Who is the American Physical Society and how dare they challenge the IPCC?

[Howzit]

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con.



http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

Radiative forcing ΔF;
The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
The feedback multiplier ƒ.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful...



Hansen (1988) projected that global temperature would stabilize (A) if global carbon dioxide concentration were controlled from 1988 and static from 2000: otherwise temperature would rise rapidly (B-C). IPCC (1990) agreed (D). However, these projections proved well above the National Climate Data Center’s outturn (E-F), which, in contrast to the Hadley Center and UAH records (Fig. 1), show a modest rise in temperature from 1998-2007. If McKitrick (2007) (G,H) is correct that temperature since 1980 has risen at only half of the observed rate, outturn tracks Hansen’s CO2 stabilization case (A), although emissions have risen rapidly since 1988.


Who are the members of the APS and why are they asking for sensible arguments both pro and con AGW?

[kestrel91316]

1. If they're not professional climatologists, I'm not much

interested in WHAT they say.

[Botany]

2. The feedback multiplier ƒ. oh please

No f***ing ice @ the North Pole.

[DCKit]

9. Alternatively, they could remove their heads from their asses...

and take a look outdoors every now and then.

[izquierdista]

3. APS

The American Physical Society is, unfortunately, THE professional organization for physicists in the U.S., similar to the Royal Society in the U.K.

Their ambivalent attitude toward global warming can be explained as ignorance, as it is not a physics problem, and therefore, foreign to their understanding. While they may understand changes in the earth's albedo and incident radiation and heat transfer, and those sorts of facets of the problem, the problem is basically rooted in chemistry -- the rise in CO2 levels due to burning of fossil fuels.

They remain mired in observations of data that include a whole lot of noise, desperately trying to get to a conclusion. If they were such experts in drawing conclusions from noisy data, they would all be stock market millionaires, instead of what they are, a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant.

Global warming is at its heart a geochemistry problem, and all the solutions to reverse it, i.e., carbon sequestration, are problems of chemistry and chemical engineering. Physicists, like lawyers, seem to think that their education transfers to all other subjects, and see no problem in pontificating on subjects where they should be sitting in the classroom and taking notes.

[Indenturedebtor]

5. Yes I've seen quite a few celebrated physicists publish and speak publicly about psychology

Their disdain for any field of scientific inquiry besides Physics knows no bounds.

My favorite example of this is how many attempt to explain human consciousness as a net effect of quantum pairing :rofl:

Though a form of consciousness arising from quantum pairing or any organised and linked informational system with a storage mechanism is an interesting idea and probably accurate- the current understanding of our brains as provided by Psychology doesn't require such a complicated explanation... or rather such an over simplified explanation that utterly ignores the scientifically acquired and verified data.

To put it simply - the idea of quantum consciousness... well here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj8LZO-4dHA&NR=1

The whole theory as I said relies on some sort of organised and linked informational system with storage... Um a brain dummies. No need to delve into the quantum world. Why in the hell would the brain bother with all of those complicated systems for information transfer and storage through the use of neurotransmitters, changes in electrical potentiation, cell growth/death when it could just say "Ommmm" :rofl: Physics is perhaps the most myopic field out there.

Cracks me up.

My father is a Doctor and falls prey to the same sort of thinking. He'll disparage psychology one minute and go on the next to tell me that I should take the latest and greatest antidepressant to help me quit smoking hah.

[Howzit]

14. Thanks to cosmik debris

we have a link to the APS's "Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change": http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

"Abstract: In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase."


Are members of the APS qualified to support the idea that human CO2 emissions is causing global warming, but at the same time, un-qualified to consider the opposite notion? Or are they just irrelevant? Consider "physical chemistry" and "chemical physics":


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_chemistry
"Physical chemistry, is the application of physics to macroscopic, microscopic, atomic, subatomic, and particulate phenomena in chemical systems<1> within the field of chemistry traditionally using the principles, practices and concepts of thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics and kinetics.<2> It is mostly defined as a large field of chemistry, in which several sub-concepts are applied; the inclusion of quantum mechanics is used to illustrate the application of physical chemistry to atomic and particulate chemical interaction or experimentation.<1>

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_physics
"Chemical physics is a subdiscipline of chemistry and physics that investigates physicochemical phenomena using techniques from atomic and molecular physics and condensed matter physics; it is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics. While at the interface of physics and chemistry, chemical physics is distinct from physical chemistry in that it focuses more on the characteristic elements and theories of physics. Meanwhile, physical chemistry studies the physical nature of chemistry. Nonetheless, the distinction between the two fields is vague, and workers often practice in each field during the course of their research."

[Indenturedebtor]

18. It all depends on how they approach the problem

Physicists are not trained in evaluating weather systems. I'm sure that any physicist could explain damn near exacly how the electrons in a lightening strike flow, and why they flow but I would rather ask a meteorologist whether or not there's going to be a thunderstorm.

CO2, and other greenhouse gasses properties are firmly in the hands of both chemists and physicists, but evaluating how manmade contributions of those gasses will effect climate and weather systems is a job for.... Climatologists!

I can in fact think of no scientific discipline that would be worse suited to examining the living system that is our climate. Physicists are reductionists, understanding a messy thing like climate needs a holistic perspective. And I don't mean that in the philosophical sense, but truly the training is very very different for studying living things, or systems that behave like living things, and studying even specializing in something like Organic Chem.

[Botany]

6. Nice line

Global warming is at its heart a geochemistry problem, and all the solutions to reverse it, i.e., carbon sequestration,
are problems of chemistry and chemical engineering. Physicists, like lawyers, seem to think that their education
transfers to all other subjects ...

The data and evidence behind man's change in the climatic system is overwhelming. On a micro level I have a good
example Golden Alexanders, Zizia aurea a native wildflower



In some past winters I have watched it bloom in from late January on .... although much smaller morphologically .....
it's normal bloom time is early May in Ohio.

[bbinacan]

7. Just playing Devil's Advocate here

what you said about the physicists could also be used as an argument by the right against Al Gore. So maybe you need to refine your argument.

[izquierdista]

8. Not so

Al Gore is careful to give credit where credit is due and makes it abundantly clear that he is not a climate scientist, he just listens to them.

Just like he never claimed to invent the Internet, just sponsor funding for it in the early stages. But that didn't make a difference to detractors who put words in his mouth.

[Indenturedebtor]

4. Ok here's a start on "who" they are

From their website this is the report they issued Congress that states that it is the Federal government's responsibility to clean up the nuclear waste (spent fuel) of all of our nation's nuclear plants at the citizen's expense, and criticizing Congress for not completing Yucca Mountain:

http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/Energy-2007-Report-InterimStorage.pdf

I'll post more in a bit as I dig deeper.

[chknltl]

21. Strike two AND three for 'em in my book!

We The People get the bill for hazardous waste created by someone who accrued profits in the creation of said wastes is the second strike. Awful generous with money not their own aren't they!

Criticizing Congress for not completing Yucca Mountain as a repository for those wastes is their third strike! That land is in dispute when it comes to being a 'safe' repository for nuke wastes...especially from those who live nearby. Sounds to me like these ...um...'scientists' are more into shilling for corporatists than they are in using actual peer-reviewed science for the benefit of life on our planet.

[jpak]

10. They haven't

<snip>

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

<more>

http://www.aps.org /

Limbaugh/Hannity et al. are still assholes - as are all RW nutjob global warming deniers.

Nice try though

[Howzit]

12. Are you suggesting

that all Democrats believe global warming is a problem that can be mitigated by reducing human CO2 emissions; while all Republicans are deniers? If so, wouldn't this idea lend credence to the denier notion that global warming activism is politically rather than scientifically motivated?

[jpak]

19. No - I'm claiming that stupid fucking republic assholes deny the peer reviewed GW science

and that stupid fucking republic assholes in the republic asshole bush administration rewrite the peer reviewed science to fit their stupid fucking republic asshole GW denier world view.

and that stupid fucking republic assholes who listen and believe the stupid fucking GW denier lies of Rush/Hannity et al. can kiss my ass.

better?

[skids]

22. This is one of those times...

...I wish I could rec a comment. :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

11. Hmmm? do I detect bias?

The Newsletter published one article agreeing with the IPCC and one disagreeing.

You seem to be criticizing the Physics Society for taking one side when they simply published a portion of the debate.

Here is the counter article:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate


By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz


Abstract: In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected a likely temperature rise of 3 oC (2 to 4.5 oC) from a doubled CO2 of 560 ppm in this century. Many believe that a rise of 2–2.5 oC will cause a “dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate.” Earth has already had a rise of 0.8 oC in less than one-half century, and it is projected to rise another 0.6 oC as the planet adjusts to the present level of CO2. Scientists have accumulated compelling evidence besides the temperature data to document a warming Earth. The observations include the shrinking of the northern ice cap (40% thinner in 30 years, and a considerable loss in surface area in the last year) and Greenland’s glaciers, lakes are frozen a shortened time by about two weeks, and summer is two weeks longer as determined by animal and plant cycles. The discussion sensibly moves to two main questions: “Are non-anthropogenic causes of warming significant” and “how much warmer will Earth become?”

[Howzit]

13. Thanks for the link

[cosmik debris]

15. I'm curious, where did you pick up this story?

There is another source reporting half the story also.

The Editor's Notes which you quoted clearly said that there were pro and con articles and that this was a debate, not a change of position or taking sides.

And yet you and another source both reported that there was a change of position and ignored the other article.

Now I'm not accusing you of bias or bad reporting. I'm more inclined to believe that you picked up the story from a faulty source. If that is the case, perhaps you should reconsider the objectivity of that source.

[Howzit]

16. "perhaps you should reconsider the objectivity of that source"

Good advice.

It was one of those office e-mails that get sent to all and sundry, if I remember correctly.

[cosmik debris]

17. This might be the source.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403

I'm still not sure why the report is so one-sided, but if you learn more about the source of your email, I'd like to hear about it.

Thanx.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tex-wyo-dem]

23. APS retracts/clarifies it's stance on climate change (challenge to IPCC a rumor...

generated by the internet global warming denial crowd. The opinion appeared in one of many online newsletters of the APS forum that is not a peer reviewed journal. Apparently some wingnut denier picked it up on the internets and ran with it creating the rumor that the APS no longer supports the position of the IPCC (anthropogenic climate change). Turns out to be total horseshit.

From: http://www.aps.org/

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

[Howzit]

24. How it got started

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/18/american-physical-society-reaffirms-it-is-incontrovertible-human-emissions-are-warming-the-globe-and-must-be-cut-beginning-now/

[cosmik debris]

25. Thanks for posting this.

Ir is rare that you can trace misinformation back to it's source, but it has happened here.