May 25, 2004

AGU and Global Warming

I recalled a certain Cimate Changer recently boasting that the AGU (American Geophysical Union) Council supported Global warming etc etc, which raised my interest a little. I spotted this on the web:

David Douglass, AGU member
Dept of Physics
University of Rochester wrote to the WSJ:

The AGU Council consists of 28 people, most without any expertise in climate science, who speak only for themselves. The Statement was prepared without fanfare by a small panel and approved during a large meeting of the AGU in San Francisco. It was announced the following week at a Washington press conference, with no prior opportunity for the other 40, 972 members of AGU to see and comment on it.

Letter submitted to Wall Street Journal by Prof. David Douglass

Antonio Regalado reported (WSJ Dec 17) on a recent Statement, Human Impacts on Climate Change, issued by the Council of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). While his report, Panel Shifts Stance on Global Warming, is accurate, the Statement does not necessarily represent the views of the 41,000 members of the AGU.

The AGU Council consists of 28 people, most without any expertise in climate science, who speak only for themselves. The Statement was prepared without fanfare by a small panel and approved during a large meeting of the AGU in San Francisco. It was announced the following week at a Washington press conference, with no prior opportunity for the other 40, 972 members of AGU to see and comment on it.

The essence of the Statement can be characterized by the sentence: "... carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be [substantially] warmer." The rest of the Statement asserts that this is true - but this is only a Hypothesis that must be tested against observations. The Statement goes on to say that the climate system is difficult to predict, yet computer models predict quite a list of catastrophes. These predictions are offered as evidence to support the Hypothesis. However, this is not evidence. These are only a manifestation of and an extension of the Hypothesis. A consensus of the 41,000 AGU membership implied or even honestly obtained is also not evidence.

What is the evidence that the Hypothesis is correct? The Statement only offers this: "... no single threshold level of greenhouse gases [exists]... at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred..." What are these impacts? They offer neither examples of impacts nor any other evidence to support the Hypothesis.

Have the models been successful in predicting anything? They, of course, predict substantial global warming. This is not surprising given the expressed belief of some of the model builders in the global warming Hypothesis and the many parameters in the model that need to be introduced. However, the models also predict unambiguously that the atmosphere is warming faster than the surface of the earth; but all the available observational data unambiguously shows the opposite!

Truth in science is always determined from observational facts. One finds the truth by making a hypothesis and comparing observations with the hypothesis. It is absolutely essential that one should be neutral and not fall in love with the hypothesis. If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing. “Truth by Assertion” is not science.

Sincerely;

David Douglass, AGU member
Dept of Physics
University of Rochester
Rochester NY 14627

Posted by Louis at May 25, 2004 05:12 PM
Comments

I believe that small panel did include John Christy though, who is a climate science expert, and generally skeptical of a lot of global warming rhetoric and research. Which is probably why it was such a signficant statement from the AGO.

Steve

Posted by: Steve at May 26, 2004 10:39 AM

Steve,

One might check this out, Christy's presence on that panel .....

Posted by: Louis at May 26, 2004 12:20 PM

Heres one link

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/asla/asla-list?read=2003-13.msg

Sorry for mess, the hyperlinking thingy didn't work for me today... ??? i put it in, but in the preview screen it just disappeared?

Steve

Posted by: Steve at May 26, 2004 12:56 PM

Steve,

spider webs clogging the web :-) will have a look - thanks

Posted by: Louis at May 26, 2004 02:45 PM

Ho ho I see - becomes all the more interesting does it not.....Oh the blog doesn't post comments to the blog email so I have to hunt for any comments........cursors.

Posted by: Louis at May 26, 2004 02:47 PM

Steve,

and the full statement link is gone - usual 404 error message.

Posted by: Louis at May 26, 2004 02:49 PM

You can see the full text of the AGU statement at the bottom of this article:
http://eces.org/articles/000618.php

The article also includes some excerpts of an interview with John Christy.

Steve

Posted by: Steve at May 26, 2004 05:08 PM

Steve,

the link quoting Christie is not helpful-goes to another not easily got at, site. Sigh.

Posted by: Louis at May 26, 2004 06:33 PM

I prefer Christy's statement to the Senate Select committee here http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Christy.html

Posted by: Louis at May 26, 2004 06:37 PM

Yeh true, Christy is still a skeptic, although his support for this statement is perhaps a softening of his position.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'not easily got at' site. I access the site fine.

Maybe you mean, not well known, not reputable. Could be, although i'd be careful dismissing it like this - you could argue the same about many climate skeptic sites too, including this one! (no offense aaron, i mean relative to say, a newspaper website)

In any case, here is a site that you might find more easily got at - the san francisco chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=science

It mentions the AGU statement, and quotes christy, and also refers to another climate scientist on the panel.

Also here is a thread from John Quiggin's website back in december covering the statement and christy's comments:
http://www.johnquiggin.com/archives/001242.html

The comments are from both sides of debate


Steve

PS. again, sorry about clumsy posting of hyperlinks, i'm not sure what's wrong with my html *sigh* i've had it working before...

Posted by: Steve at May 26, 2004 08:50 PM

Louis, dont miss this link, from the JQ comments thread i just posted:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rvtt.html

It links to the get together of all the bods looking at satellite data to try and reach agreement on what is going on, and why different groups get different results.

Steve

Posted by: Steve at May 26, 2004 09:08 PM

Steve,

when you get 404 errors and after a few repeats, one gets a little concerend, but could be due to traffic etc on the web.

Of course it could be your hyperlinks :-)

Apart from that, the data discrepancies are being homed in on - papers are coming out now, as I write (judging by the email noises), so once I catch up, these data will be pointed out.

Posted by: Louis at May 27, 2004 07:15 AM
Post a comment












Remember personal info?