Robert Austin:
Methinks you doth protest too much. Methinks the feedback is negative, for obvious
experimental and historical reasons which you won't believe anyway, so why bother? If you
can't figure it out by now, there is no hope for you.
I am afraid our British colleagues have come to the belated realization that they basically
have been fooled:
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Energy_and_Environment/file_39010.pdf
Not the APS, stubborn until the very end! Brave lads!! I am inspired to quote a famous stiff-
upper lip British poem to inspire you as you blindly charge ahead:
Forward, the APS!
Was there a physicist dismay'd ?
Not tho' the professors knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the APS.
- With Apologies to Lord Tennyson, "The Charge of the Light Brigade"
![Dr. Roger Cohen’s Comment:
APS leadership is to be commended for soliciting member comment on the Commentary. This is a major step forward in transparency, and it is hoped that the comment process will establish a precedent and lead to positive change in the 2007 Statement on Climate Change
The Commentary is intended to be an appendix or supplement to the 2007 Statement, which is to remain unchanged. That is,the committee recommends that the original 157 word Statement be retained but appended with 827words of explanation. This suggests that:
According to the committee, the 2007 Statement needs no revision. The committee is therefore unresponsive to the more than 200 signatories of the 2009 Open Letter who called for revision. It is saying that not only was the 2007 Statement completely valid at its time of issue, there has been no subsequent finding or development that warrants any change whatsoever. Since 2007, we have seen the continuation of the flat global temperature trend, now static for a dozen years or more and punctuating the lack of correlation of global temperature with atmospheric CO2; the revelations of manipulations of temperature data/stations and uncorrected heat island effects which produced large warming biases; the parade of problems with paleoclimate analyses purporting to show exceptional 20th century warming; studies of ocean heat content and complexity switching that are at odds with climate models; a variety of empirical studies of natural variations and transient phenomena pointing to a low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases; the disclosures of public and private doubts by key climate scientists; and more. We are asked to accept that none of this warrants a single change to the original statement.
The committee has put itself in the position of speaking to the science. For its source material, we know only that the APS President thanked a number of known IPCC lead authors and other advocates...and a single token “skeptic.” The President also thanked the Chair of POPA, whose research program depends on global-warming alarmism. There is mention of examination of “a number of scientific papers.” But whereas the Commentary makes numerous statements of a scientific nature, it offers no attribution sources for these statements. We do not know if these statements derive ultimately from the IPCC, or whether they represent the committee’s own assessment, or some combination. If it is the IPCC or any other external source, the APS has continued its practice of outsourcing the science without an internal study, in the case of the IPCC to an organization whose bias and incompetence are now amply documented. If it is the committee’s own assessment, it has no scientific authority to make that assessment.
While paying lip service to “uncertainties,” the Commentary glosses over the depth of these problems. This is especially true of the climate models’ treatment of clouds and water vapor, a critical factor in the sign and magnitude of temperature feedbacks from increased CO2. A large positive feedback is needed to achieve a high climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere, and its behavior is a key source of uncertainty and error in the models. A reference to the agreement between a “vast majority of the models” means nothing, because they all parameterize this behavior in the same way.
The problems with models’ parameterizations are well documented. For example, Professor of Atmospheric Science Graeme. L. Stephens writes in an extensive review1 of the cloud feedback issue that “different assumptions about the system produce very different conclusions about the magnitude and sign of feedbacks. Much more diligence is called for in terms of defining the system and justifying assumptions.” And further, “The lack of maturity of feedback analysis methods also suggests that progress in understanding climate feedback will require development of alternative methods of analysis.” In addition to structural problems with climate models, recent empirical and theoretical studies by Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and others provide evidence that cloud feedback may indeed be net negative, not strongly positive as parameterized by the models.
There is an important error in scientific logic in the Commentary, as revealed by the statement, “...there have been no credible natural mechanisms proposed to explain all of the observed warming in the past century.” It is not the job of climate science to prove the existence of a large CO2 contribution by showing that it cannot account for past warming by natural effects (therefore, it must have been CO2) . Rather it must show direct evidence that greenhouse gases have indeed caused substantial warming. It must do so by making predictions that are verified – or not – by observation. That is the scientific method. In this regard, the models have failed to predict the actual temperature increase ever since the first IPCC report of 1990, and their prediction of a greenhouse fingerprint – the tropical “hot spot” of accelerated warming in the troposphere – is simply not observed. Stratospheric cooling is not a fingerprint because volcanic eruptions, ozone depletion, and increased water vapor also cause such cooling, and indeed there has been slight warming since the short term impact of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption dissipated in the mid 1990s.
The Commentary does a “bait and switch” trick to try to defend the most outlandish passage from the 2007 Statement: “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.” The trick is to switch the actual passage to the merely trivial “Global Warming has occurred,” and then proceed to defend the fact that warming did occur in spurts in the 20th century. This is almost as devious as “Mike's Nature trick;” only this version of “Hide the decline” obscures the fact that global warming is not occurring,at least since around1995. Furthermore,the threatening calls to action in the passage were clearly linked to “The evidence is incontrovertible” and angered many members. The Commentary downplays the full context, evidently to head off the need for any revision of the 2007 statement.
The Commentary sums up with, “Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to escape the conclusion that non-negligible increases in global temperature are accompanying rising anthropogenic CO2.” This is vague in its characterization of increases as “non-negligible” and unscientific in its attempt to equate “accompanying” to causation. It is also wrong. With the stream of recent research findings and our increased understanding of the bias-driven process orchestrated by the IPCC, it has become increasingly clear that claims of serious global warming effects from greenhouse gases have been greatly exaggerated.
Despite these problems, the Commentary makes meaningful and supportable progress when it becomes quantitative on the issue of climate sensitivity for doubling of atmospheric CO2: “The estimates from various climate scientists for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration range from an increase of ~1°C to 2-3°C with the probabilitydistributionshavinglongtailsouttomuchlargertemperaturechanges.” The“long tails”arise from some climate models’ calculations of extreme positive feedbacks that approach the unphysical point of climate instability. There is no experimental evidence to support this. Putting this aside, the Commentary has set forth a significant lowering of the likely range from the IPCC position. The IPCC AR4 of 2007 states in its Summary for Policy Makers, “It [the equilibrium climate sensitivity] is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C,and is very unlikely[emphasis original] to be less than 1.5°C.” The lower end of the range cited in the Commentary is actually consistent with empirical estimates by “skeptics” such as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Douglass, Schwartz, Scafetta, and others, while the upper end includes the IPCC’s central estimate.
There is a big difference between ~1oC degree and 3oC, and the policy strategies one might favor would also be very different, depending on which is correct. The former is perhaps “negligible,” especially since we have already “booked” nearly half of the doubling since the mid 1800s. The latter has been used to justify global action. If the climate sensitivity is likely ~1oC, draconian economic measures causing great hardship cannot be justified. Therefore getting the right answer is critical. The Commentary already extends the lower range of the IPCC posture. Therefore, as petitioned by 257 members and former members, including 90 fellows and 15 members of the academies, let us now take the natural next step of an independent and objective analysis to see if the range can be narrowed, and if not, what should be done to enable such narrowing.
Roger W. Cohen 02-28-10
G. L. Stevens, Cloud Feedbacks in the Climate System: A Critical Review, J. Climate 18, 237-273 (2005)
**********************************************************************************************************************
Professor Hal Lewis’ Comment:
First, I associate myself entirely with Roger W. Cohen’s analysis, which
he was kind enough to share. That analysis is sufficiently damning to
justify withdrawal of both the original statement and its exculpatory
commentary, instead of embarkation on the pusillanimous path so far
chosen by the Council. I say this as a member of more than sixty-five
years standing, who has never seen anything this bad. I have worked hard
for our Society, and have never before been ashamed of it.
I have wondered what has brought the Society so low, and have convinced
myself that it must be pervasive conflicts of interest. I personally
know the current President to be an honest man, and I personally know
Dan Kleppner to be an honest man, yet the only alternative to
self-interest among the troops is stupidity, and physicists are
presumptively not stupid.
There is no mistaking the rewards that have accrued to both individuals
and organizations as a result of the global-warming fraud. Money (Al
Gore is now rich), leadership of large programs (Penn State, UEA,
Princeton), travels to exotic locations (Bali) for dedicated meetings,
elections to learned societies, etc. For most APS studies in the past (I
chaired the very first one) even the appearance of a conflict of
interest was rigorously avoided, but not here.
In the covering letter to this solicitation the President specifically
and by name thanked, as a source for the POPA subcommittee that produced
the proposed commentary, a man whose entire professional career (and the
well-being of the program he heads) depends on climate alarmism. Far
from being an acknowledged and respected source, any such person would
have been barred at the door in any study I have chaired (and I have
chaired many). Whether he is honest or no, the presumption for such a
flagrant conflict is recusal.
The Kleppner Committee (to which this proposed commentary is a response)
has a similar problem. One member, while claiming impartiality, was
actively soliciting a highly remunerative job at a large corporation
that is hip deep in these matters. Whether she told this to Dan I don’t
know, but someone owes someone an explanation, and the fact alone
corrupts his report.
On top of that, I know of only one declared skeptic consulted by any of
the responsible parties involved in this allegedly impartial review, so
even a pretense of objectivity was deemed unimportant. Not one of those
who actually stimulated the review was deemed worth consulting.
Finally POPA is the original source of the abominable statement you now
propose to keep in every detail, and it is not surprising that it has
produced such a whitewash. It is my judgment (and I repeat that I’ve
been around for a long time, through many truly great physics leaders)
that if the Council really buys this piece of ill-considered trash, all
physicists will pay a heavy price when the chips fall into place.
As they inevitably will.
**********************************************************************************************************************
Professor Will Happer’s Comment:
"And God saw everything that he had made and behold, it was very
good." That is the biblical tone of this clarification of the
celebrated APS Council Statement on Climate Change. Not one word needs
changing. It is like the "law of the Medes and Persians which altereth
not." In fact the original statement and the commentary read more like
the dogma of a religious council, defending its creed, than the
deliberations of a scientific body that is guided by observational
evidence. Is APS still a scientific body or has it become another
denomination of a coercive, pseudo-scientific cult? In their
responses, many of my APS colleagues, Roger Cohen and Hal Lewis to
mention only two, have summarized very worrisome scientific issues
that have been obscured by the POPA commentary.
If the APS Council would like to save some honor for the American
Physical Society, they should simply withdraw the current statement
on climate change, and undertake an honest study of climate physics.
The results of such a study could permit the crafting a truly
informed statement. Accepting the current POPA recommendations will
violate the old maxim -- "when you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging."
*****************************************************************************************************************
Prof. Larry Gould’s Comment:
I must begin by stating that — given the manner in which members of the APS administration have been suppressing the significant scientific evidence that contradicts both the APS Council's National Policy Statement on Climate Change* and its Proposed Commentary to Accompany APS 2007 Climate Change Statement (07.1 Climate Change) — this letter may only be serving as fuel for adding respectability to what is probably a bogus procedure (i.e., making it appear that the APS has both considered the science objectively and will be acting objectively with the regard to the letters it has solicited from APS members). But in the hope that someone will seriously consider it, here are my remarks.
The issue of dangerous AGW is cause for concern because it contains many claims that are contradicted by the scientific evidence. A small sample of these can be seen, for example, from contributions to the debate existing in recent publications of the Newsletter (Fall 2007, Spring 2008, Fall 2008, Spring 2009, and Fall 2009; copies can be obtained from the NES APS website:
http://www.aps.org/units/nes/newsletters/
Other issues about AGW which give me (and other scientists) cause for concern are some improper scientific procedures, such as: suppression of tree-ring data that conflicts with that from a wider sample, unwillingness and failure of some scientists to share temperature data with other scientists, and fallacious arguments (such as appeal to authority, post hoc, appeal to force, and ad hominem attacks) used by some advocates of AGW against their opponents. Such behavior detracts from the respect the APS has as a result of its genuine past contributions to the science of physics as well as conflicting with the APS GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:
Each physicist is a citizen of the community of science. Each shares responsibility for the welfare of this community. Science is best advanced when there is mutual trust, based upon honest behavior, throughout the community. Acts of deception, or any other acts that deliberately compromise the advancement of science, are unacceptable. Honesty must be regarded as the cornerstone of ethics in science. Professional integrity in the formulation, conduct, and reporting of physics activities reflects not only on the reputations of individual physicists and their organizations, but also on the image and credibility of the physics profession as perceived by scientific colleagues, government and the public. It is important that the tradition of ethical behavior be carefully maintained and transmitted with enthusiasm to future generations.
[ http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm ]
I respectfully urge you to reconsider (and, hopefully, abandon) the APS Council's National Policy Statement on Climate Change in view of the issues presented above. I urge you — as colleagues who (if I may presume) know the value of the scientific method and of science for the marvelous advances in our discipline, for Physics' consequent impact in advancing technology, and for the flourishing of civilization.
Most Sincerely Yours,
Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chair (2004) New England Section of the APS
*****************************************************************************************************************
Further comments that have been received
(1) “The 2007 APS statement on global warming makes it seem that the evidence is overwhelming that global warming is caused by human activity. Actual evidence doesn't support that view. The statement is entirely based on predictions from the global circulation models, which are seriously lacking in some areas. The models apparently do rather well in predicting circulation but that doesn't make them believable in predicting temperatures. Temperature is a quite sensitive parameter. It depends on many factors that are only crudely known (specific heats, reflectivity/emissivity, cloud albedo, constantly changing cloud cover, ...) The models treat these factors with approximations using a lot of adjustable parameters which can produce predictions which agree well enough with current observations, but such fits are useless for predicting future observations. The claim that many such models agree is irrelevant. They agree because they all use the same methods, not because they are correct.
The current more than a decade long cooling trend was completely unexpected from the model predictions. That alone is reason for skepticism. To make matters worse, the activities of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and elsewhere to hide the truth about the disagreement shows a lack of ethics by some researchers. The IPCC relied heavily on such doctored data, so it makes no sense to base the APS position on the conclusions of the IPCC.
The APS statement says “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring...”. That isn't even the issue! The issue is what is the cause? There is significant evidence that temperature increases drive the atmospheric CO2 level not the other way around. Willy Soon has shown that while temperature and atmospheric CO2 are closely correlated, the temperature excursions precede the corresponding CO2 excursions as a result of out-gassing by the oceans. That means CO2 is not the driver. The CO2 increases are an effect, not the cause. Some researchers claim that atmospheric CO2 has been as much as twenty times as high in the past and there was no runaway increase. Earth didn't turn into another Venus. The recent increases in temperature started well before the industrial revolution, so it isn't likely that it is caused by industrial development. The models also predict a hot spot about 10 km up in the atmosphere yet none has been found in spite of considerable efforts searching for it. Researchers claim that the period of cooling is too short to take it seriously. They refer to it as “noise”. That is just a popular way to say “I don't understand the data.” Something is causing the cooling and the models don't know what it is.
The attempts to silence outstanding researchers who are skeptics about anthropogenic causes is a disgrace to the profession. Public credibility concerning science and scientists has been severely damaged and will not likely recover within a generation. Politics should never drive the conclusions of science. Unfortunately, large grants tend to corrupt the motives and ethics of researchers. The efforts to suppress threatening research and game the peer review process to prevent publication is disgusting. In-house research with credible results would be an important step in restoring the faith of the public in science. “
**********************************************************************************************************************
(2) “The reputation of the international scientific community—and the integrity of the scientific process itself— has suffered a damaging blow at the hands of a group in the environmental science community.
Any member of the general pubic who has been paying attention, and certainly any member of the US Congress, is aware of a few simple facts:
1.) There has been no global warming since 1995 (Headline: Dr. Phil Jones.)
2.) Some of the most frightening numbers cited in the IPCC report, including the rise in sea level and melting time of the Himalayan icepack, have been revealed as unfounded or ridiculous.
3.) In the East Anglia equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, the “scientific” process behind the IPCC report has been exposed as corrupted:
- data was selectively chosen to support desired outcomes
- data interpretation was similarly skewed toward these outcomes
- the peer review process was subverted, dissenting voices suppressed
4.) Principal contributors to the IPCC report from both sides of the Atlantic stand in public embarrassment, one of them shamed to the extent of contemplating suicide.
Whatever their intentions, it appears that a significant group of climatologists have engaged in a conspiracy to stampede world governments into precipitous action that might well have had dire economic consequences, especially for the poorest nations.
Given the erosion of confidence in the integrity of science and scientists that has resulted, I would expect the APS to publicly and forcefully address the situation in a three-part statement:
First, an affirmation of core principles—honesty, fairness, respect, open discourse and rigorous rationality— that are at the bedrock of our science and our profession: Here the UK Institute of Physics has taken the lead.
Second, a retraction of the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change pending further investigation: The APS has nothing to gain and much credibility to lose by continued support of a statement that calls for sweeping economic and political action based on ostensibly flawed science.
Third, a call for thorough, vigorous research programs aimed at achieving both a level of certainty about greenhouse effects that would warrant action and an evaluation of alternative courses of action for mitigating damaging effects.
The recently distributed “APS Commentary” is puzzling in that It addresses none of the ethical and scientific issues that the public and the government are keenly aware of. It ignores the events of the last few months, restates its support for the 2007 Statement and appears to be complicit in the East Anglia “agenda.”
Just as troubling is the APS’s own process: on an issue that could drive massive economic dislocation, a statement is embraced based only on private deliberations with five researchers. The issue was not deemed worthy of even a public session at one of the many recent APS-sponsored conferences.
American physics today is the bearer of a proud legacy of advisory public service that recalls members of unimpeachable integrity and judgment, like Wigner, Fermi, Bethe, Feynman and others. Our current APS leaders, individuals of notable achievement and distinction, were elected for similar qualities. We owe it to our forebears to uphold this legacy. “
**********************************************************************************************************************
(3) Re: Commentary on APS Statement on Climate
Let us begin with some physics about co-mingled effects. CO2 absorbs IR around 15 m and emits it randomly, causing some greenhouse effect. According to the IPCC, (A) the “forcing” (in Wm–2) is proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration ratio, and (B) there should be a corresponding temperature rise that is proportional to the forcing: (T –T0) ln(C/C0)..
Another phenomenon is that the equilibrium concentration of atmospheric CO2 is dependent upon water temperature. It is a simple matter to derive the fact that ln(C/C0) (T –T0) for this phenomenon.
In other words, the “greenhouse effect” and the increase in CO2 concentration due to warming follow identical equations. It is therefore mathematically impossible to decide, given data showing the proportionality between temperature rise and the log of the concentration ratio, how to apportion the relative importance of the two phenomena.
The 2007 APS (Council) Statement on Climate Change said, “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate,” and in the Proposed Commentary said, “The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models.” It is just as true that warming of the earth (from known or unknown causes) results in increased atmospheric CO2, following exactly the same equation as does the greenhouse effect. The observational data are therefore automatically inconclusive, and an important physical principle has been utterly ignored by the two-dozen climate models.
2007 APS Statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” It does not follow, however, that CO2 caused the temperature rise. Warming causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. The phenomena are co-mingled. IPCC has paid no heed to this fact. The APS Council, which did no independent research, similarly paid no heed, nor did the Committee that examined the Statement.
2007 APS Statement: “[T]he APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate,” as if natural effects are already understood.
Not one of these serious problems is addressed in the Proposed Commentary.
**********************************************************************************************************************
(4) “How I wish Richard Feynman were still with us. Let's look at the earth's
heat flow from the viewpoint of physics rather than from media and IPCC
propaganda.
First, the heat that does not get to the earth's surface cannot heat the
earth. A one percent change in cloud cover overwhelms the carbon dioxide
effect claimed by the IPCC. It is absurd to assume the IPCC's hypothesis
to manipulate the earth's temperature is free to operate in the absence
of changing cloud cover.
Second, there is no sound physical basis for assuming doubling carbon
dioxide in the earth's atmosphere in the absence of clouds will increase
surface temperature. Any transfer of the earth's surface heat to air,
whether by contact or by capture of earth radiation, will help the
atmosphere move heat upward by convection. Surface temperatures of earth
and Venus can be simply explained by the normal adiabatic lapse rates
applied to the composition of their atmospheres without resort to a
carbon dioxide "greenhouse" effect.
Third, the concept of a carbon dioxide "heat blanket" is unphysical. Air
heated by more carbon dioxide does not remain fixed in place like
insulation. Warmer air goes up. As it goes up it cools. The absence of
the "hot spot" suggests this simple effect dominates the so-called
greenhouse effect.
Fourth, no data shows more carbon dioxide causes temperature rise. All
data show temperature change leads carbon dioxide change in all time
scales ranging from a few months to 1000 years.
Fifth, the IPCC hypothesis as calculated by climate models makes
incorrect predictions. This falsifies the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis.
Sixth, data show that one-year of human carbon dioxide emissions is
absorbed by nature in 16 days. There is no data to show carbon dioxide
in our atmosphere would be significantly different today if humans did
not exist.
Seventh, temperature has been rising at a fairly constant rate since the
depth of the Little Ice Age in 1650. It is absurd to blame the
temperature rise since 1950 on human carbon dioxide when this warming
rate has not changed since 1650.
Eighth, no data show that the earth's temperatures today are outside the
bounds of natural historical temperature variations. And no data show
that the earth's carbon dioxide concentration today is outside
historical values.
Ninth, no one has demonstrated that the earth's ocean-atmosphere system,
composed of uncountable, complex, irreversible processes, can in any way
go unstable by man's adding a small amount of carbon dioxide molecules.
The fact that we are here today is evidence that our ocean-atmosphere
system is stable.
Tenth, data show that more carbon dioxide helps rather than endangers
the earth and its inhabitants. There is no basis for claims that a
warming earth has or will cause any significant undesirable effects on
life. By contrast, there is overwhelming evidence that the proposed
political solutions to the non-problem of climate change will cause
significant detrimental effect on human life and freedom.”
**********************************************************************************************************************
(5) “This is in response to your request for input on the Commentary offered by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) with respect to the 2007 APS Council Statement (07.1 Climate Change). I write this as one who does not in any way disbelieve the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, but who is professionally insulted and personally distressed at the way the issue has developed over the past few years. It clearly is an issue that requires our very best scientific judgment to make wise decisions for future policy, rather than the politicized mess and media frenzy along with quasi-religious fervor in which we presently find ourselves engulfed.
The POPA Commentary appeared to me and to most APS members in my acquaintance a blanket endorsement of the now largely discredited IPCC report on climate change. In my opinion, the Commentary does not go far enough to distance APS from this document, nor does it protect APS from the international skepticism and fallout that the IPCC report has engendered. Of special concern to me is the fact that the APS President explicitly thanked the APS President thanked a number of known IPCC lead authors and other advocates for source material along with only a single “skeptic.” The President also explicitly thanked the Chair of POPA, who actively participated in the review, and who has a vested economic and professional interest in global warming alarmism through his own research program.
The question of anthropogenic global climate change has now clearly become politicized and the science distorted through the media and through the unprofessional actions of a few members of the climate change religious order. It is important that APS as a scientific organization which embodies the highest professional and scientific standards, stand back, withdraw its previous statements and commentaries on this issue and, in particular, explicitly disavow the IPCC report and its alarmist and scientifically offensive language which includes such nonsensical statements as “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” This statement, which fortunately the POPA Commentary seems to have moderated somewhat, insults both our intelligence and our professionalism as scientists. I hope it is not too late to preserve and resurrect our scientific integrity but I fear that considerable damage has already been done by past APS statements on the issue of global warming and climate change.
I think that at this point we have no choice but to withdraw past statements and commentaries, and start afresh with a clean slate. Once this is done, I would hope that the APS President and other responsible officials will then set up a blue ribbon commission of physicists whose integrity and reputations as physicists are beyond reproach and who have ABSOLUTELY NO VESTED PROFESSIONAL OR ECONOMIC INTEREST in the questions relating to anthropogenic climate change. This commission should study the scientific issues at stake, critically examine available evidence and eventually prepare a new statement for consideration by the APS membership that is worthy of the long tradition of scientific integrity and excellence embodied in the APS as a professional organization.
If such a commission cannot be established at this time, at the very least the APS should withdraw completely any endorsements or commentaries on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, and wait until such time as the political furor and media feeding on this subject mitigates before reapproaching this critically important issue. Unfortunately, neither time nor history may be on the side of such a “wait and see” approach.”
**********************************************************************************************************************
(6) “The proposed commentary to the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change has a number of defects based on my review of the relevant issues:
Surely, there is better scientific understanding or at least new information available since 2007 that would suggest revising the original statement.
I also find troubling the unstated premise that physicists, as scientists, should be involved in political advocacy. Surely we all have our political views- worldviews- that are influenced by our scientific understanding of various issues. But we need to be careful to not conflate the two roles.
Thirdly, there is no mention about the scientific misconduct that was involved in some of the climate research. While the falsification, skewing, omissions, and selective use of data may have distorted the results quoted in the IPCC reports, the more troubling aspect, to me, is that it impugns the integrity of physicists and others involved in this research.
I would recommend APS take a two-track approach:
One, produce a document providing a summary of the scientific consensus views and some of the opposing theories but have it be neutral with respect to public policy remedies.
Two, have POPA produce a document that is more policy/political in nature that would propose remedial actions that might be taken.
By presenting this on two tracks, our scientific credentials are enhanced by segregating the policy from the science. Keeping the policy options separate from the science also will lend credibility to these efforts- bearing in mind the unstated assumption that changes in the scientific understanding will influence policy recommendations but not the other way around.
One service the APS might be able to provide would be a forensic audit of the climate data in which the scope of improper data manipulations might be ascertained. Such a study would likely confirm that most of the data used has been reliable and if so would elevate the credibility of studies based on this "good" data. The mere fact that the APS would undertake such a study would benefit our reputations as good scientists, first, and as good citizens, second.”
8. “ 1. The first sentence: «Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate» is misleading. Putting 1 cent every day in my bank will certainly affect my income! So what? The question is: HOW MUCH greenhouse gases from human activities would affect Earth’s climate. Is the amount worrisome? Our planet and ourselves live within a range of temperatures between –50 and +50 Celsius: what is the variation we are talking here? Has this tiny variation affected the climate at all? And, if so, as the climate been affected so to manifest BAD consequences? From records of hurricanes and other severe events, may we say that these have increased in the period, say, 1940-2010 with respect to the period 1870-1940? The answer to all those questions is NO.
2. The sentence: «The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring» is irrelevant, since we know we live in a planet which has been for 18,000 years emerging out of an Ice Age and for 350 years out of a Little Ice Age (LIA). Indeed, since the planet is warming SINCE the minimum of the LIA (about 1650 aD), one should ask: WHAT is responsible for this warming, given that human activities were absent then (they were for the following 200 years). The sentence suggests that GHG from human activities are to be blamed. Why, then, there has been no warming – actually, there has been a cooling – during the years 1940-75, in the culprit of the baby-, industrial- and emission-boom?
3. Before Aps declares a sentence such as: «If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems … are likely to occur», it should question, and possibly answer, the following: We know that CO2 levels are today about 1.3 times the pre-industrial levels, however, there has been a past when the CO2 levels have been even 25 times today’s level, and no climate turning point has occurred BECAUSE of those CO2 levels; why a climate turning point should occur now?
4. The sentence «We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now» sounds more political than scientific. The Aps should have said also by HOW MUCH would it be advisable to reduce CO2 emissions. I will now show that, by 2020, say, even a tiny 6% is, practically, impossible. Proof: the worldwide nuclear plants (about 450 units) avoid CO2 emission just by 6%; therefore, to avoid an extra 6%, the world should DOUBLE the nuclear capacity, i.e., install about 250, 1.6 GW, nuclear units by 2020; the nuclear units under construction are, world wide, about 50. End of the proof. Aside comment: for EACH unwanted nuclear unit, about 5,000, 1 MW, wind turbine should be installed; or, for EACH unwanted nuclear unit, about $60 BILLION should be spent in photovoltaic roofs. All the above, just for a tiny 6% reduction. On the light of this, Aps should understand why COP15 has failed, why all COP’s since COP1 have failed, and why all COP’s in the future will fail.
Please, keep high the scientific standard of APS!”
**********************************************************************************************************************
7. “Abundant evidence exists that through out the history of this planet changes in climate have taken place.
All of the earth's current inventory of coal and petroleum once existed as atmospheric CO2 prior to being converted by photosynthetic processes into cellulose material that eventually was metamorphasized into its current form. CO2 continues to be emitted into the Earth's atmosphere as a result of both geophysical and anthropogenic activity. Most of the earth's inventory of carbonate rock layers is believed to have resulted from prior oceanic absorption of atmospheric CO2 which interacted with calcium and magnesium ions and precipitated out and eventually metamorphasized into vast beds of limestone.
I believe that the APS statement while expressing strong concern about anthropogenic release of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere should call for ongoing research on Ocean-Atmospheric interaction processes to develop an improved understanding of the atmospheric dwell time of CO2
A very large fraction of the energy used by the almost 7 Billion people on this planet comes from the oxidation of hydrocarbon material. As a minimum before issuing an immediate call for reducing the emission of CO2, some suggestions should be provided concerning quantitatively realistic alternate sources of energy for heating homes, generating electricity, preparing food, transporting people and materials and for manufacturing the implements that sustain modern civilization. The current APS statement which does not offer suggestions as to how alternate sources of energy may be made available, appears to me to be socially irresponsible.
Although transforming the temperature of the Earth to that of the planet Venus is undesirable, some modest increase in the average earth temperature might be beneficial. Increased levels of CO2 enhances photosynthetic processes thus increasing the world's food supply. Increased average global temperatures will allow lands at high geographical latitudes to become more agriculturally productive than there current are.
Overall, I would be much happier if the current APS statement were modified to express the need for achieving a better understanding of the consequences of CO2 emissions, of Ocean-Atmospheric interactions, and of the societal consequences of limiting the extraction of energy from the oxidation of hydrocarbons.”
“ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the APS climate change
statement. A topic having a potential impact on the survival of the
planet should not be based on a data set that is actively challenged by
a spectrum of APS members. The APS process must have sufficient
transparency to clearly identify the input assumptions, model bases,
and results uncertainty in a manner that permits areas of disagreement
to be addressed in a thorough and open manner. Stating that the
results are well established when a portion of the APS membership is in
disagreement does not foster the intent and purpose of the APS. In
fact, there is an appearance of favoring a conclusion in the hope of
deriving future funding from government agencies.
Although I appreciate the need for APS involvement in a topic of
national interest, the statement appears to be premature and not
justified by available data and models. I do not believe the statement
or supporting documentation would meet the requirements for publication
in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The APS needs to perform an independent
analysis that evaluates the state of knowledge and identify areas of
uncertainty and their likely impact on existing climate model results.
Before issuing a final statement (one that has the support of the
membership), a thorough review of data, models, and methodology should
be performed, peer reviewed, and published in the Reviews of Modern
Physics. This has been the traditional route of dealing with similar
issues such as missile defense systems (e.g., Star Wars).
Numerous aspects of climate change need to be thoroughly
reviewed/evaluated. The technical bases for model and input data must
be identified, peer reviewed, and available to the APS membership for
review. The following is not a complete list of issues, but represents
selected areas that appear to be in question:
1. Input data, including temperature measurements, are potentially
biased either by choice of data collection locations or selectively
choosing measurements supporting the desired conclusion. All model
parameters need to be validated and credible probability distributions
developed.
2. Energy source models (e.g., solar variability, atmospheric
transport, and chemical reactions) must be validated.
3. Processes (including radiation transport, water vapor dynamics,
and carbon dioxide cycles including plant growth dynamics and the
resultant impact of increased photosynthesis) should be validated.
4. Interaction models (including solar radiation interactions with
atmospheric gases and heat transport) require validation.
5. Model behavior over long time frames need to be determined.
Are the solutions stable and how sensitive are the results to input
parameter values? What are the convergence criteria?
6. All areas of dispute need to be documented and thoroughly
evaluated.
7. The relative importance of man-made and natural sources (e.g.,
volcanic activity) of greenhouse gases should be firmly established.
Additional areas of uncertainty are identified in Roger Cohen’s
comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
**********************************************************************************************************************
My background is in computational plasma science and atomic and
molecular physics. I am an outsider to climate science, but through my
work in plasma physics I am very familiar with practices in modelling
complicated systems where empirical parameterizations are used because
the fundamental equations are numerically intractable. After the
flare-up related to the release of CRU emails I downloaded the full IPCC
AR4 report and read most of the scientific sections and much of the
summary report. I have also paid attention to some of the more
scientifically oriented sources of information on the Web. I believe
that I understand the basics of radiation transport, I understand how
CO2, CH4 and other gases contribute a greenhouse effect, I find it
plausible that there would be a positive feedback mechanism on radiative
forcing through increased atmospheric water vapour concentration, and I
understand that there is great uncertainty about the feedback through
changes in cloud cover.
I am an IPCC/AR4 sceptic, and wish to highlight here three scientific
issues that are the core of my scepticism.
First, what I've read since the release of the CRU emails has persuaded
me that the surface temperature record cannot be trusted. The station
data appear to have been subject to many adjustments that are made
without a clearly specified protocol. I find it likely, given the
tremendous societal impact of the science, that there has been a desire
by involved scientists to err on the side of caution and overstate the
case for action and the consistency of the scientific data. In the
absence of a hard protocol it is too easy and too tempting to treat as
suspect any station data that do not support the preferred view. I have
scorn for the claim that the surface data record is backed up by
measurements of retreat of glaciers, changes in sea ice cover, and the
ocean temperature record; these measurements are sensitive to very
different timescales, to precipitation and albedo in addition to
temperature, and in the case of the glaciers even to precipitation that
took place hundreds of years ago. In any case the agreement appears to
be only qualitative.
Second, with regard to the paleo-climate reconstructions, and in
particular the medieval global warming period, I am impressed by the
criticism that has been levelled especially by Steve McIntyre against
the perspective in the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports. The statistical
procedures for climate reconstruction look flaky to me and there appear
to be serious issues again with data selection. The infamous "hide the
decline" phrase is only one signal that the science has been corrupted -
or at the least, that IPCC scientists have overstated greatly the
confidence that can be attached to their reconstructions.
Third, I completely distrust the IPCC report in the matter of
predictions of changes in extreme events and of other correlates of
global warming. (This is the one issue of the three about which I had
already an opinion, the same opinion, before the release of the CRU
emails.) I have the impression that statements about future extreme
events and correlates of global warming are highly speculative and that
a selection mechanism has been at work for their inclusion into the IPCC
reports of which the driver is the perceived need for political action.
Those are my views on some scientific issues central to the IPCC report.
There are excellent debates as well about economic issues and issues of
international aid connected with IPCC, but I think the APS need not
concern itself with those.
With respect to Climate Change and the IPCC I am afraid that the APS has
gotten itself into a mess. The member poll about replacing the 2007
Statement was beside the point entirely. I voted against replacing the
statement with the proposed alternative. I believed then as now that
the proposed alternative was far too specific; the APS should not take a
stance on the reality or otherwise of the medieval warming period. I
wonder with what agenda this silly poll came to be put in front of us.
I would gladly have voted for withdrawing the 2007 statement.
The previous President's email to members of 2009-12-10 was extremely
unfortunate and showed to me that the APS leadership at the time had its
concerns wrong, mainly wanting to stifle scientific dissent among its
members. Good riddance to the departing President, I thought,
reciprocating the hostile message of that email.
The APS will have to change its public stance, I think, with regard to
its assessment of the quality and the integrity of the IPCC process. I
commend the British IoP for its contribution to the parliamentary
inquiry that is underway there, and I think the APS should adopt a
similar scepticism with respect to the science that underlies the IPCC
reports. I understand that it is difficult - and often not desirable -
for an organization to change its public stance; one should strive to be
consistent. But frankly, the APS messed up badly and it needs to be
corrected.
In conclusion I return to the question of what is to be done with the
2007 Statement. It appears that you want to retain it, but provide a
clarifying document that offers a line-by-line analysis showing that
really the Statement should have been worded quite differently. I can
imagine a tactical case to be made for this; you don't want to
explicitly withdraw an old statement, because doing so may reduce the
credibility of the Society's future statements, so instead you attach so
much clarifying text to it that the old statement is in effect made
inoperative. If you really believe you must do it this way, so be it.
But I find it ugly and clumsy, and I urge you to simply withdraw the
2007 Statement. That withdrawal can then be coupled with an announced
intent to review some key science questions surrounding the IPCC
consensus, and as those key questions I recommend the integrity of the
surface data record, the procedures for paleo-climate reconstruction and
the assignment of their confidence levels, and the selection and
confidence levels of predictions of secondary events correlated with
global warming.
*********************************************************************************
(9)
This Proposed Commentary is a disappointment to me. The second sentence of the 2007 APS statement is incorrect as a “simple definition”. It does not include water vapor (about 80 % of the net greenhouse effect). The “no credible natural mechanism ” statement in the Commentary is incorrect. There are many natural causes for climate variations, for example the Pacific Multi-Decadel Oscillation and its effect on precipitation cycles, cloud formation and the average high or low altitude cloud coverage. Then there are volcano eruptions into the atmosphere, under the sea and under ice shelves, the effect of cosmic ray changes on clouds and water droplet nucleation, changes in the Sun’s irradiance, variations in UV heating of stratospheric ozone, the North Atlantic Decadel Oscillation, long-term heating from El Nino events, general ocean Conveyor Belt phenomena, and so on. The energy fluxes and mechanisms for energy storage and transport from all of these things in various combinations are enormous. The 2007APS statement on climate change simply parrots the IPCC conclusions in their various summaries. Mann’s hockey-stick graph, eliminating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, was their original poster child. The Himalayan glaciers show no signs of melting away as they said. Earth’s mean temperature has been flat for about a decade (not predicted by any model). The oceans have been cooling for 4 years. The surface thermometry data sets have been compromised at CRU, and are now known to be unreliable. Clearly Earth had to recover from the Little Ice Age. I believe that the APS should shift gears away from political activism on the CO2-AGW scenario, and toward the promotion of observational science, measurement techniques and new instrumentation (especially from space, balloons and aircraft) in our study of the climate. The role of physicists in empirically characterizing (honestly and reliably) the climate systems by region and globally is important. The transparent publication of data in real time on the web and in print, coming from observations and analysis should be our hallmark. Error bars and the level of uncertainty, especially in multi-parameter fits, should be central to everything that we do. The APS should carry out an independent, serious, scientific study of climate issues if the Council wishes to make a policy statement on climate change directed toward the general public on behalf of its 48,000 members. I feel that the 2007 APS statement on Climate Change should be scrapped. At the very least, the Commentary should include the website of the Petition Statement on Climate, along with the list of signatories, and provide an extensive, web-accessible list of references discussing all sides of this debate. Sam Werner, Fellow
**************************************************************************************
10) There is the old story relating a strolling person coming upon another
down on the ground under a street light searching for something. When
the stroller asked “what are you looking for”, the reply was “my car
keys”. The stroller, wanting to be helpful, asked “can I help,
approximately where did you lose them?” The searcher replied “over
there by the curb”. The puzzled stroller then asked “why are you
looking here?” The searcher answered “Because this is where the light
is!” So it is with the naïve fixation on carbon dioxide. While
visiting at Argonne National Lab, I attended a seminar by Dr. Kevin
Trenberth, who showed the “hockey stick” graph, along with much other
data. The one curve that correlated with the “hockey stick” graph was
the graph of methane concentration. So, why “search under the street
light of carbon dioxide when a more serious problem lies elsewhere? The
obituary for the distinguished atmospheric scientist, Dr. Joanne Malkus
Simpson appeared in today’s (March 8, 2010) issue of the Washington
Post. To avoid taking things out of context, I will insert here the
whole paragraph “As recently as two years ago, her scientific work
triggered controversy when she wrote an article expressing skepticism
about some of the evidence underlying global-warming discussions. While
calling for better data and stricter definitions, she also urged the
nation to act on the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change "because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases, and the climate models are right, the planet as we
know it will, in this century, become unsustainable. But as a scientist,
I remain skeptical." I would urge the APS via its council to “remain
skeptical”, also. Notice that here rejoinder was to “act”, not swallow
whole hog the IPCC recommendations. Indeed, one “action” would be to
demand far better research, lest we, like the WWII Nazi Germans who
tried to make an atom bomb out of U-238, spend a huge effort to reduce
carbon dioxide “to no avail”. I was at a CERN workshop in May 2009
where persuasive evidence was presented linking Siberian temperatures
over a 700-year time span to cosmic ray intensities. Is that important?
Does anyone care, as it does not fit preconceived IPCC ideas? I
repeat, the APS, of all groups, should be the most skeptical.
**********************************************************************************
11) The published NOAA, NASA and Hadley center warming trend is flat from 1950 to 1975 and from 1995-2000 to present. It does not reflect the post WWII miracle growth nor the more recent China rise, while the Mauna Kea data does record the increase of CO2 production in those periods.
To a statistical analysis the global warming appears coincidental and quite poorly correlated with the more continuous growth of human carbon burning.
From the data I would conclude that while some global warming is observed, it is unlikely that it is caused by CO2.
Additionally, there is the discrepancy that the Mauna Kea recorded CO2 concentration accounts only for a fraction of the CO2 yearly dumped in the atmosphere.
If in my field I were claiming an extraordinary statement with terms like “incontrovertible” using such flimsy correlation, ANY peer reviewer would shame me.
Therefore just for this reasoning the APS statement should be considered shameful for our profession and retracted.
There is an additional reasoning.
In the Eighties we allowed unconscionable pseudo-scientists to claim that the South Pole Ozone hole was caused by CFC dispersed in the Northern hemisphere while it is much more likely caused by the sea water Chlorine updrafted by the storms of the “Roaring Forties” (the same storms in the Northern hemisphere would simply updraft dust from Canada, Europe and Siberia.
As a consequence of our failure as scientists to criticize that false claim, the entire CFC industry was destroyed, lesser cooling fluids are now used, and the environment is being harmed.
An incorrect claim that global warming is caused by human activities has the potential to cause immense damage to the economy, to people lives, and to the environment.
In my opinion any logical scientist, and the APS, should not only refrain from, but also make sure not to be associated to alarmist statements like: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.”, “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, . . . are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”, and “The APS also urges governments, . . . to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”
Not only I feel that the present APS statement should be simply retracted but, as a scientist used to base his judgment on hard facts, I would find it unprofessional and irresponsible not to oppose any suggestion or advice given without hard evidence and that could cause substantial damage to humankind. Worse than all if given, even indirectly, using my name.
***********************************************************************************
12) Dear Roger,
I applaud your response, though I think the evidence for anthropogenic warming
is even less than you argue. I am impressed by a recent analysis by Harry
Taylor, which among other things reveals that what I had supposed were
reliable temperature data from satellites have in reality still been the older
kind of data from thermometers, which in the case of the oceans are obtained
by reading the temperature 20 feet or so below the surface of the water. There
is a marked difference between the older data and the satellite data--the
latter are completely lacking the rise in the older data from 1960 to 2000.
But even the older data show a rise of only about one degree F in 100 years.
This is global warming? I say "Hurrah!--we will take it!"
I am at a loss as to how to respond the APS. I am not a climatologist and
cannot speak as an expert--but if Al Gore can pass himself off as an expert
(in which he fails miserably), and I suppose if the APS Council can do
likewise, then what can we do other than just wait until the climate speaks
for itself?
*******************************************************************************
13) As a signatory of the petition that gave rise to the ad hoc
subcommittee's commentary, I find the commentary to both support and
avoid major issues raised in the petition. In support it finds that
the term "incontrovertible" in the APS statement is scientifically
inappropriate for conclusions drawn by the immature science of climate
change. Also it supports the petition finding that this immaturity and
associated scientific uncertainties in the magnitude of the effects
make inappropriate the statement's advocacy of immediate wholesale
reduction of human activities that contribute to the trace greenhouse
gases. The commentary completely avoids the core issue of whether the
statement is sufficiently conclusive scientifically and socially
appropriate to stand as a concensus of the American Physical Society
membership.
I personally find that the commentary omits two specific physical
aspects that have strongly influenced my consideration of climate
change science as being immature. First, water vapor is omitted in the
commentary's list of greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the dominant
greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere, and the variables
associated with it are a major source of uncertainties in the magnitude
of the effects predicted by the models. Second, the observed increase
in global temperature LEADS the observed increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration, suggesting strongly that the increase in CO2 is a RESULT
of global warming rather than its CAUSE. Omission of both these key
considerations might imply a bias in the findings of the ad hoc
subcommittee.
********************************************************************
14) "The language of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS climate change statement
is hyperbole, not science. The use of superlatives and imperatives feeds into
the "sky is falling" media-induced hysteria over increased CO2. No amount of
"commentary" will remedy this problem, particularly since the commentary itself is based on
flawed and discredited science.
If the APS is to have any credibility on science policy issues it must
withdraw the 2007 statement immediately.
The 2007 statement is a betrayal of the scientific values to which physicists
are supposed to aspire."
********************************************************************
I have been a member of APS for nearly 22 years. Despite attending
only a few APS meetings since the 1980's, I have maintained my
membership in APS. But in recent years, I have become upset with APS
leadership regarding APS's growing political advocacy in the area of
anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I want to emphasize that my
frustration does NOT stem from my simply disagreeing with APS regarding
the scientific reality (or not) of AGW or even the urgency (or not) of
actually doing anything about it. On those points, I am willing to
agree to disagree. But I am particularly frustrated that APS, both
directly via the 2007 statement and in other ways, effectively
continues to deny the existence of any controversy in the scientific
community about the reality and/or significance of AGW. I do not
believe ANY objective scientist can honestly assert that the following
claims are 100% NON-controversial: (1) that AGW is occurring, and (2)
that we must do something about it or suffer worldwide catastrophe.
Whether specific technical claims about AGW are true or not is a matter
upon which reasonable scientists may, and do, disagree. Surely, the
EXISTENCE of this DISAGREEMENT in the scientific community about AGW is
more "incontrovertible" than AGW! Disagreeing with someone's arguments
is one thing; asserting that their arguments do not even exist is NOT
the same thing! And yet, APS leadership continues, for all practical
purposes, to DENY the existence (let alone the legitimacy) of the
controversy itself, thus, in effect, exhibiting a level of
condescension that I find utterly appalling. It hurts me to say this
about APS. Surely, APS leadership must be aware that many, many highly-
respected scientists, including fellows of the APS among others, have
SERIOUS doubts about the validity of AGW models as well as the
selection and processing of the experimental data. Many have signed
petitions and made strong statements to that effect. And yet, despite
all that, APS leadership insists stubbornly that warming
is "incontrovertible," and that we MUST act now, all without even
hinting that the "science" behind these conclusions MIGHT actually turn
out to be completely mistaken! And that, ladies and gentlemen (and I
hate to say this about physicists whom I otherwise greatly respect!) is
NOT science! APS leaders would do well to re-read the sad history of
the Lysenko affair in Soviet biology and compare it to the current AGW
fiasco. In closing, I wish to point out that my 22 years in APS is
scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. If, before then, APS leadership
does not drop its fundamentally unscientific claims that evidence of
AGW is "incontrovertible" and that we "must" reduce emissions
immediately, then I will NOT renew my membership. I cannot, in good-
faith, continue to be a member of an organization that has become, at
least in regard to AGW, literally anti-science! Many APS Fellows
taught me what science was and what it was not. I have not forgotten
those lessons, but I fear that APS leadership has. And that is a
genuine tragedy.
*****************************************************************
16) I am encouraged that new APS leadership is taking this important step, but disappointed that the proposed Commentary does not include objective reference material to consult, and relies on vigorous assertion. It is as inaccurate as, and contradictory of, the Policy.
Global warming is occurring is factually wrong. Even ex-CRU Director Jones says there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, as long as an earlier period used to claim dangerous AGW. Incontrovertible arouses anger by coupling it with GW and implying it is anthropogenic. The APS now effectively says we did not mean to say that.
No credible natural mechanisms have been proposed is wrong. Recovery from the little ice age with multidecadal deep ocean oscillations and cosmic ray variations, for example, are both credible and sufficient.
The vast majority of models ignores that the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour forcings is an input assumption, not output, thus wrongly predicting rising temperatures as CO2 emissions rise. Observations from several sources indicate the feedback may be negative. Models predict rising temps with rising altitude, contradicted by balloon and satellite observations and reveal that some physics in the models must be wrong. The models have failed to duplicate the past without parameter retuning and failed to predict the future.
Justifying immediate policy action by invoking possible catastrophic outcomes from large global temp increases is in conflict with model predictions of a temp rise , due to doubling CO2 concentrations as cited in the Commentary, of 1-3°C , an estimate repeatedly lowered by the IPCC. Catastrophes that either the IPCC has withdrawn or are disputed by other authorities include: Himalayan glacier melt; Greenland Icecap melt; Brazilian rainforest demise; more severe hurricanes and droughts; rapid sea level rise; and the discredited hockeystick still on the IPCC books.
The IPCC itself lists anthropogenic radiative forcings that it says are large, uncertain, and poorly understood. Other findings in peer reviewed literature show that: current temps and rates of rise, and CO2 concentrations, are not unprecedented; that significant uncertainties include: variances in structure and magnitude of CO2 estimates from ice cores and leaf stomata; unexplained but seemingly highly correlated estimates of CO2, CH4, and temperature from ice cores not seen in geologic or recent atmospheric data; unexplained inclusion and rejection of global temp measurement stations.
The IPCC’s remit to assess AGW (not climate change per se), its increasing advocacy, its abuse of the scientific method, and use of non peer reviewed papers from advocacy groups are important deficiencies that are inconsistent with objective assessments.
I think that the APS Policy and Commentary are too contradictory and inaccurate to be useful, and that while AGW may be occurring, it is not dangerous enough to justify urgent draconian measures. In fact, AGW, its causes, magnitude, and impacts are too uncertain and poorly understood for public policy decisions.
Accordingly, the APS should:
•stop AGW political activism,
•withdraw the Policy,
•stop reliance on the IPCC for authoritative assessments,
•conduct an independent assessment of the status of climate science, and
•promote better ways to measure, and transparently to publish climate data consistent with the scientific method to which physicists are uniquely able to contribute.
*******************************************************************************
The commentary gets off to a very bad start: “There is a substantial
body of peer reviewed scientific research to support every technical
sentence in the 2007 APS statement.” This kind of statement is, in its
use of “technical,” characteristic of trial-lawyers, not scientists.
There is plenty of peer-reviewed *challenge* to assertions in the 2007
statement, which if mentioned at all, is given very short shrift in the
commentary. The long-winded substitution of “compelling” for
“incontrovertible” regarding evidence for *anthropogenic* global warming
is better than nothing (by an epsilon), but retains a misleading aspect.
Policy should be compelled only by facts that are robust against
vitiating perturbations and sensitivity analyses.
The bad start continues: “The first sentence [namely, ‘Emissions of
greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in
ways that affect the Earth's climate’] of the APS statement is broadly
supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate
models.” That’s certainly non-falsifiable, and is therefore
scientifically vacuous. (“Physical principles” also support the notion
that the temperature of the Arctic Ocean is changed by dipping a
four-inch, room-temperature mercury thermometer into it.)
“Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult
to escape the conclusion that non-negligible increases in global
temperature are accompanying rising anthropogenic CO2.” Where’s the
science? APS members, and the APS at large, should draw “conclusion[s]”
only where there is objective evidence within reasonable error-bounds –
not vaguely-stated “long tails” of probability distributions. And is
the next sentence a commentary, or is it a redundant re-wording of the
2007 statement?: “Thus given the significant risks associated with
global temperature rise, prudent steps should be taken to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the
observational data and the model predictions.” The cart is certainly
before the horse here. We need lots of clean, uncontaminated data, and
competently crafted, unbiased, high-fidelity models *before* any crisis
can be declared and “prudent” sweeping policies imposed.
Subject commentary amounts to praise by (ever-so-)faint damnation. It
amplifies and improves the 2007 statement’s ‘sales-pitch’ without
adducing evidence that is supplementary to the purported evidence on
which the 2007 statement is based. If the 2007 statement, with its 2010
band-aids, were put to a second vote, I’d vote to repeal it.
*****************************************************************************
My input on Climate Science involves the process and its failure in the eyes of the public. On Nov 25, 2009, I asked that President Murray request that the APS take seriously the unfolding situation of decreasing confidence with respect to climate change statements. I got involved with this issue then because I perceived that the very integrity of the APS, physics itself, and the view of physicists by the public we serve is being lost. To lose our integrity is not worth any price, budget, or program funding arrangement. In my current line of work, not paying close attention to the facts can cost lives; but playing close attention also has saved many lives. In the long run, the unfolding situation is destroying the confidence in our institutions and the public no longer believe that we physicists are impartial observers or can be trusted. The political tactic emerging with climate science of riding it through, ignoring critics, name calling, and calling science "settled" is antithetic to science itself. I stated then, and I much more strongly believe now as events have unfolded and intense scrutiny began in December, that the APS reviews did not meet their burden of proof nor did the APS practice due diligence on behalf of science with its review. Properly constituted scientific proof builds year after year as more facts emerge while the climate change statements have been less and less supportive as the emerging facts cast more doubt than support for earlier APS positions. Because physics, science, and APS integrity have lost much ground recently, the following are now requirements for a proposed review, and the following principles are the absolute minimum for the APS society to recover its integrity. Anything else will cost us all dearly. We must treat this review as a legal proceeding where both views and perspectives are equally represented. Both sides position must be "discoverable," and repeatable science must prevail.
1. No one who receives climate science funding of any substantial amount (more than one man-year equivalent) can judge the final result of the review. The public believes that grants and funding determine conclusions. Of course, those who receive funding are entitled to present their results, but not to assess them on behalf of the APS.
2. All facts, data, and evidence considered must be available for independent review, equally by both sides. Note, this condition would rule out the conclusions of E Anglia data, as the original data cannot be found.
3. Since the APS relied on distinguished scientist reputations to bolster and defend arguments by accepting the previous findings without reviewing the evidence carefully and independently themselves, this option has failed the APS and now should not be used again. Let's have the reviewers actually reevaluate the evidence and present their conclusions.
4. Both sides must agree on the reviewers, like the defense/prosecution agreeing on jurors.
5. These procedures will take some time; short circuiting this process will be deemed by many as a whitewash. Therefore, the process must meet the APS timeline for restoring its integrity, not a political or budget agenda.
6. Let's let the evidence and review speak for themselves and recover the birthright of the APS.
National Academy of Science Standards: Judging the conduct of research.
"The research enterprise, like many human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. The level of trust that has characterized research and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the research community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical conduct of research."[1]
Thank you for allowing me to make my views known; Very Respectfully
**********************************************************************
19)
The following is Ulrich Gerlach’s response to APS’s feedback solicitation concerning its 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change:
Physics is one of the most, if not the most, conspicuous crown jewels of
man's achievements, unprecedented intellectually and culturally.
It has furnished him the principles by which to grasp the macrocosm of
the universe, the microcosm of the subatomic world and everything in
between.
Its observation and experiment-based reasoning has been an inspiration
as an archetypical cognitive method to chemists, geologists, biologists,
and many others ever since the Age of Enlightenment.
It is difficult to find a field of scientific study with an intellectual
reputation more solid and well-deserved than physics – a positive
reputation which has prevailed and grown from one generation to the next.
In the US, physics and the APS are synonymous. They have equally solid
reputations and are equally credible as cultural institutions,
attributes necessary for continued viability.
However, the 2007 APS Climate Change Statement is a black mark on the
credibility and the reputation of the APS, a mark which tends to rub off on physics and, more generally, on science.
The global warming movement, in particular man-made global warming, is
turning out to be the biggest scientific fraud in recorded history.
(Even though the fraudulence of man-made global warming has not yet been
reported extensively in the U.S. media, Australian and British media are
not remiss in this respect.)
Given the rigor of observation and
experiment-based logic on which physics is based, one would expect that
APS distance itself from such a fraud. Unfortunately APS, by virtue of
its 2007 Statement, has chosen to do the opposite. Its proposed
commentary, to justify that statement, consists of a combination of
evasions and equivocations, all due to due to an apparent lack of due
diligence in regard to fundamentals.
To illustrate that lack, consider the scientific methodology as
practiced by K.R. Briffa and T. Osborn (leading authors to the 2007 IPCC
report). In their 2002 article in
Holocene, Vol. 12 (p737-757), they attempt to explain late 20th century
temperature decline implied by the decline of their tree ring data as
follows (p752):
"In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make
the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind
of recent anthropogenic forcing."
Apparently in order to not let this sink in fully, the article's next
sentence continues the paragraph uninterrupted. But I have interrupted
it precisely to let this sink in fully.
The paragraph's next sentence is
"On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of
the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar
events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability."
With these two sentences they embrace the corruption inherent in Karl
Popper's
“Hypothetico-deductive Method”, according to which one deduces the
absence (or the presence) of events from fantasies ( "... make the
assumption that …").
If Wolfgang Pauli had written the APS commentary, he would have
dismissed such a methodology underlying global warming theory with “this
is not right, it isn't even wrong” , ie. it is arbitrary. He also would
have censured referees who, in their incompetence and laziness, have
given the green light to publications like the one above.
The APS commentary, by contrast, finds nothing wrong with corrupting
science by injecting into it fantasies in the name of “a substantial
body of peer reviewed scientific research".
Addendum to the above APS-solicited reply:
It should be noted that the flip side of the subjectivity of Popper's fantasy-based science consists of the global warming “scientific consensus”. The consensus view of science originated with Thomas Kuhn as a rationalization for his inability and unwillingness to identify the fact-based nature of science. He accomplished the cover-up of his lack of responsibility by misrepresenting science in terms of (subjective) models, “paradigms” as he calls them, which – he asserts -- are accepted or rejected by “the assent of the community”, ie. by consensus, not on the basis of fact. Thus the essential difference between Popper's and Kuhn's subjectivities is merely the difference between personal and collective fantasies. The man-made global warming movement is a manifestation of both variants of a corrupt philosophy of science.
************************************************************************************
20)
The first paragraph of the 'Statement' is unobjectionable.
'Incontrovertible' is indefensible. It is only used because it was also used
in the IPCC report. The 'Commentary' admits it is problematic, and then says
nothing to justify its use in a scientific way. To be accurate, 'Global
warming HAS occurred.' The unstated, but implied meaning of the second part is
that 'anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is occurring, and all the observed
warming in the 20th century is man-caused.' This may be true, but the evidence
is not incontrovertible.
How much of the observed warming is man-caused is not yet known.
The case for AGW is based primarily on historical temperature records and on
climate models, along with the really incontrovertible evidence of increased
atmospheric levels of CO2 since the industrial revolution began. Recent
evidence on the 'loss' of historical temperature records, the badly documented
use of unverified corrections to those data, and the serious questions of the
recent reduction of the number of temperature monitoring stations and how well
they have been protected from local (urban heat island) effects means the
question of the size of historical temperature fluctuations (which predate the
extensive use of fossil fuels) is unanswered so far. The climate models are
not yet credible, having not predicted the recent temperature plateau, and
having not reproduced the local warming peak of 70 years ago. There is reason
to take seriously the possibility that the temperatures during Medieval
warming period and during the late Roman period were similar to those
currently being experienced. 'Incontrovertible' is indefensible.
The entire second paragraph of the Statement is political, and not scientific.
Statements from a scientific society carry an implication that they reflect
scientific judgment, preferably from an independent analysis of the science.
This paragraph is essentially justified not by an independent APS study, but
by reference to the IPCC, an organization and process seriously compromised by
political forces.
The people who issued this statement need to swallow their pride and revise
the statement to reflect a more honest scientific assessment.
Arnold J. Sierk
Technical Staff Member
Theoretical Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fellow APS
**************************************************************************************
I find the "Commentary" on the original APS Climate Statement extremely
unsatisfactory.
The criticism of the original APS statement is that it is assertions
without any justification, references or other supporting material that
goes into scholarly work or, for example, a judge's opinion that cites
precedents.
There may be some statements that APS might make that would be agreed
upon by the overwhelming majority of physicists, e.g. that the
government should increase research support. However, it is apparent,
for example from the petition to change the Climate Statement, that
there is a substantial, very respectable group of physicists who
disagree with the Climate Statement for what they believe are sound,
important reasons.
The Commentary, unfortunately, is simply a more verbose version of the
original statement, still with no references or real support. It does
not take into account any of the contrary evidence or objections of
those who disagree with the notion of anthropogenic global warming
(AGW).
The preamble says that the POPA subcommittee interviewed, among others,
Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at
MIT. I am confident that Professor Lindzen strongly disagreed with the
Climate Statement, but I see no evidence that the subcommittee or POPA
paid the slightest attention to his objections, or did anything to
address his views in the Commentary.
The Commentary did not mention, for example, Professor Lindzen's recent
work that indicates that feedback effects reduce the warming effect of
CO2 on global temperature. Nor did the Commentary say anything about the
debunked "hockey stick" temperature rise, the phony scaremongering by
the head of the IPCC that the glaciers are going to disappear in 25
years, the withholding of data from AGW skeptics, the economic costs of
CO2 reduction, and other issues that legitimately create doubt about the
case for AGW and the wisdom and efficacy of compulsory CO2 reduction.
Many of these issues have appeared since the original APS climate
statement was issued, and therefore deserve careful deliberation. From
the Commentary, it would appear that they got zero consideration.
In my view, then, if the APS wants to take a position, it should
commission an in-depth study of the state of AGW science and produce a
scholarly report on this subject, just as it has done in the past, for
example, on the 2003 study on missile defense.
Anything less than such a study is a travesty.
The Climate Statement and Commentary, as they now stand, are pure
politics and certainly do not meet the standards of science or scholarly
inquiry of APS Members.
I hope that in the spirit of openness and democracy, all APS Member
comments on this issue will be posted on the web for Members to examine.
*************************************************************************************
If the science was clear-cut and well established the current arguments concerning climate
trends from scientists involved in active research and others, as informed observers, would
not occur, would not even be interesting. The argument becomes significant when the results
are used to invoke changes in how we all live. However, there are too many unknown
quantities in atmospheric behavior at this time (cloud properties, deep ocean circulation and
solar variables, for instance) to accurately make any concrete statements in regards to future
conditions, even using the relatively simple models that are now extant. Scenarios based on
some observations and hypotheses are output from the models but that does not
automatically make them gospel if published by Science or Nature, particularly when the
primary energy variable (solar) has not been included in the models.
Climate research has been over-politicized in the last 20 years due to the economic
incentives for many and the fervor generated by the globalization movement. This has turned
a potentially good science into a hash of opinion and pseudo-religious fervor. It is also
apparent that in many higher-education establishments, this movement has taken an even
more drastic toll that has not yet been fully realized; degree recipients are being released
into the wild, convinced by their educators that they are "scientists", when in fact they have
no idea what purely investigative objectivity really is. I have worked alongside too many that
prefer to start with the conclusion rather than the observation. Furthermore, scientists have
styled themselves as policy makers when in fact the two do not coexist.
In my opinion the primary variable has been overlooked, i.e. the overwhelming properties of
the sun both in regards to radiation and magnetic influence upon the earth. These are clearly
the source of energy upon the earth and the primary driving forces of energy transfer within
the atmosphere. The Maunder Minimum is the classic example. Anything contrary is very
difficult to argue and, yet, solar effects are being largely ignored in the climate models. How
inclusion of solar effects plus atmospheric variables all relates to regional and local climate
effects will be difficult to solve, but therein lay the answers. As far as relation to current
"global temperature" trends, a recent review has shown that NASA satellites have not
produced results that can prove measurable changes in atmospheric temperature have
occurred during the period of record. As far as terrestrial observations go, there are many
problems with both the observations and the way in which they have been "compiled" and
“corrected”.
Somehow compiling and correcting the real data make me wonder if current “climate science”
can even be called science when the “leaders” in the field start with the desired conclusion
rather than the data.
*****************************************************************************
Robert E. Levine's Comments:
The proposed Commentary asserts that every technical sentence in the APS Statement is supported by peer reviewed scientific research. A key sentence appears to refer to the IPCC estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the published data for which is assessed in Reference 1, graphically displayed therein in Box 10.2, and used to estimate a likely ECS range of 2°C to 4.5°C.
However, Reference 1 evidently disregards the significance of divergence among 12 different ECS estimates that were used to produce the composite IPCC estimate. Although the displayed PDF graphs partially overlap, there are three distinct peaks at approximately 1.3°C, 2.2°C, and 3°C, plus a broad distribution with a discernible peak at approximately 4°C. These peaks indicate that the ECS estimates probably disagree to an extent that is statistically significant.
The ECS estimates disagree because they originate as outputs from different computational systems, each of which combines multiple theories into a climate model that is then further specified by empirical parameterization. This output disagreement implies that the various computational systems differ materially in their explicit and implied scientific assumptions. The most important known difference involves climate feedback, which is the response of the natural climate system to direct CO2 “greenhouse” warming that accounts, by itself, for an ECS of approximately 1°C. Accordingly, the computations that produce three distinct PDF peaks indicate a predicted natural climate system response to direct CO2 warming (normalized to the direct warming) of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 respectively.
Reference 1 avoids confronting the obvious negative model validity implications of the above climate feedback ratio divergence. Potentially greater divergence is indicated by recently published experimental data that shows negative climate feedback (Reference 2) and indicates an ECS that could be as low as 50% of the direct forcing (0.5°C). The possibility of climate sensitivity that is too low to account for observed warming suggests that IPCC models may omit important sources of climate forcing. Several candidate sources not currently included in these models are discussed in published scientific papers, but these potential sources are given low ranking in the table of forcing agents in Chapter 2 of Reference 1.
Other evidence suggests that the IPCC ranking system for climate forcing agents is incorrect and impedes progress in climate modeling. For example, Reference 1 ranks stratospheric water vapor from causes other than CH4 oxidation as “Very Low.” This agent is not well-represented in climate models, but a 2010 paper (Reference 3) indicates that it acted recently as a decadal period agent of forcing, feedback, or natural variability that first added and then subtracted 25-30% to global temperature change. Other low forcing agent rankings should accordingly be reassessed.
The facts discussed above show that problems with the APS Statement go far beyond issues of clarity and tone. This situation calls for a totally new approach that is independent of the IPCC.
1. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007.
2. Lindzen and Choi, Geophysical Research Letters, 2009.
3. Solomon, et al, Science Express, 28 January 2010.
2. Additional Comments
a. Details for References Listed Above
(1) S. Solomon et al., Eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007).
(2) R. S. Lindzen and Y. Choi, Geophysical Research Letters 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628 (2009).
(3) S. Solomon et al., Science 337, 1219 (2010), originally published online at www.scienceexpress.org, 28 January 2010.
b. Additional Evidence to Support Hypothesis of Impeded Progress in Climate Modeling
(1) Evidence in Reference 1 supporting the assertion that progress in climate modeling as a whole is impeded appears on Page 591, where text states that “…a proven set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate projections has yet to be developed,” and on Page 619, where Figure 8.11 shows that only small progress has been made in reducing climate simulation errors.
(2) Evidence in Reference 1 supporting the assertion that progress in reducing uncertainty in climate sensitivity in particular is impeded appears on Page 640, where text states that “…a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed, and on Page 631, where Figure 8.14 shows that only small progress has been made in reducing uncertainty in estimating climate feedbacks.
(3) Impeded progress in reducing climate modeling uncertainty is associated with a corresponding inability to reduce the number of different large-scale climate models, 23 of which are discussed in Paragraph 8.2, Reference 1. This paragraph discusses extensive efforts that have been taken to improve each of these models, but there is no indication of a way to reduce the number of models through comparison of model output with recent or earlier climate change.
c. Additional Evidence to Support Hypothesis that Climate Forcing Mechanisms have been Omitted from Models
(1) Hypothesis is capable of explaining lack of progress in narrowing climate model uncertainty.
(2) Hypothesis is capable of resolving discrepancy between low directly measured value of climate sensitivity and need for high value of climate sensitivity to make model output agree with measurements.
The measure called level of scientific understanding (LOSU) used in Table 2.11 of Reference 1 reflects current status and should not be used to predict the outcome of research or influence its direction.
Robert E. Levine, PhD
Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering (retired)
876 E. Old Spanish Trl.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650
Tel: (520) 378-3790
bob4dian@mindspring.com
******************************************************************************************************
24) First, I wish to commend the APS for soliciting member comments on the APS 2007 Statement on Climate Change and the Commentary that is proposed to accompany the Statement. I probably also should acknowledge my own position on anthropogenic climate change: I believe greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to bring about significant alteration of Earth's climate in ways that could have many undesirable effects and that public policy should reflect this concern; at the same time, I am very skeptical of the more apocalyptic claims of impending catastrophe and I do not support some of the "cures" offered to address the problem. I should also acknowledge that I am not a specialist in climate change even though I have followed the issue with active interest over the last two decades.
My general criticism of the 2007 Statement is that it is too certain in tone, with insufficient acknowledgment of uncertainties, and gives the appearance of being focused on providing support for certain policy options for mitigating the effects of climate change that I consider to be too narrowly defined. Comments that follow elaborate on this theme.
The first sentence asserts that greenhouse gas emissions “are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate”. I would be more comfortable if it read “ways that can [or could] affect …” There is no informed scientific dispute that there is a physical capability to affect the climate; whether there actually is an effect currently, and its extent, is in some dispute. (This is admittedly a minor quibble, but it illustrates my concern with the overall tone of the statement.)
I have much more serious concerns with the second paragraph, starting with “The evidence is incontrovertible:…” The Commentary acknowledges that use of the word “incontrovertible” is rare in scientific discourse where consideration of all possibilities is the norm, yet it appears there is no intent to modify the 2007 Statement in this regard.
The next statement, “Global warming is occurring”, far from being “incontrovertible”, actually is probably false: the evidence is that there has been no significant global warming in the last 10-15 years and there are even some data suggesting a slight cooling. To assert that global warming “is” occurring, present tense, is not justified; what is justified is to assert that there is strong evidence that Earth’s climate warmed significantly during the last century. Climate change skeptics note the current pause in global warming was not predicted by climate models and cite this as a major reason for rejecting climate change theory. I do not concur: nothing in climate change theory denies the existence of other natural cycles (ocean cycles, solar cycles) etc., that can affect climate over a period of a decade or two, and a downward trend from these other influences may be superposed upon the longer-term upward trend, yielding the observed pause. In this event, relatively rapid warming might be expected once the shorter-term influences swing back to a warming cycle reinforcing the longer-term trend. Nonetheless, it is also possible that the pause reflects more serious flaws in our understanding of global climate influences and adds to the justification for more scientific humility than is implied by the second paragraph of the 2007 Statement.
Another problem with the second paragraph is that the context strongly implies that the “incontrovertible” global warming is all of anthropogenic origin, and the Commentary does little to dispel this implication. Probably this implication is also untrue. The evidence is strong (dare I say “incontrovertible”?) that the warming trend started in the 19th century, possibly earlier, well before anthropogenic greenhouse gas additions to the atmosphere could have had a significant effect. Evidence for this assertion includes recession of mountain glaciers, which started well before significant anthropogenic global warming could have occurred, as well as surface temperature measurements where these are reasonably reliable. Indeed, I believe the best estimate is that most warming that occurred up through the first half of the twentieth century probably cannot be ascribed to anthropogenic sources, while the reverse is probably true of the relatively rapid warming that appears to have occurred in the last part of the twentieth century.
The second paragraph of the Statement also warns of various dire effects that are likely to occur unless mitigative actions are taken. However, the Commentary indicates that the most likely predictions of climate change models are for a 1 °C to 2-3 °C rise in global temperatures by the year 2100, with some possibility of much larger rises. The latter would certainly raise serious concerns that could justify urgent action, while 1 °C would not be very alarming on a global scale; it is less clear how urgent immediate action would or would not be if the right answer is 2-3 °C rise by 2100. I cannot help but conclude that the most urgent need, especially from the perspective of scientific societies such as the APS, is to gain improved understanding of the science behind climate change before imposing massive requirements on global energy use patterns that could prove highly disruptive to the world economy.
The range of possible climate change effects cited above imply an enormous uncertainty range in the seriousness of the threat, yet the second paragraph of the 2007 Statement concludes very assertively: “We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” In addition to being more assertive than current understanding may justify, the focus on immediate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is too narrow.
Roughly speaking, there are three general courses of action (not mutually exclusive) society could take to mitigate the impact of climate change:
(1). Commence immediate implementation of measures to reduce emissions using existing technologies, principally in the area of energy production and use, since this is the dominant source of greenhouse gases.
(2). Research and development (R&D) on improved means of reducing emissions, especially in the energy area.
(3). Measures to reduce the impact upon human society of whatever emissions do occur; e.g., including adaptation to climate change, “geoengineering” to counter the effects of the greenhouse gases, etc.
Although the APS 2007 Statement supports the second option (R&D), the emphasis (“starting now”) appears to be on the first. Using existing technologies, available means of reducing emissions related to energy production include increased efficiency in energy utilization, and deployment of energy sources that do not yield a net emission of greenhouse gases such as hydroelectric power, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear fission, biofuels, etc. Many means of increasing energy utilization efficiency can be justified on economic grounds alone and there is little reason not to pursue them. However, rapid implementation of the energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases on the vast scale needed to make a serious reduction in predicted climate change faces formidable problems and could prove very socially and economically disruptive. For example, hydroelectric power has its own environmental costs and could not be expanded greatly in most developed nations in any case. Current solar and wind technologies are not economic without substantial subsidies, and the fact that they are intermittent and not necessarily at their maximum at the times and places where most needed would pose formidable difficulties if they were to be deployed on the scale required to address climate change. Geothermal is limited in terms of where it is available. Nuclear fission suffers less from these disadvantages but the power plants are expensive and time-consuming to build, at least in the United States. The principal biofuel using current technology in the United States, ethanol from corn, requires subsidies and whether it is even a net environmental benefit is hotly debated.
In view of these limitations of current technologies, and the uncertainty as to whether immediate reductions in emissions are truly urgent, the assertiveness in the APS statement and emphasis on “starting now” seems misplaced, except perhaps in the case of energy utilization efficiency. It would be appropriate to place the emphasis on R&D, a need which actually is implied by the first sentence of the third paragraph. It is worth noting that the Copenhagen Consensus publicized by Bjorn Lomborg analyzed the cost effectiveness of various programs for global human betterment, including the climate change issue assuming the IPCC estimates of the extent of climate change to be valid. They concluded that, except for energy utilization efficiency, most measures for addressing climate change using current technologies were very cost ineffective, and that R&D for improved approaches would be preferable by a wide margin.
Neither the APS 2007 Statement nor the accompanying Commentary even hints at the third option, i.e., adaptation to climate change and possible “geoengineering”(e.g., dispersal of reflective particles in the upper atmosphere) to reduce global warming resulting from greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere. This is regrettable because no one believes greenhouse gases can be turned off with the flip of a switch, and climate models generally indicate that, even if greenhouse gases could be shut off immediately, significant additional climate change will result from the greenhouse gases already present. Hence, if the climate models are valid, significant additional global warming must be expected to occur in the decades ahead even if heroic measures are implemented to reduce the rate of increase in greenhouse gases, and the greater the climate sensitivity turns out to be, the greater this unavoidable climate change will be. There are many measures that can and should be studied as possible ways to adapt to the predicted climate change. Geoengineering options are much more speculative, but the concept is not absurd on the face of it and at least deserves careful scoping studies.
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the 2007 Statement actually strikes what I believe to be the right tone, acknowledging large uncertainties and urging increased understanding of both the climate change problem itself and also of the various options for dealing with it. There is, in fact, a bit of a conflict with the overly declarative and assertive tone of the rest of the 2007 Statement.
I have emphasized comments on the 2007 Statement itself rather than the Commentary because it is the Statement that will be most widely quoted in public policy discussions with little regard for any context provided by the Commentary. In any case the Commentary did not provide much to mitigate my concerns.
Finally, I would like to provide some words of caution applicable to any scientific group taking a position on scientific issues that are both fraught with uncertainty and fraught with major implications for public policy. There is a natural progression of events that is something as follows: an honest assessment of the issue is made that leads to a conclusion that the evidence implies the issue is probably very important despite the presence of large uncertainties; if the issue is indeed very important, major implications for public policy are believed to follow; and if these policy implications are highly controversial, there will inevitably be pressures to downplay uncertainties in the underlying science and overstate the claims that are made. In an extreme form, I suspect this process was responsible for the scandal popularly referred to as “Climategate”. Starting with a sincere belief that climate change is very important and demands important changes to policy, those involved ultimately were led to actions involving gross scientific misconduct that seriously compromised the credibility of the climate science community in the public eye even though much of the evidence supporting climate change is not invalidated by the issues involved in “Climategate”.
In a much milder and much less reprehensible way, I believe the same forces may be influencing the authors of the 2007 Statement and the proposed Commentary. Starting with the honest belief that climate change science, despite all the uncertainties, indicates that global warming is very likely a serious threat and justifies certain important policy changes, there would inevitably be perceived pressure to downplay uncertainties and make recommendations assertively. After all, if one believes that a technical issue like global warming implies that we should probably make policy changes with ultimate costs of many trillions of dollars and that will affect millions of jobs, it is difficult to enter the policy debate saying “we should probably do this; of course, I might be wrong”.
I offer no judgment as to whether it is ever defensible for political leaders, who genuinely believe that difficult and expensive policy changes must be made, to downplay uncertainties in the evidence underlying their belief.. What I will say is that it is incontrovertible [sic] that scientists should not downplay uncertainties in their conclusions. We should acknowledge uncertainties and alternative interpretations while also asserting our degree of belief in the outcomes we consider most plausible. If uncertainties are to be downplayed in order to “sell” difficult policy choices, leave it to the politicians.
******************************************************************************************************
25) I think the commentary says only that the original statement is
exaggerated beyond reason. It can only be justified by invoking
the 'precautionary principle' which has no place in science. I find no
answer to the problem that has always 'bugged' me. That is the way
the 'feedback' parameter is used in the modelling to produce the
alarming temperature projections without convinceing evidence. I find
it discouraging that the APS resorts to polling instead of providing
an analysis with the uncertainties in this procedure quantified. And
there is no mention that bringing sequestered carbon back into
circulation may be the only good thing we are doing for life on the
planet.
******************************************************************************************************
26) This is in response to your request for input on the Commentary offered by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) with respect to the 2007 APS Council Statement (07.1 Climate Change). I write this as one who does not in any way disbelieve the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, but who is professionally insulted and personally distressed at the way the issue has developed over the past few years. It clearly is an issue that requires our very best scientific judgment to make wise decisions for future policy, rather than the politicized mess and media frenzy along with quasi-religious fervor in which we presently find ourselves engulfed.
The POPA Commentary appeared to me and to most APS members in my acquaintance a blanket endorsement of the now largely discredited IPCC report on climate change. In my opinion, the Commentary does not go far enough to distance APS from this document, nor does it protect APS from the international skepticism and fallout that the IPCC report has engendered. Of special concern to me is the fact that the APS President explicitly thanked a number of known IPCC lead authors and other advocates for source material (along with only a single “skeptic”) as well as the Chair of POPA, who has a vested economic and professional interest in global warming alarmism through his own research program.
The question of anthropogenic global climate change has now clearly become politicized and the science distorted through the media and through the unprofessional actions of a few members of the climate change religious order. It is important that APS as a scientific organization which embodies the highest professional and scientific standards, stand back, withdraw its previous statements and commentaries on this issue and, in particular, explicitly disavow the IPCC report and its alarmist and scientifically offensive language which includes such absurd statements as “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” This statement, which fortunately the POPA Commentary seems to have moderated somewhat, insults both our intelligence and our professionalism as scientists. I hope it is not too late to preserve and resurrect our scientific integrity but I fear that considerable damage has already been done by past APS statements on this issue.
I think that at this point we have no choice but to withdraw past statements and commentaries, and start afresh with a clean slate. Once this is done, I would hope that the APS President and other responsible officials will then set up a blue ribbon commission of physicists whose integrity and reputations as physicists are beyond reproach and who have ABSOLUTELY NO VESTED PROFESSIONAL OR ECONOMIC INTEREST in the questions relating to anthropogenic climate change. This commission should study the scientific issues at stake, critically examine available evidence and eventually prepare a new statement for consideration by the APS membership that is worthy of the long tradition of scientific integrity and excellence embodied in the APS as a professional organization.
***********************************************************************************************************************
27) Some climate skeptics admit that Earth is warming but they argue this is not caused by CO2, but rather by the sun. They claim that a brighter sun emits significantly more UV photons or increases the flux of galactic cosmic rays (to make extra clouds). This is not true since the 11-year solar cycle has been effectively constant (average value and amplitude of oscillation) for more than the past three decades when there has been considerably warming. The quiet sun has been observed with considerable data [1].
Thermal radiative power to return absorbed solar power to space (proportional to solar flux s) is proportional to T4. This proportionality (s α T4) gives the change of temperature with respect to a change in the average solar flux,
ΔT/T = (Δs/so)/4.
A 1% increase in temperature is caused by a 4% increase in the solar flux, thus temperature is less sensitive to solar changes. The 11-year solar flux gives an oscillation on top of the base level of 1367 W/m2. The amplitude of oscillation is 1 W/m2, or a 0.07% effect. If we increase the median value of the solar flux so by twice the oscillation amplitude (2 x 1 = 2 W/m2), the surface temperature of 287 K rises by
ΔT = T(Δs/so)/4 = (287 K)(2 W/m2/1367 W/m2)/4 = 0.10 K.
The surface temperature rise of 0.4 K since 1980 did not take place because of the sun, since the solar mean solar flux was constant, not rising from 1367 to 1369 W/m2. If it had it risen by that amount it would be only a 0.1 K effect. In addition, the projected direct 1 K rise from doubling carbon is 10 times higher than the above false 0.10 K estimate. The projected rise of 2-3 K with feedbacks is 20-30 times the above the false solar estimate of 0.10 K. The constant oscillatory solar term (1 W/m2) with a constant solar mean value (1367 W/m2) gave no mean temperature rise. This must be compared to the effects from rising CO2, see below. Recently Camp and Tung [2] used a time series analysis technique to identify the 11-year temperature cycle for Earth that follows the timing and constancy of the solar cycle. These results with an oscillation of 0.1 K show that that there has been no significant extra solar warming over the past 45 years.
Some climate skeptics say that CO2 is saturated by its exponential absorption. However, this ignores radiative transfer in which a micro-layer absorbs IR photons and re-radiates IR photons, both up and down. In the higher atmosphere, it is cooler with fewer IR photons radiated away from Earth. This increase in forcing from CO2 is logarithmic with concentration and not an exponential. For today’s increase of 2 ppm/yr, thermal forcing increases almost linearly within our lifetimes. Temperature rise is primarily proportional to additional forcing. In the next decade CO2 is expected to rise form 390 to 410 ppm. Forcing should increase proportional to the ln(1 + change/390) = ln(410/390) = ln(1.0513) = 0.0500. [ln(1+x) = x for small x]. A doubled CO2 increases forcing by a factor of 1.7 and not 2.0. These results contradict the statements by Will Happer to the US Senate in which he stated the following [3]: “Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.” Happer ignores atmospheric radiation transfer, described above, which is well understood among atmospheric physicists and astronomers. Higher CO2 concentrations can overwhelm the natural cycle that peaked at 280 ppm.
[1] J. Lean, G. Rottman, J. Harder and G. Kopp, Solar Physics 230, 27 (2005). J. Lean, Phys. Today 58, 32-38 (June 2005), P. Duffy, B. Santer, and T. Wigley, Phys. Today 62, 48-49 (January 2009).
[2] K.-K. Tung, J. Zhou and C.D. Camp, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L17707 (2008) and references.
[3] William Happer, US Senate Environment and Public Works Comm., Feb. 25, 2009.
*************************************************************************************************************************************
28) I am one of the signatories to the Petition to the APS concerning the Climate Change Statement. I have studied the response submitted by Roger Cohen and I generally agree with his comments. Although I am not a climate scientist, I am still a scientist and a mathematician.
As far as climate change goes, it now appears that it the evidence for climate change is no longer incontrovertible. Global warming is questionable. What is not questionable is that are localized regions of warming and localized regions of cooling. And there is evidence that such has been going on for eons. Consequently, planetary climate is a complex system for which accurate predictions are difficult to make. It appears to be a dynamical system which is constrained to remain inside a certain basin, and except for this general constraint, tends to hop chaotically around to various attractors inside this basin. There are probably many mountain ranges and valleys inside this basin. Any modeling of planetary climate which neglects this feature of dynamical systems will undoubtedly miss on its predictions.
The APS should continue to carry on as a scientific organization and supporting scientific endeavors. Better climate models are indeed needed.
Statements by a scientific organization should be scientifically accurate, eschewing political positions and nonscientific statements. Doing otherwise will reduce the credibility of the APS with the public and governments. It can also lead to the APS being made the butt of jokes with a consequential loss of prestige and respect. Prof. D.J. Kaup, Math Dept. UCF
*******************************************************************************************
29) The matter of Global Warming/Climate Change is clearly a subject of major concern for our society since it affects many aspects of how we make choices as to the use of precious resources in the future. The physics community should be in a position to offer essential scientific input that affects how these choices are to be made, since throughout its history the American Physical Society has been at the forefront of providing useful advice for policy makers on matters that have a significant scientific component. In order for this input to be useful it has to be independent of political influence.
The 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change is very positive in its conclusion that human influence has contributed to a significant part of the increase in global temperature over the last few decades, and that we need to act to mitigate future ill effects. The statement itself offers no references as to how this conclusion is reached, but the 2009 report of the ad hoc APS committee considers the 2007 IPCC statement as the principal source for material that tends to support the APS position. Although the ad hoc committee found that several of the strongest wordings in APS 2007 had questionable scientific support, they still did not recommend changing the statement. It should be obvious to any independent scientifically trained person that has studied the matter that all of the IPCC reports, including 2007, do have a significant political tone and that the use by the ad hoc committee of this as its major reference is not fulfilling its charge to provide an independent assessment of APS 2007 and the Austin Petition. One does not have to look far to find a large number of eminent scientists that question the significance of anthropogenic warming of the earth (see the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change).
There is little question that the earth has been warming for the past few centuries, since the Little Ice Age. There is also no question that human activity has increased the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there is ample reason to question its effect on climate. Some have used the remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature in the Vostok ice core measurements as a indication that the CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise, but the studies that have been made of the onset of these increases seem to indicate that the temperature rise precedes that of CO2 by several hundred years, indicating that the temperature rise is causing the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans.
In order to assess the impact of greenhouse gases on our climate a number of computer models (GCMs) have been developed to forecast their future effects. These models contain a number unjustified assumptions and parameters and have not been shown to predict the pertinent features of the climate as we have experienced it since the models were first introduced. This should not be surprising considering the complexity of the system that is being modeled. What is surprising is the weight that is given by policy makers to the results of these predictions.
It is my hope that APS will choose to conduct an independent assessment of our current knowledge of the major factors affecting our climate, both natural and man-made, and report the results to the society at large.
*******************************************************************************************************
“The fundamental issue at hand is the integrity of the scientific enterprise.
I recommend that the APS withdraw the 2007 Statement (rendering the Commentary moot). Instead, the APS should draft a commitment of direct support to the investigations now getting underway worldwide that will examine the methodology, conclusions and recommendations of the IPCC. Independent verification and validation of climate research is an essential step in restoring public confidence in the objective role that science must play in the larger political process.”
*******************************************************************************************************
31) The most important issue concerning the APS is now moot: the APS should not issue statements about matters outside our expertise. Should the APS recommend that everyone get their annual flu shot? This is not the business of the APS, nor was it for climate.
POPA has fallen into the trap that correlation implies causation. The average global temperature has indeed risen since the early 19th century, which is not surprising given that we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age. Estimates of warming attributable to increasing atmospheric CO2 come solely from climate models, which all have basically the same science in them. If something is missing in the models, conclusions could change. This is a systematic uncertainty, not a statistical one, as implied in the 4th paragraph of the POPA statement.
Implying that the science is settled also leaves young researchers (both in physics and climate science) out on a limb. What if they believe otherwise? Is it wise to publish? A substantial group of physicists (and essentially nobody in climate science) believes that cosmic rays may play an important role (via cloud formation) in unexplained climate fluctuations (i.e., "natural climate variations"), and the evidence is tantalizing. The CLOUD experiment currently running at CERN explores aspects of this. Introducing a new mechanism into the climate models would change their feedback predictions, so the issue is not academic. The 2007 statement tells these physicists that the APS believes their work is irrelevant. POPA's broader interpretation is much better.
The Kleppner Committee primarily used the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) to reject the Austin petition. Numerous problems with AR4 have been pointed out recently by those both inside and outside the climate science community. This has led to increasing skepticism in the general public about the honesty of the scientific process in that field. A real concern is that this skepticism will spill over to all sciences, including physics, especially if disaster predictions made by a segment of the climate community fail to come true. Most reported problems with AR4 have to do with disaster predictions. The APS is now a stakeholder in those disaster predictions.
I don't doubt that greenhouse gases in an optically dense atmosphere lead to warming. The calculated ~1 deg. C increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks from other parts of the climate system is radiative physics and believed by everyone in climate science. Such a modest increase in temperature would take more than a century at current rates, and the net balance between winners and losers is not clear. What is not believed by everyone is whether the feedbacks to this "vanilla" result are large or small or even positive or negative. All of the disaster predictions come from the large positive feedbacks built into the climate models - outside the models there is only circumstantial evidence for positive feedbacks. Implying that the relevant science is settled makes the APS a stakeholder in the validity of current climate models.
It is very important to make a clear distinction between the vanilla (no feedbacks) prediction (based on radiative physics) and the disaster predictions that frequently appear in the press (solely based on climate models). Care should be taken to distance the APS from the latter. Otherwise the APS runs the risk of looking foolish if the extreme versions of climate sensitivity prove false.
**********************************************************************************************************
32) The "Commentary" has analyzed the sentences, but it has ignored the
Elephant in the room.
Coming from Experimental Particle Physics,
I have a lot of experience with Monte Carlos.
I have never considered computer modeling "a science", just a method
of correcting for fiducial volume.
The problem is that the approach uses "Inductive Reasoning",
and one can never formulate any conclusions.
Real Science uses only "Deductive Reasoning".
A Measurement is a Number-Triple: a Mean-Value, a Standard-Deviation,
and a "WAG" of Systematic deviations.
Monte Carlo modeling never gets around to producing values for the
last two. This would require propagating the corresponding values on
all the input parameters through the equations that represent the
internal machinery of the model.
While playing with computer models may keep some of us employed,
it has never been used as a bludgeon to justify a Political war.
The U.N. tried to "borrow" the "Credibility of Science".
Their "Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change" (IPCC) has never been
"credible" in my eyes. It was a panel organized by a Political body
to substantiate a Policy position they had already wrangled. My
skepticism here goes back to "Follow the Money". They wanted a way to
tax nations that produce things to transfer the wealth to those that
do not. We saw this quite clearly at Copenhagen.
The "ClimateGate" EMails have already let the air out of this
party balloon. There is no believability left in "Climatology".
The Physics Community is the pinnacle of Science, because we have for
centuries prevented speculations and fabrications from creeping into
our publications. As our goal is to simplify the Universe down
to a single equation, it is perhaps easier to spot shennanigans.
When other fields of science venture a bit "off the farm", we have two
options. We can take the view that we are the "Defenders of the Truth";
as such, we must make honest measurements on our own to
disprove the egregious claims. This was the role our Community
played in the "Cold Fusion" farce. The Commentary also rightly stresses
this.
The other option is to let the adventure play out on its own.
Dishonesty can never survive long in a physical science. However,
with Political (and monetary) backing, perhaps it can stain the view
of the general public. "The Earth is FLAT!" "The Sun revolves around
the Earth!" "We're melting!"
What strikes me as astounding in our current situation is that some in
our Community would sell off the Credibility of the Physics Community,
nutured over several centuries, to get a piece of the money that
a "Global Crisis" might throw our way.
That is just not acceptable. That Credibility does not belong to any
one of us or, in fact, to all of us currently alive.
It also belongs to those who came before, and it belongs
to those who will come after.
Our duty is to maintain its value, if not augment it.
John James Ryan, 17-Mar-2010](Responses_to_the_2010_APS_Email_files/shapeimage_2.png)
