Physics and Society, in its July 2008 quarterly edition, has published a paper by Christopher Monckton entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, which exposes the IPCC's strange method of calculating the effect of CO2 on temperature and suggests that in response to a CO2 doubling global temperature may rise by as little as 0.6 C.
Abstract:
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.
Physics & Society: July 2008, Volume 37, Number 3
Full Paper at http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.
It is APS policy to not submit ANY of its articles for peer reviewing. Does that make every article false? the logic is flawed.
And now a comment appears at the top of the article.
"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."
Take that Moncky.
So are the people who run this site going to fix up the erroneous topic information. Monckton did not get a paper published, he has had an article placed on the public forum of the APS. Big difference......
whats happened to AGW artic ice melting this year???LOL
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=15&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=15&sy=2008
BTW ALL the IPCC predictions have been falsified even using GISSTEMP data (Analysis/modeling done by an AGW believer!)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
Steve:
Thanks for the feedback. Although physicists have summarily dismissed climate science's motivation on this account and treated it with benign neglect I believe they have begun to recognize the importance of public education on this and other fantasies at the base of the AGW stack of cards.
As opposed to Schrodinger's. Feles mala!
Bring on the cyanide.
Sorry Hugh (Everett).
Hence Hansen's pussycat.
Does it now?
On the other hand:
"In this paper we show that the central problem can be modelled as a boundary value problem for a pair of coupled non-linear wave equations, the more complex part being the aerodynamics with aeroelastic interaction on the boundary viz. the wing. The composite problem can be modelled as a non-linear convolution equation in Hilbert space."
can we also presume that you'd never, ever, ever travel by air?