Angle, Every Side:Do Al Gore and Laurie David Conspire to Deceive? A Precious and Painful Vision of the Future