Christopher Monckton’s new paper analyzes the math of the IPCC model and 2007 climate report and finds it flawed. As many have asserted his math now proves that carbon forcing effects in the model are exagerated among other things such as:
• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
The climate alarmists are sure to be out in force soon to attack these conclusions, watch for some major hysteria as this is a major scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal , the first among many to come. Now that we see demonstrable human suffering as outcome of misguided technocratic policy eyes are beginning to open. Scientists will be fully examining IPCC conclusion and basically fact checking their ass fully which is something the climate alarmists been given a pass on in the past. We undoubtably contribute some extra heat to the planet, to conclude that we must enact draconian measures before we know whether it matters or not is disastrously stupid.
Update: Charles points out that at American Thinker they outline what’s happened since, it appears that the paper might have been invited by APS, and then subsequently slammed due to the reaction that I said would occur.
More Updates: Tim Lambert submits that there might be flaws, Monckton asks for an apology and who reviewed his paper and their findings before the red label warning at APS was applied. It’s a full on science food fight folks.
Please also note that my statement is still firm: there is enough doubt about the extent of MMGW contribution that we should forestall policies based upon the IPCC findings. We should research more and actually fund some contrary studies. To enact more government policy before we know more would be scurrilious, and probably disastrous
UPDATE: It’s a year and six months later, Monckton’s paper has been debunked, and I’ve done much more digging into the data and studies. Anthropogenic Global Warming is something we must address this century, and if we wait until the second half to start it will be too late.
Here’s some from the conclusion of the paper:
Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
The thing that’s annoying about this is the press and ballyhoo, controversy and buzz this issue has received the past decade, when there are so many clear and present dangers in the form of food shortages, energy shortages, sanitation deficiencies, and environmental issues staring us directly in the face across this planet. You don’t need fricking models or graphs to see them clearly either.
While this is among the first of peer reviewed papers to criticize Kyoto, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Isaac Asimov, and Hansen, there will soon be more. Indeed, the numbers of people standing in line to bitch-slap Al Gore is probably going to become legion over the next two years.
All of that said it does not take away the need to create more clean energy. Breathing benzene ring compounds is not healthy, mining coal is not healthy, however living in an energy poor or energy static world would be disastrous – you don’t need a computer model to see that either.
If anyone cares to debate the topic, I’d be more than happy to entertain you.
Update : It appears that SPPI is mistaken, Christopher Monckton’s paper is in “Physics and Society” which is not a peer-reviewed forum. (h/t Transient) It does appear from the Acknowledgements section however that Monckton might be setting up for peer review.
h/t Right Wing News