Physicists reaffirm that human-induced GHGs affect the atmosphere 14

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GRLCowan Posted 6:51 am
   18 Jul 2008

   That did seem rather unlikely ...I saw the claim, as a link, somewhere and it seemed unlikely enough not to be worth following.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996

   Permalink

2. 

   tidal Posted 6:54 am
   18 Jul 2008

   APS disclaimer added to Monckton's paper"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."
   and the APS policy statement on climate change reads: 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.
   
   
   Seems kinda clear.

   Permalink

3. 

   tudderj Posted 7:11 am
   18 Jul 2008

   It's The Science!The vast majority of those with an opposing viewpoint are not "Global Warming Skeptics/Deniers. Earth may well continue to warm for a period, as evidence shows that several of our neighbor planets are also warming... due to the documented increased solar activity. But... "This Above All To Thine Own Science Be True" The ice core data cited by Al Gore and many of the anthropogenic Global Warming disciples actually points to temperature leading CO2 as opposed to CO2 causing the temperature rise. scientists and science students know that the oceans absorb CO2 at a faster rate during cooler periods. It follows, "as night the day", that during warmer periods the CO2 will concentrate in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations are not the cause of warming, they are the result! Keep an open mind, the emperor (VP) may not have any new clothes after all. "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs..." Kipling

   Permalink

4. 

   Paleocon Posted 1:01 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   I am skeptical and when I hear "DENIER!"It makes me wonder what you are trying to hide and what your true motives are. Then I see the job titles. And the money involved.
   People who use the word "denier" use it with the vitriol of a racist using the "N" word. It is quite disturbing.
   
   
   
   Often misunderestimated

   Permalink

5. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 1:43 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   PaleoconEqually I'm confused with the term climate skeptic.
   That implies that either
   
   
   
   You don't believe that a climate exists
   
   You are rather conservative in making estimations about the climate using evidence we have.
   
   That other scientists are not rational skeptics
   
   
   When you have someone madly trying to claim something without any real scientific evidence, up against a gigantic mountain of countering evidence.  Thats not being skeptical.
   So either this guy is merely extremely dihonest,
   
   OR suffering from an extreme case of both confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
   
   http://www.rockridgenation.org/questions/analysis-of-cogn ...
   
   -David Ahlport

   Permalink

6. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 1:47 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   Oh yeah, my takeBTW, this article wouldn't be complete with reference to Monckton.
   1. As for Monckton posting in a peer reviewed physical science journal.  Yes.  Catch being it wasn't in the peer reviewed section of the journal.  It was in the letters-to-the-editor newsletter section which is not peer reviewed. Notice the word "Newsletter".
   
   http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton. ...
   2. Monckton has no credentials as a climate scientist. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism, thats it.  Oh, and he's a British aristocrat.
   
   http://www.desmogblog.com/deniers-cock-a-hoop-over-latest ...
   
   http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-fights-for-exxons-free ...
   3. SPPI only has 9 members. (All of them career skeptics, a couple of which haven't published a peer reviewed physical science paper on climate science yet though)
   
   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Pu ...
   4. The least of which SPPI
   
   Aka The Science and Public Policy Institute
   
   Aka Frontiers of Freedom
   
   Aka Center for Science and Public Policy
   
   Is publically funded by Exxon Mobil
   
   http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/exxon_still_fundi ...
   5. Monckton's analysis is entirely wrong
   
   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/wee ...
   The "gavin" guy responding is Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt
   
   A climate scientist who works at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
   
   http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
   Comparably, Monckton, has a degree in Journalism and Classical Literature.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Christopher_Monckton,3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of Brenchley#Biography
   
   -David Ahlport

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 5:11 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   Yeah paleyDeniers are right because we climate change alarmists "hate" them.  Fine argument (and novel use of the race card)!  Hehehey.
   Is this what motivated many bush voters?  Could be.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

8. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 4:01 am
   19 Jul 2008

   Can You Quantify That?
   
   Look, I made some coffee this morning.  That heat went into the atmosphere and "affected" the total of global warming.
   Obviously the APS doesn't have the balls to go full on against the IPCC...yet.

   Permalink

9. 

   Paleocon Posted 2:15 pm
   19 Jul 2008

   So many straw menI never used the phrase "climate skeptic".
   I said I am skeptical. Skeptical that humans are affecting the climate to a degree that warrants significant behavioral change.
   There is no "mountain of evidence" that quantifies just how much we are contributing to climate change compared to other factors. This would help rationalize how much pain we need to experience.
   Do you really expect those of us who you are demanding money from just "shut up and pay up" without asking questions?
   
   Often misunderestimated

   Permalink

10. 

    Paleocon Posted 2:25 pm
    19 Jul 2008

    Alarmist? Who said alarmist?I can't "deny" and you can't "know".
    You believe, and I am skeptical.
    I have not seen quantified in any logical way how much humans contribute to climate change compared with all other factors.
    You certainly don't deny that Earth has see climate change before humans existed and that other things affect climate besides CO2.
    I am skeptical that taking money from my children's education to enrich others is required to "save the planet".
    By the way, I am equally skeptical that my tax dollars are being used wisely on "anti-terrorism task forces" created by local transit districts.
    Once again, no information. Just obtuse attacks.
    
    Often misunderestimated

    Permalink

11. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 3:10 pm
    19 Jul 2008

    Truth is out there... am skeptical that taking money from my children's education to enrich others is required to "save the planet".
    Provide an exapmle where this has occured.
    As far as I know, no money has been taken from any public education fund to help stop climate change on any large scale.
    In fact, to my personal knowledge, no money has been taken from any public or governmental institution (other than environmental ones) with the specifc purpose of fightin' climate change (though some institutions have had additional money allocated to 'em to help inform, educate, discuss, research, and debate climate change...but no money was taken from other programs to supply these funds).
    I have not seen quantified in any logical way how much humans contribute to climate change compared with all other factors.
    Such information is readily available in a number of studies and peer-reviewed journals.  We'd be more than happy to provide ya with some links to some, if ya wish.

    Permalink

12. 

    amazingdrx Posted 9:20 pm
    19 Jul 2008

    Oh good one"...those of us who you are demanding money from"
    So 5, 6, 7 bucks per gallon for gas is just fine with you?  1 dollar per gallon eqyuivalent electricity instead constitutes "demanding money"?
    Economic revival by ending run away energy price inflation and ending oil wars, that's some kind of scam to take your cash?
    Maybe you could go out and buy a clue, with all your loot?  Hehey.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

13. 

    Paleocon Posted 3:37 pm
    20 Jul 2008

    Truth is right here...Wow. The fact that you simply see money as shifting from one government agency to another is truly frightening to a tax payer like me.
    Interesting that you equate public school funding with education. I have to pay for my children's college education. With the money that is left after I pay .36 per kwh for electricity because of the tiered structure in California. Al Gore pays .08 per kwh. I pay .36 because PG&E is playing green with my greenbacks. Al's bill would be $8,000 a month if he lived here, by the way.
    Can't you please just tell me what percent of climate change is caused by human activity? Seems like there should be a number. 10 percent? 90 percent?
    Would you like me to forward a list of peer-reviewed nonsense to convince you that peer-reviewed isn't a term you should hang your hat on?
     
    
    Often misunderestimated

    Permalink

14. 

    Paleocon Posted 3:48 pm
    20 Jul 2008

    $1 per gallon electricity?Gas at $10 a gallon is what I am hoping for. It keeps all of the people who vote for the folks standing in the way of nuclear power off the roads and onto the bus where they belong. The folks who can't ride across campus to work on a recombent bike will start wondering what the heck is up. Even taxing those who earn more than they do won't get them off of the bus. Maybe they will have an awakening. Until then, there will be less traffic.
    
    Often misunderestimated

    Permalink