Finally Some Real Climate Science???

[CrusaderFrank]

They ARE the consensus, Frank.

^ Motto of the Flat Earth Society

 

[Abraham3]

They ARE the consensus, Frank.

No way.. The vast majority of those physicists were never asked for an input prior to thos horseshit policy position papers issed by APS. In fact SEVERAL award winnning board members RESIGNED in protest of those statements.. Never was a consensus derived at that place.....

I'm going to throw the bullshit flag on that one. Far more members threatened to resign if the board did NOT accept AGW. The APS has put out two statements, several years apart. If you actually believe that a majority - or even a large minority - of its members disagree with those statements, you need to show us their complaints, because I have heard of virtually none.

Climate Change

National Policy

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)
There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.
The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.
The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: Global Warming | Monitoring References | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC))
The first sentence in the third paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.
The second sentence in the third paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.
The fourth paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.
With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to support policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological options for addressing and mitigating climate change.*
[1] The concentration of CO2 that would give the same amount of radiative impact as a given mixture of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.). The models sum the radiative effects of all trace gases and treat the total as if it comes from an "equivalent" CO2 concentration. The calculation for all gases other than CO2 takes into account only increments relative to their pre-industrial values, so that the pre-industrial effect for CO2 and CO2-equivalent are the same.
* In February 2012, per normal APS process, the Panel on Public Affairs recommended four minor copy edits so that the identification of sentences and paragraphs correspond to the 2007 APS Climate Change Statement above. View the copy edits.

 

[Abraham3]

APS responds to climate-change accusations - physicsworld.com

The American Physical Society (APS) has issued a strongly worded statement in response to a published resignation letter from a prominent member of the society. The letter, written by Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara accused the society of benefiting financially from climate-change funding. Addressed to the APS president, Curtis Callan, the letter calls global warming a "scam" and says that "the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it...has carried APS before it like a rogue wave".
Lewis, 87, who has been an APS member for 67 years, has had a distinguished career that includes serving on the US defence science board, the advisory committee on reactor safeguards and the nuclear safety oversight committee. Lewis writes that climate change is "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," and that the APS has "accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it." He adds that Princeton University physics department, of which Callan is chair, "would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst."
Callan strongly denies that charge. "Do any members of the Princeton physics department perform research on subjects even remotely related to climate science? No,” Callen told physicsworld.com. “Would a hypothetical physicist engaged in such work be likely to shade the results of his or her work to hew to some "party line" demanded by a funding agency? That would be contrary to the ethical code subscribed to by all scientists I know."
Lewis is also one of the 160 physicists [out of over 48,000 members or one out of every 300 members] who last year failed to persuade the society to modify its "appallingly tendentious" formal statement on climate change, which it had released in November 2007, to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. "Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate." Lewis writes in his letter to Callan. "APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims." In resigning, Lewis says the APS "no longer represents me".
Strong response
In response to Lewis's letter, the APS took the unusual step of issuing a public statement on Tuesday. The society says there is "no truth to Dr Lewis's assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain," adding that the "specific charge that APS as an organization is benefiting financially from climate-change funding is equally false".
"The APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements," the statement says. "Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the society have a monetary stake in [climate-change] funding." The statement adds that, because relatively few APS members conduct climate-change research, the vast majority of the society's members "derive no personal benefit from such research support". APS press secretary Tawanda Johnson told physicsworld.com that the society released the statement to defend its reputation in the face of the accusations.
Gavin Schmidt, a climate physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, denies Lewis's claim that research in climate change is congruent with financial gain. "People don't get paid to get results," he says. "Funding pays for postdocs, graduate students and equipment." Schmidt adds the issue raised by Lewis is "a manufactured story" to make people believe there is some discontent in the profession.
Lewis does, however, have some support among physicists. "[Lewis] is on target with the big picture," says Princeton physicist Will Happer, a leader of last year's effort to change the APS statement on climate change.
The APS says in response to the "widespread interest expressed by its members" that it will now organize a "topical group" to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

I don't know Lewis, but 87 is 87. Will Happer, however, I am familiar with, and the man is an idiot.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well Abe -- you're starting to catch on.. It's not Bullshit.. The COUNCIL writes and approves those manifestos.. And LEWIS was not the only notable dissenter..

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled “I resign from APS” to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.
Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming):

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/345683-finally-some-real-climate-science-3.html

Not EVERY physicist joins a Society to be an activist.. They join for insurance benefits or to recieve Journals or to attend conferences at reduced prices.. This is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a voting political body.
80 PROMINENT physicists or 260 regular members is enough of a sample for me to indicate a KEEN general membership discontent.

The fact that these minorities have gotten a change in PROCESS of making this Assinine pronouncements, we'll see how the tone changes --- Won't we?

 

[Abraham3]

The first statement stood for three years, the second for another four. I guarantee you there are vastly more AGW supporters than deniers amongst the APS membership. Why did only one member in 300 sign the petition urging the council to alter their statement? Not exactly a popular revolution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that rare minority that have children about which they care. You?

Yes, I want more debt and a weaker economy to leave to my kids, because you clowns want to waste trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount. You?