Finally Some Real Climate Science???

[SSDD]

Copied from Tallbloke's Talkshop (emphasis: mine)

Tony Thomas: Finally, Some Real Climate Science | Tallbloke's Talkshop


Finally, Some Real Climate Science
Tony Thomas 18-3-2014

The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned.

The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.

The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara).[1] The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.[2]

By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.

The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.[3]


First, a sub-committee has looked at the recent 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and formulated scores of critical questions about the weak links in the IPCC’s methods and findings. In effect, it’s a non-cosy audit of the IPCC’s claims on which the global campaign against CO2 is based.

Second, the sub-committee, after ‘consulting broadly’, appointed a panel to workshop the questions and then provide input to the new official statement on climate. The appointed panel of six, amazingly, includes three eminent sceptic scientists: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Judith Curry. The other three members comprise long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who, in 1996, drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a “discernible” influence of manmade CO2 on climate), an IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

Third, the sub-committee is ensuring the entire process is publicly transparent — not just the drafts and documents, but the workshop discussions, which have been taped, transcribed and officially published, in a giant record running to 500+ pages.[4]

Fourth, the APS will publish its draft statement to its membership, inviting comments and feedback.

What the outcome will be, ie what the revised APS statement will say, we will eventually discover. It seems a good bet that the APS will break ranks with the world’s collection of peak science bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, and tell the public, softly or boldly, that IPCC science is not all it’s cracked up to be.

The APS audit of the IPCC makes a contrast with the Australian Science Academy’s (AAS) equivalent efforts. In 2010 the AAS put out a booklet, mainly for schools, ”The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers”, drafted behind closed doors. The drafters and overseers totalled 16 people, and the original lone sceptic, Garth Paltridge, was forced out by the machinations of then-President Kurt Lambeck.[5] The Academy is currently revising the booklet, without any skeptic input at all. Of the 16 drafters and overseers, at least nine have been IPCC contributors and others have been petition-signing climate-policy lobbyists, hardly appropriate to do any arm’s length audit of the IPCC version of the science. Once again, the process is without any public transparency or consulting with the broad membership.

The American Physical Society’s audit questions are pretty trenchant.[6] Just to recite some of them points in the can of worms soon to be authoritatively exposed. Here’s a selection:

The temperature stasis

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

To what would you attribute the stasis?

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?

What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

IPCC suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to ‘internal variability’. Yet climate models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare and models cannot reproduce the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature even with the observed radiative forcing.

What is the definition of ‘internal variability’? Is it poorly defined initial conditions in the models or an intrinsically chaotic nature of the climate system? If the latter, what features of the climate system ARE predictable?

How would the models underestimate of internal variability impact detection and attribution?

How long must the statis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters? A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?

General Understanding

Confidence

What do you consider to be the greatest advances in our understanding of the physical basis of climate change since AR4 in 2007?
What do you consider to be the most important gaps in current understanding?
How are the IPCC confidence levels determined?
What has caused the 5% increase in IPCC confidence from 2007 to 2013?

Climate Sensitivity

[This relates to the size of feedbacks to the agreed and mild CO2-induced warming. If feedbacks are powerful and positive, the alarmist case is strong. If feedbacks are weak or negative, there is no basis for any climate scare or for trillions of dollars to be spent on curbing CO2 emissions].

A factor-of-three uncertainty in the global surface temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 as expressed by equilibrium climate sensitivity, has persisted through the last three decades of research despite the significant intellectual effort that has been devoted to climate science.

What gives rise to the large uncertainties in this fundamental parameter of the climate system?

How is the IPCC’s expression of increasing confidence in the detection/attribution/projection of anthropogenic influences consistent with this persistent uncertainty?

Wouldn’t detection of an anthropogenic signal necessarily improve estimates of the response to anthropogenic perturbations?

Models and Projections

The APS notes that the IPCC draws on results and averages from large numbers of models, and comments, “In particular, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that some member of the ensemble [of models] gets it right at any given time. Rather, as in other fields of science, it is important to know how well the ‘best’ single model does at all times.”

Were inclusion/exclusion decisions made prior to examining the results? How do those choices impact the uncertainties?

Which metrics were used to assess the [claimed] improvements in simulations between AR4 and AR5 [2007 and 2013 reports]?

How well do the individual models do under those metrics? How good are the best models in individually reproducing the relevant climate observations to a precision commensurate with the anthropogenic perturbations?

The rest of the story is available at the link above...there are more questions and all of them are going to be just as tough to answer as the one's above. It is good to see that an organization like the APS is stepping down off the bandwagon and is going to ask some serious questions that won't be easily answered by a pseudoscientific outfit like the IPCC.

 

[SSDD]

If the APS sees that the emperor is, in fact, naked, how long before the AGW hypothesis is an outcast pariah red headed stepchild with leprosy and a STD?

 

[Old Rocks]

APS Physics | FPS | American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy

American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy

Wallace M. Manheimer
1. Introduction: American Physics Organizations and Climate Change
The issue of climate change is an important and polarizing one. For lack of better terms, I will call the two most extreme camps climate change alarmists and climate change deniers; most people are in-between. The American Physical Society (APS) has come out firmly in the camp of the alarmists. In 2007 it issued a statement that included the phrases "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring", and "We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now" (1). It is unusual for a scientific society to offer such unwavering policy advice to society, and several APS members, including a Nobel-prize winner, resigned in protest. Objections included the belief that man-made global warming is not real, that the APS should not put itself in the position of giving unsolicited advice to society and governments, and that while global warming may be a problem, we still need energy (2, 3, 4, SePP Home Page). The APS reconsidered but ultimately reaffirmed its original statement, adding a lengthy explanation.
More recently, the American Institute of Physics published two articles in a single issue of its flagship publication, Physics Today, which made the case that global warming is a scientific certainty and we must take immediate action to prevent catastrophe (5,6). For instance, Ref. 5 dismisses all doubt with statements such as: "Greenhouse warming today faces an even greater array of bogus counterarguments based on the uninformed interpretation of data from ice cores, erroneous views about natural carbon sources, alleged but unobserved alternative drivers of climate change, naive expectations of the time scales over which models and observations should match, and various forms of statistical chicanery and logical fallacy." The alarmism in Ref. 6 is apparent by quotes such as: "The urgency of taking action to limit manmade climate change combines subjective considerations with scientific ones," "Some recent research suggests that severe climate change, including very large sea-level rises, can occur even with a 2 °C ceiling," and "The science tells us that meeting the policy goals requires urgent action." Figure 1 shows Figure 5 of reference (6): the necessary future course of carbon input into the atmosphere if we are to keep the total CO2 emissions to 750 Gt over the period 2010-2050. In all cases, carbon input into the atmosphere must end in about 30 years.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah. You cling to that as long as you can. Look at those questions and wonder how the ipcc will answer. If the aps changes it's stance, the rest of those organizations you like to name will fall in line like so many dominoes.

 

[flacaltenn]

APS Physics | FPS | American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy

American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy

Wallace M. Manheimer
1. Introduction: American Physics Organizations and Climate Change
The issue of climate change is an important and polarizing one. For lack of better terms, I will call the two most extreme camps climate change alarmists and climate change deniers; most people are in-between. The American Physical Society (APS) has come out firmly in the camp of the alarmists. In 2007 it issued a statement that included the phrases "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring", and "We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now" (1). It is unusual for a scientific society to offer such unwavering policy advice to society, and several APS members, including a Nobel-prize winner, resigned in protest. Objections included the belief that man-made global warming is not real, that the APS should not put itself in the position of giving unsolicited advice to society and governments, and that while global warming may be a problem, we still need energy (2, 3, 4, SePP Home Page). The APS reconsidered but ultimately reaffirmed its original statement, adding a lengthy explanation.
More recently, the American Institute of Physics published two articles in a single issue of its flagship publication, Physics Today, which made the case that global warming is a scientific certainty and we must take immediate action to prevent catastrophe (5,6). For instance, Ref. 5 dismisses all doubt with statements such as: "Greenhouse warming today faces an even greater array of bogus counterarguments based on the uninformed interpretation of data from ice cores, erroneous views about natural carbon sources, alleged but unobserved alternative drivers of climate change, naive expectations of the time scales over which models and observations should match, and various forms of statistical chicanery and logical fallacy." The alarmism in Ref. 6 is apparent by quotes such as: "The urgency of taking action to limit manmade climate change combines subjective considerations with scientific ones," "Some recent research suggests that severe climate change, including very large sea-level rises, can occur even with a 2 °C ceiling," and "The science tells us that meeting the policy goals requires urgent action." Figure 1 shows Figure 5 of reference (6): the necessary future course of carbon input into the atmosphere if we are to keep the total CO2 emissions to 750 Gt over the period 2010-2050. In all cases, carbon input into the atmosphere must end in about 30 years.

That a 2012 editorial largely whining about WHAT SHOULD BE DONE to the world's energy users. Not a statement of science on the potential impact of CO2.

 

[SSDD]

That a 2012 editorial largely whining about WHAT SHOULD BE DONE to the world's energy users. Not a statement of science on the potential impact of CO2.

Whining and bloviating are about as close as they get to real science. The questions above are going to be tough to answer for an organization that specializes in pseudoscience.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm thrilled this organization schilling by speaking for the membership is going away.
Nice that they are passing their NEW statement by the membership for comment before it becomes "law"...

Maybe now --- All those glowing proclamations of Global Warming hype will be "peer-reviewed"..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It amazes me that people who spend their lives doing true scientific research tolerate this AGW nonsense for more that a nanosecond

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC: redistributing wealth through climate policy and has NOTHING to do with science at all

 

[elektra]

I hear crickets

 

[IanC]

I love some of these questions. physicists wont be fooled by the OJ defense style of mutually exclusive bafflegab.

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

the 'omitted variable fraud' that I have complained about so often.

Climate Sensitivity

[This relates to the size of feedbacks to the agreed and mild CO2-induced warming. If feedbacks are powerful and positive, the alarmist case is strong. If feedbacks are weak or negative, there is no basis for any climate scare or for trillions of dollars to be spent on curbing CO2 emissions].

A factor-of-three uncertainty in the global surface temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 as expressed by equilibrium climate sensitivity, has persisted through the last three decades of research despite the significant intellectual effort that has been devoted to climate science.

physicists with no axe to grind will not be willing to accept large general positive feedbacks because they know they are unstable and as rare as hen's teeth.

 

[SSDD]

Now this is interesting....Damned interesting. This is BIG...real big. The APS...the biggest baddest dog on the block is questioning its stance on AGW. They have invited some real skeptics into the room, invited them to ask their questions, are recording the whole show, and are going to not only run the whole process by the membership, but make it public as well.

THIS IS F'ING BIG. In the conflict between skeptics and warmists, this is the biggest thing since the beginning of the hoax. Those are the sorts of real scientific questions that us skeptics have been wanting the climate establishment to answer for decades. Those are the sorts of questions that would have been posed had climate scientists ever had the balls to openly debate climate skeptics and those are the very sorts of questions that climate scientists have feared and the very reason they would not openly debate skeptics.

I expected that if there were answers...even boilerplate answers, the warmist wackos on this board would have stepped up and answered, if not all of them (and the questions listed are certainly not all that the skeptics will ask) at least one or two. One alarmist on this board has said anything and the best he could muster was a 2 year old editorial that was not scientific in nature. Imagine, the alarmist scientists giving an answer like that when put to the question in that panel's meetings....imagine an answer like that being recorded and shown to not only the membership of the APS but to the population of the world as well. First laughter that could be heard to the top of the atmosphere...then anger at the scope and expense of the hoax.

My bet is that the 3 alarmists on that panel are going to be able to provide slightly better responses to those questions than our dear quaint alarmist did, but not much better. Certainly no answers that will pass the smell test, and allow the APS to hold tight with its politically correct present stand, especially after being examined by its general membership and the public at large.

If the APS changes its stance on AGW, every other scientific body on earth will be scrambling to alter their stance as well so as not to look like the last idiot to realize that the emperor is, in fact, naked. With this being made public, I will go out on a limb and predict that even before the process at the APS is complete, there will be rumblings from other scientific organizations about changing their position as well. I believe we are witnessing the effective end of the hoax...Could it be that it is so obvious that our local alarmists are effectively scattering to the tall grass rather than address the questions above?

Us skeptics have always said that eventually the truth would rise to the surface...Well, at long last, it looks like it is happening. I am not going to even challenge the alarmists here to try to answer any of the above questions because we all know that there are no answers....there is only mute silence and perhaps some self reflection and the emergence of the clear knowledge that one knew that AGW wasn't real but it was politically advantageous to support the hoax even at the expense of actual lives....or the realization that one has been a complete fool and has fallen for, and been in support of a pseudoscientific hoax for all these years.

Then the dawning realization of the anger that will be directed towards those who have cost so much money in production and caused so much misery by the promotion of the hoax.

All I have to say to alarmists everywhere, and especially those here who I know have been exposed to enough truth that they should have been convinced to at least be scientific enough to express some skepticism is that you had it coming.

 

[Spiderman]

The funny thing is people don't really care about climate change.

The only ones who do are the ones positioned to gain from imposed government controls.

 

[Abraham3]

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

 

[Spiderman]

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

Climate change comes in at the bottom of the list of concerns.

only 40% of people believe it to be a threat.

Most Americans believe climate change is real, but fewer see it as a threat | Pew Research Center

It's not the big deal you think it is.

 

[Abraham3]

How many people on this planet care whether or not you have your next meal? Does that mean you shouldn't care either? Does that mean you won't really get hungry?

 

[SSDD]

How many people on this planet care whether or not you have your next meal? Does that mean you shouldn't care either? Does that mean you won't really get hungry?

Got any answers for the questions?

 

[Spiderman]

How many people on this planet care whether or not you have your next meal? Does that mean you shouldn't care either? Does that mean you won't really get hungry?

If you think skipping a meal is being really hungry then you have never been really hungry.

 

[Abraham3]

And you're avoiding answering the question.

 

[Abraham3]

How many people on this planet care whether or not you have your next meal? Does that mean you shouldn't care either? Does that mean you won't really get hungry?

Got any answers for the questions?

Which questions?