That noise you can hear in the distance is the sound of John Cook’s, Dana Nuccitelli’s, and Joe Romm’s heads exploding

Lindzen, Christy and Curry appointed to APS climate statement review panel

Simon from Australian Climate Madness reports:

The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to [address] the panel of six.

Here is the press release, which somehow escaped everyone’s a number of climate skeptic bloggers notice until now.

APS to Review Statement on Climate Change

February 20, 2014

A subcommittee of POPA is reviewing the APS statement on climate change in accordance with the policy to review official statements every five years.

Preparations are under way by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) to review and possibly update the society’s statement on climate change. In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the society adopts a final draft.

“We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process,” said Robert Jaffe a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. “We’re quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way.”

The subcommittee of POPA that is conducting the review posted its background and research materials to the APS website, along with its charge. The research materials include the transcripts of the subcommittee’s January workshop, biographical information on outside climate experts who participated in the workshop, and their slide presentations. These materials are now available online.

The standing policy of the society is to review its statements every five years. The society first adopted the climate change statement seven years ago, but appended an addendum in 2010. The review also coincides with the release of the latest report on the physical science basis of climate change from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The months-long process started last year with the formation of the subcommittee and a steering committee,  which is guiding the statement review subcommittee through the review process. In addition to weighing the opinions of experts from its workshop, the review subcommittee is researching information related to climate change and reviewing the roughly 1,500-page climate change report by the IPCC.

If a new statement is drafted, it will be submitted to the full POPA committee in June. Once approved by POPA, it will go to the APS executive board for a vote. If approved there, the proposed statement will be posted on the society’s website for members to read and comment on, likely sometime later in 2014.

Once all of the comments have been collected, POPA will again review the statement and may revise it further based on members’ input. It will then go to the executive board and the full council for a vote on whether the statement should be officially adopted in its final form.

“We’re not rushing this. Climate science and climate change will be around a long time and we want to get this right before sending it out to the membership for review and comment,” Jaffe said.

Source: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/updates/statementreview.cfm

About these ads

112 thoughts on “That noise you can hear in the distance is the sound of John Cook’s, Dana Nuccitelli’s, and Joe Romm’s heads exploding

  1. Yea, I just read about this over at Joanne’s blog. I did not realize however that those 3 (Cook,, nuccy, & Romm) were so anti science! Will wonders never cease.

    However, while I am hopeful, I am not very hopeful. The cause of the original prognostication was not science, but politics. And the politics have not changed since it was originally issued.

  2. I just wonder whether any of the APS panel are willing to go all the way to pointing out that the really bad error** in Climate Alchemy has been as fundamental as was Phlogiston in the 18th Century.

    **It was to assume that the Earth’s surface emits to the atmosphere net real IR energy at the same rate as an isolated black body to a sink at absolute zero. All process engineers like me, and competent physicists, know this not to be true. However, tell died-in-the-wool Climate Alchemists that for >= 31 deg C, the oceans emit no net IR, all the energy being lost as latent heat, i.e. the operational emissivity is zero, and they throw a wobbly then react, saying ‘We’re going to put you deniers in the camps, matey!’.

    There are 12 other physics’ errors, some so elementary as to be embarrassing.

  3. I hope the APS will address the basic issue. Skeptics are ordinary people who are simply asking for proof that rising CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. The proofs that have been offered are not convincing.

    Claim: “The climate models show CO2 drives warming.”
    Answer: Models are not proof; they are built on the modellers’ assumptions, which require proving.

    Claim: “The models can not explain warming from 1978 to 1998 unless CO2 is included as a driver.”
    Answer: Arguing from ignorance is not proof of anything.

    Claim: “The models show that the globe will warm by 1.5 to 4.5C this century.”
    Answer: The models are all running hot compared to the datasets, even those with unexplained “adjustments”. If this is proof, it goes against the models.

    Then there are the supposed proofs of the GHG atmospheric warming effect.

    Claim: “CO2 radiates heat back to the surface, making it warmer.”
    Answer: Both the surface and the air have kinetic energy, so there is an infrared flux between them. But, on balance, the direction of warming is from the surface to the air, not the other way around.

    Claim: “CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, delaying the cooling of the surface, resulting in warming.”
    Answer: CO2 is IR active and unable to store energy it absorbs. The energy is either instantly shared with O2 and N2 molecules, or is reemitted. O2 and N2 are not IR active and do slow the surface cooling.

    Claim: “CO2 raises the emission level, causing the troposphere to warm all the way down to the surface, and the stratosphere to cool.”
    Answer: Analysis of radiosonde data shows no effect from increasing CO2 on the temperature profile of the atmosphere.

    As Patrick Moore said, if there were an actual proof of man-made global warming, you would see it everywhere.

  4. ok this is funny.
    just as I opened wuwt page and headline showed to me I heard a few loud bangs.
    timing is everything :)

    now to go see what the kitten broke….

  5. Judith Curry covered it in http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/, Statements made in the transcript prompted me to ask this (as yet unanswered question) on twitter:

    In http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf American Physical Society’s transcript of discussions relating to their upcoming revision of the paper on Anthropogenic Climate Change, Dr. Collins states:

    “12 So, we build climate models.

    13 we assume when we construct those

    14 models that the net energy balance of

    15 the planet was identically zero or

    16 effectively zero at the start of

    17 industrialization.”

    My concern/question relates to:

    1. We know that the energy balance of the planet was neither identically nor effectively zero at the start of industrialization.

    2. We know that the globe had been warming to a certain number of degrees C/decade ever since the end of the little ice age.

    3. I can find nowhere the assumption that natural climate change had stopped at whichever date is chosen as the assumed start of industrialization.

    Given the above 3 points, why are the models constructed to explicitly exclude any natural component of warming as of the starting point of the run?

    It would seem that this omission by itself would guarantee that the anthropogenic forcings needed to be input would of necessity be larger than required if the model actually included the natural forcings which were necessary pre-industry to produce the data confirmed historic temperatures, trend and energy balance at the start of the assumed industrialization contribution to the forcing.

    Performing the calibration or verification runs should, it would seem, produce an end product which, at the start of the industrial era, produce an output which would include not just the temperature which matches data at that time but the same trend in magnitude and sign which match the trend known to exist at that time and the same energy imbalance known to exist.

    It would seem that any model which did not produce this known energy imbalance at the start of industrialization would be understating the natural forcings by the amount necessary to produce said energy imbalance.

  6. What I would give to sit in on the meetings of the panel. The alarmists on that panel must be panic stricken. Three people with such impressive scientific credentials to actually put real questions of science and integrity to their blatant and exceedingly flimsy eco-activistic pseudo-scientific constructs. How on earth can they try to maintain their house of cards under those circumstances? The gig is up and they must see it coming like a light in a train tunnel, and there isn’t a damned thing they can do to avoid it. Wow. Break out the popcorn.

  7. The APS most definitely sees the writing on the walls of fact. Public opinion and observations have forced their hand. What a welcome surprise for those in the climate community searching for truth. The door to such is being forced open and the ideology forced out of the equations.

    Bravo!

  8. Correction. They were three of six climate experts invited to an input workshop for the APS POPA panel. The other three were warmists Santer, Collins and Held. None of the six are members of the APS review panel that will recommend revisions to the 2007 policy statement. Climate Etc. posted links to the full transcript of the days informational proceedings posted 2/19. Well worth reqding carefully.
    From the questions submitted by APS to the experts for comment (also posted by Judith) it would appear that APC is in full, formal climb down mode. For the record, the climate.NASA site supporting “scientific consensus” makes no note of the APS revision process yet. It will be interesting to watch how long NASA takes to correct its information after the June finalization of the new APS position, whatever it is. Especially given the current administrations evident biases.

  9. AT LAST!!! An authorititive and august scientific institution actually using a scientific approach to investigating the merits, or lack thereof, of the CAGW hypothesis. fully balanced and fully in public, without hiding anything. About effin time!

    To overtly mangle metaphors, once this domino falls it should creat a crack in the dam of CAGW alarmism which should spread through all the other authorititive and august scientific institutions, including the Royal Society. Once this happens, real science may prevail and we may see a return to sanity in science and politics. It is early days yet, but fingers crossed.

  10. Claim: “The climate models show CO2 drives warming.”

    I like this comment from Olaf Dahlsveen: They are the Model Makers, and as long as they put CO2 into their models as being responsible for any earthly temperature rise, then it is quite correct for them to say that “All our models show that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming.” Well, that was back in the ’80s and ’90s. But then the warming stopped…

  11. A panel of six? A panel of three “climate realists” and three “CAGWers” would still lean to the fanatic side.

  12. I think this is interesting in this sense. Half a dozen or so senior physicists who are members of the APS, have been appointed to give their opinions as to whether the APS should change it’s statement on CAGW. None of these people are, so far as I am aware, climate scientists. Yet what they write and recommend could turn this whole issue upside down. What will they say?.

    I have read what has been discussed, and on the basis of almost nothing, think that the key person may be Dr. Susan Seestrom, if I have spelt her name correctly. So, it just might be, that she will be the one to “bell the cat”.

  13. The models, as far as I know (and I would appreciate being corrected on this) do not actually model CO2 in the sense of having the various surface sources, industrial and natural, unevenly spread over the spherical surface, unevenly spread over time, doing their things, and ditto for sinks. They do not model the gas rising and dispersing to a well-mixed state in the atmosphere. They do not model thermal and radiative interactions with other gases an route, nor with surfaces. Instead of all that, the presumption that the net effect of an instantaneous (model world) jump in ambient well-mixed CO2 is an instantaneous drop in the rate of IR emissions to space. This is the ‘forcing’. The models then busily readjust themselves, while a typically annual (model world, as far as I know) adjustment to this forcing is made to represented a projected annual increase in CO2.

  14. “If a new statement is drafted, it will be submitted to the full POPA committee in June. Once approved by POPA, it will go to the APS executive board for a vote. If approved there, the proposed statement will be posted on the society’s website for members to read and comment on, likely sometime later in 2014.

    Once all of the comments have been collected, POPA will again review the statement and may revise it further based on members’ input. It will then go to the executive board and the full council for a vote on whether the statement should be officially adopted in its final form.”

    And the chance that anything with reason gets through this process is what? Default is no change. Sorry for pessimism.

  15. A signal event!

    Curiously, in a bit of Cosmic / ‘Gaian’ agreement (?), I am hearing Birdsong, 10 miles north of Boston, for the VERY first time in 2014.

    Oh yes.

  16. dmacleo says: “…just as I opened wuwt page and headline showed to me I heard a few loud bangs….”

    I heard three insignificant squirts like overripe grapes bursting in the sun.

  17. The ‘Story’ ought to start as follows: “In a desperate bid for credibility . . . .”

  18. I assume we have several members of the APS that visit WUWT regularly. Hopefully, they will provide a good review of whatever comes out of this process. I expect Dr. Brown to be quite hard on climate models.

    The historic climate is much better explained by a combination of ocean cycles + solar changes. That needs to be made clear. Once people accept there are competing hypotheses then the science can start to move forward again. This can clearly become the consensus killer that is needed to get climate science back on track.

  19. Anthony, Anthony

    That headline of yours can by the combined sum of alarmist intellectual heavyweights be construed to be either an overt death threat or at the very least you wishing for their noisy demise.

    REPLY: No, it’s a turnabout as fair play. Joe Romm used to title numerous posts just like that, and used that very cartoon. Though, David Appell might get upset that I’m not taking this “death threat” seriously enough. – Anthony

  20. True believers THINK that they are seeing it everywhere (climate change), but all I see is weather within normal variation. They always say that “while no single weather event can be…” they imply that ALL weather is due to this mysterious climate change. It is enjoyable to see it all die, slowly at first but now faster. I wondered how far it would go.

  21. I pointed this out yesterday in Tips & Notes.

    It begs the question: Just when do the Tips & Notes get read by Anthony? Since the Tips & Notes are voluminous and somewhat abused, Is there a better way to get someones attention to important breaking news? Do the moderators alert Anthony to significant tips?

    Should I just email Anthony instead?

    REPLY: I get several hundreds of emails per day, sometimes a thousand plus and I do check tips and notes daily. But often it is simply a matter of timing. I’m sorry I didn’t see yours first. – Anthony

  22. ‘In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the society adopts a final draft.

    “We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process,” said Robert Jaffe a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. “We’re quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way.” ‘
    ——————————————————————————
    I wish the AMS or AAAS showed such consideration to its members.

  23. Lindzen, Christy and Curry has shown remarkable integrity, resisting the egotism and self-interest that have seduced so many of their peers. I hope they will be able to endorse whatever comes out of this review. After all CO2 remains one of the most taxable molecules in existence, and Western societies are more desperate than ever for financing.

  24. “Once all of the comments have been collected, POPA will again review the statement and may revise it further based on members’ input. It will then go to the executive board and the full council for a vote on whether the statement should be officially adopted in its final form.”

    White smoke from the council chambers will signal a return to the scientific method; black smoke… five more years of “extreme weather”.

  25. “climate change will be around a long time”

    Truer words have never been spoken. Now, if the anti-CO2ers, AGW, ACC (anthropomorphic climate change), or whatever else you want to call them will realize this, maybe we can quit wasting time and resources trying to stop it. The sooner these people (I almost called them idiots, but I’m trying to be civil) catch on the better for the whole world.

  26. Someone in the APS has taken action that has caused some preliminary work that is critical of “consensus” climate science and I do not believe that those very important scientific questions will just be dropped for disagreeing with the “consensus.” Of course the powers that be at the APS might hide some of the criticisms and soften others. However, it is too early for pessimism. Everyone knows that Judith Curry will give these matters a full airing at her blog. That is a powerful reason for optimism.

  27. Distinguish committee MEMBERS vs EXPERTS
    The APS Climate Change Statement Review states:

    The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.

    Distinguish Members from the Experts that presented evidence to the committee:
    APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios, listing
    John R. Christy, William Collins, Judith Curry, Isaac Held, and Richard Lindsen

  28. It is kinda sad really,

    This piece links two articles, the first links to another article which then links to the original source.

    All of which say that the presentations by the “experts” was made TO the committee.

    none of them say that the experts are “on” the committee. So where did you get the list of people who are on the committee???

    well, lookee here!!! why, it is right there on the link that you shared!

    The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom.

    hmmmmmmmm. . . no Christy, Curry or Lindzen to be found!

    even worse!!! they are a subcommittee of the panel, not the actual panel for policy (POPA)

    So how did their presentations go???

  29. Good for the APS… going back to the core of the scientific method. I’m no God-botherer, but as usual the Bible has something appropriate to say:

    “Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance.”

  30. With reference to the APS review of its climate change statement:

    Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
    I’ll believe it when I see it.

    After more than twenty years of witnessing “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness Of Crowds” I’m not holding my breath. The educational establishment and the media have succeeded in indoctrinating a large proportion of the scientific community. Peer pressure, inertia and group dynamics are powerful forces.

  31. John W. Garrett says:
    March 20, 2014 at 9:52 am

    “After more than twenty years of witnessing “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness Of Crowds” I’m not holding my breath. The educational establishment and the media have succeeded in indoctrinating a large proportion of the scientific community. Peer pressure, inertia and group dynamics are powerful forces.”

    Don’t forget, the farther you stretch the truth, the farther it flies when ‘released’! AKA ‘The BS BackBlast Phenomenon’.

  32. “…we want to get this right before sending it out…” Jaffe said.

    It’s a little too late isn’t it? It’s more likely there will be a reaffirmation with a slight revision, then five years later an affirmation of the revision with a minor change and so on until 20 years from now the new position will not match the old one of two decades ago, but with a minimum of feather ruffling. In the meantime successive revisions will look substantially the same with no clear victory on either side. Such is consensus science.

  33. Clarification: Tony Thomas also confusingly stated:

    a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel

    As well as later distinguishing the experts:

    The appointed workshop of six expert advisers, amazingly, includes three eminent sceptic scientists: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Judith Curry.

  34. It does not get any better than this for it finally shows a reasonable good level of openness and transparency in climate science assessment. The review panel has high level personnel who are very critical of the processes that supported the controversial aspects of climate science used for the IPCC reports.

    This APS process is a prototype that the The Royal Society, the IPCC, the NAS, AAAS, AGU and the US Congress should emulate.

    John

  35. For each additional year that the divergence grows between the consensus models’ projections and observed data, we will see more realists at the table. The perfect exit strategy for the warmists. Cuts down on the embarrassment factor.

  36. Rather then the sounds of heads exploding, to me it sounds like the ending of a classical piesc of music , rising to a crescendo and ending with the slow and loud beating of timpanees as the conclusion !

  37. there is a reason why the APS invited christy, Lindzen and Curry.

    1. None of them are sun nuts.
    2. All of them accept well known science: C02 will warm the planet, not cool it
    3. All of them realize that the key question is..
    how much will it warm the planet. There is uncertainty here, any fool stating certainty here will be ignored by working scientists.

    Like I’ve said, if you want a debate about climate science it exists. How much will C02 warm the planet? If you want to argue for a really small number, you’ll need to do a huge amount of work to
    support that. If you want to argue within the range of 1C to 6C, people might actually listen to you.

    Imagine the result if the whole skeptical community focused its energy and arguments on that question.

    na…. spend your time on jupiter’s alignment with Mars..

  38. Steven Mosher (March 20, 2014 at 10:58 am) “How much will C02 warm the planet? If you want to argue for a really small number, you’ll need to do a huge amount of work to support that.”

    It’s certainly possible that warming will increase over the present 0.1C or less per decade medium term (17 years or so) or about the same increase over the long run (e.g. 100 years). But right now we are looking at 1C increase in the coming century. Is that really small? To make the claim that it will be more than that you’ll need to do a huge amount of work.

  39. Just want to reinforce what Rud Istvan and others above said. The link to the transcript has been on Climate Etc, for several days or click here-

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

    It deserves a careful reading which took me about 3 or 4 hours. IMO, it’s the best expert discussion of climate science knowns, unknowns, and confidence levels that has ever been linked or published. What’s more, it was a civil discussion, the APS review panel were knowledgeable. and they asked tough questions.

  40. The APS seminar got off to a good start and this is interesting reading: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf I thought that Santer badly lost the argument about the tropical tropospheric hot spot. The climate models took some damage in this exchange.

    If continued in this open, questioning way, it will be necessary to revise the egregious 2007 climate change statement of the APS. But considering how the leadership treated the petitioners a few years back, it is hard to have much confidence in a completely honest assessment. Sad to say, I have physicist friends who think it entirely inappropriate to question current climate science.

  41. jai mitchell at 9:43 am sums it up well.
    I expect this to be a Potemkin policy review.
    6 experts with diverse evaluations advising a subcommittee of six making recommendations to the POPL committee charged with revising existing (legacy) policy of a professional organization. At the same time the whole weight of the EPA is moving to control “carbon pollution.”

    F = m*a; a = F/m
    a very large mass and a diffused interfering force, results in miniscule acceleration.
    It is better than nothing. To make a difference the whole membership of the APS will need to vote for a significant change in the policy statement and I don’t see them getting that opportunity.

  42. Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 10:58 am
    first of all, thank you for helping me to learn R…youre free with your knowledge, and thats too rare in this world. anyone who bashes you should think twice before doing so again…
    but really now, dontcha think that most of what are called “skeptics” understand that CO2 absorbs IR across a small range of frequencies, and that on a net basis it warms the planet just a smidge…that the effect is logarithmic, and that CO2 levels are almost at the saturation point?
    really, dragon slayers are no better or worse than the people who couch inferred energy imbalances in “hiroshimas”
    no shortage of fools….

  43. Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 10:58 am
    “na…. spend your time on jupiter’s alignment with Mars..”
    it is dawning of…the age of aquarius, after all.

  44. Steven Mosher writes ” If you want to argue for a really small number, you’ll need to do a huge amount of work to support that.”

    Nonsense. You and I have been over this many times. Since no-one, and I mean no-one, has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, it follows with all the inevitability of the inevitable, that there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity could be 0.0 C for a doubling of CO2, to one place of decimals or two significant figures.

  45. The APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom.

    No sign of Christy, Curry or Lindzen, they don’t appear on the POPA panel either so someone’s misled you.

    http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm

  46. Claudius Denk says:
    March 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    In the battle between warmers and luke warmers global warming can’t lose.

    – – – – – – – – –

    Claudius Denk,

    Why do you consider Christie or Curry or Lindzen ‘lukewarmers’?

    In my thinking, with a reasonable context wrt what in hell ‘lukewarmerism’ could rationally be, Lindzen is not one. Curry can be arguably considered not one in any theoretical sense. Christie doesn’t strike me as one.

    I am interested in your basis for saying they are ‘lukewarmers’.

    John

  47. I skimmed the entire transcript of the workshop (and read certain parts thoroughly) awhile back. The physicists on the panel definitely appeared interested in the points made by Lindzen, Christy, and Curry. From my point of view the warmists were extremely unconvincing.

  48. Also, I would add that Curry, Lindzen, and Christy came came across as highly skeptical of CAGW, in my opinion.

  49. Steven Mosher says: Imagine the result if the whole skeptical community focused its energy and arguments on that question.

    Imagine the result if the whole Alarmist community focused its energy and arguments on that question rather than on wealth redistribution..

  50. jai michell says:

    “none of them say that the experts are “on” the committee… hmmmmmmmm. . . no Christy, Curry or Lindzen to be found!”

    mitchell points out that the committee is not composed of experts. I agree.

    Why did the APS bar M.I.T.’s head of atmospheric sciences, who has twenty dozen climate related peer reviewed publications to his credit? The other two mitchell mentioned are as knowledgeable, or at least in the same league as Prof Lindzen.

    Maybe jai mitchell can explain why non-experts compose the APS committee, and experts are barred. Politics, maybe?

  51. Seems to me the likely outcome is that APS will make no significant change to their statement, but when challenged about it, will reply that “We engaged skeptics to help craft the statement”.

  52. Thats much more the wack tard position of the people who have inverted the formal ”Infrared Cooling Model” the planet earth operates by

    into the thoroughly debunked ”Infrared Warming Models”

    that are the legacy of the James Hansen era Computer Modeling sewage, disguised as science.

    =======

    Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 10:58 am
    there is a reason why the APS invited christy, Lindzen and Curry.

    1. None of them are sun nuts.
    2. All of them accept well known science: C02 will warm the planet, not cool it
    3. All of them realize that the key question is..
    how much will it warm the planet. There is uncertainty here, any fool stating certainty here will be ignored by working scientists.

    Like I’ve said, if you want a debate about climate science it exists. How much will C02 warm the planet? If you want to argue for a really small number, you’ll need to do a huge amount of work to
    support that. If you want to argue within the range of 1C to 6C, people might actually listen to you.

    Imagine the result if the whole skeptical community focused its energy and arguments on that question.

    na…. spend your time on jupiter’s alignment with Mars..

  53. I picked up on this weeks ago via Bishophill and Judith Curry (late February I think). The link by several people here to the seminar/workshop transcript is well worth downloading. The transcript of the seminar is a must-read for anyone with any technical interest – there are some very strong points made by Lindzen and others and there is some real truth about the strengths and weaknesses of climate models. Its a very long document but it is a goldmine of uncensored, honest, scientific views on climate science and modelling. And remember these are actually what people said, recorded “on-the-record” by a stenographer. No backtracking in the future – this is a permanent record.

    Read it!

    (And I am looking forward to when the hiatus reaches 20 years….)

  54. Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 10:58 am

    You’d have to do more work than is physically possible (without lying or cheating) to come up with anything in the 2 to 6 degrees C range. Even IPCC has dropped to a best estimate of 3.0 degrees C, which is still too high by a factor of ~2. Without the assumed water vapor feedback still not in evidence, anything above 1.2 degrees remains improbable.

  55. Nobody has to ”imagine” that,

    it’s what got 40 N.A.S.A. astronauts and engineers issuing a statement – reblogged here, anyone can search for

    Retired N.A.S.A. Employees issue Right Climate Stuff Statement WUWT

    about being ashamed of what happened to Atmospheric Science when your mantra

    was actually lived out, real-time.

    It became known as the most notoriously worthless, error-filled branch of scientific inquiry in the history of humanity.

    J.R.

    “Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 10:58 am

    How much will C02 warm the planet? If you want to argue for a really small number, you’ll need to do a huge amount of work to
    support that. If you want to argue within the range of 1C to 6C, people might actually listen to you.

    Imagine the result if the whole skeptical community focused its energy and arguments on that question”

  56. Steven Mosher says:

    “How much will C02 warm the planet? If you want to argue for a really small number, you’ll need to do a huge amount of work to support that.”

    Not really. Based on real world results so far, a ‘really small number’ is the default position. No work necessary.

    Now, I consider 1º – 2º to be a ‘really small number’. That little bit of warming would be entirely beneficial to the biosphere. As Prof Lindzen says:

    “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”

    The APS has been co-opted by anti-science activists with a CAGW agenda. So have many other organizations. The result is that unthinking lemmings are led by the nose [sorry, jai, but that's true].

    The best thing that is happening is that Planet Earth is decisively falsifying the “carbon” scare. More and more people are starting to question how an extended, colder than usual winter is caused by global warming. Thanks, Mother Earth!

  57. ThinkingScientist says:
    March 20, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Read it [the transcript of the APS's 'CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP']!

    – – – – – – – – –

    ThinkingScientist,

    I am on page ~100 / 573. Yes, it is a real goldmine!!!

    I will be referencing it for hundreds of comments in the future.

    John

  58. Phil. says:

    No sign of Christy, Curry or Lindzen, they don’t appear on the POPA panel either so someone’s misled you.

    http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm

    dbstealey says:

    Why did the APS bar M.I.T.’s head of atmospheric sciences, who has twenty dozen climate related peer reviewed publications to his credit? The other two mitchell mentioned are as knowledgeable, or at least in the same league as Prof Lindzen.

    The committee is composed of physicists on POPA. They, by their own admission, are not experts in climate science. That is why they invited six climate scientists to meet with them in a special workshop. Those six scientists included three AGW “skeptics” (Lindzen, Christy, and Curry) and three scientists who generally hold views within the consensus (Isaac Held, Ben Santer, and [] Collins), which means there was considerable “affirmative action”, since the three “skeptics”are amongst only a small handful of climate scientists of any standing that hold such positions.

  59. As a skeptic who wants our side to be factual as possible. Mr. Watts should correct the sub headline. “Lindzen, Christy and Curry appointed to APS climate statement review panel”.

    They were three of six experts invited to a workshop that the review panel held earlier this year. They are not on the review panel.

    REPLY: Not a problem, that was a quote from ACM, which I though was accurate. I’ve added one word in brackets that solves the issue. – Anthony

  60. Jim says:
    March 20, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    Here is something to ponder.

    Koonin was part of the effort that debunked cold fusion.

    Say, Rossi promised he’d show off his factory running on his Ecats come April. How’s that shaping up? Anyone know? Ric Werme?

  61. Doug Allen says:
    March 20, 2014 at 11:57 am
    Just want to reinforce what Rud Istvan and others above said. The link to the transcript has been on Climate Etc, for several days or click here-

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

    It deserves a careful reading which took me about 3 or 4 hours. IMO, it’s the best expert discussion of climate science knowns, unknowns, and confidence levels that has ever been linked or published. What’s more, it was a civil discussion, the APS review panel were knowledgeable. and they asked tough questions.

    As a non-scientist, I agree completely with Doug Allen and others. I read it about a month ago; took me around 2 hours because I was devouring it. It was a page-turner. I would have loved to have been hanging over a rail above that amphitheater. I think Doug Allen’s suggestion for a careful reading, however, is better than what I did.

  62. Turnedoutnice says:
    March 20, 2014 at 7:45 am
    ………There are 12 other physics’ errors, some so elementary as to be embarrassing.”

    I appreciated the point you made and hope you will share the other twelve?

  63. Turnedoutnice says:
    March 20, 2014 at 7:45 am

    Would you mind explaining your **’d paragraph a little better? Just a sentence or two for a non-scientists? I didn’t understand this: that for >= 31 deg C, the oceans emit no net IR, all the energy being lost as latent heat, i.e. the operational emissivity is zero. For example, what’s “>= 31 deg C?” Are you talking about the temperature of the ocean being greater than 31 deg C?

    Thanks. Appreciate it. Or anyone else who can tell me.

  64. joeldshore (March 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm) “Those six scientists included three AGW “skeptics” (Lindzen, Christy, and Curry) and three scientists who generally hold views within the consensus (Held, Santer, Collins)”

    A false dichotomy based on the red herring of scientific consensus on CAGW where there is none. Lindzen, Christy and Curry are all well “within the consensus” on AGW and that is the only consensus that exists.

    Lindzen and Choi said TCR is 0.7K. Christy doesn’t have an estimate but maintains that climate models are about 2 times too high, so presumably would put TCR at 1K. Curry endorsed the Padilla, L., Vallis, G. K. and Rowley, C. 2011 paper with TCR of 1.6K.

    Held says 1.4C Santer essentially is the IPCC, so he would have to agree with whatever their latest TCR estimate is (climate model turds). Collins ran his model numerous times and came up with 1.5 to 2.6C

  65. The End of the Beginning–at a minimum.

    It’s astounding that this adversarial protocol wasn’t employed when these scientific societies were considering endorsing anthropogenic alarmism. Instead, they listened to only one side and rubber-stamped its presentation.

  66. John Whitman says:
    March 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    and ThinkingScientist,

    ===========

    Please provide a link.

  67. Mosher you are both mathematically ignorant and real world ignorant. Real world based on the actual warming over the past 100+ years and the increase in CO2 along with the logarithmic function of temperature change due to CO2 increase is calculated that a doubling of CO2 would equate to 1.1 degrees. That is so far on the bottom of your scale of 1-6 degrees that your range is a joke. Therefore the mathematically likelihood that the 1.1 degrees would take it below 1.0 degrees is much higher than it would be to take it over 1.5 degrees let alone 6 f-ing degress. Of course this analysis gives the benefit of the doubt that the past 100 years of temp change is 100% due to increase in CO2 increase which is highly doubtful. If as is more likely that ½ or more is due to the solar maximums during the past 100 years or ocean cycles then that 1.1 drops to .5.75 which is much more in-line with Lindzen and Choi’s .7 degrees. Oh and btw Lindzen was one of those 6 scientists presenting at the APS and his previous paper was arguing for a less than 1.0 sensitivity so your comment is just plain stupid..

  68. milodonharlani says:

    Even IPCC has dropped to a best estimate of 3.0 degrees C, which is still too high by a factor of ~2.

    The IPCC’s best estimate has always been around 3.0 degrees C. That has been the consensus best estimate amongst the scientific community since Charney back in the 1970s.

    Without the assumed water vapor feedback still not in evidence, anything above 1.2 degrees remains improbable.

    There is plenty of evidence for the water vapor feedback…and at about the right magnitude as it is in the models: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5917/1020.summary

    hum says:

    Mosher you are both mathematically ignorant and real world ignorant. Real world based on the actual warming over the past 100+ years and the increase in CO2 along with the logarithmic function of temperature change due to CO2 increase is calculated that a doubling of CO2 would equate to 1.1 degrees.

    Speaking of ignorance, you’ve managed to pack quite a lot into one sentence. First of all, your calculation is, if anything, a calculation of transient climate response (TCR), not equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)…and, in fact, sounds more like the TCR you get if you only consider positive anthropogenic forcings (CO2 & other greenhouse gases) and ignore negative ones. Once, you consider the uncertainties in the forcings then the instrumental record is compatible with quite a large range of TCR’s and an even largely (and upwardly shifted) range of ECS’s.

  69. joeldshore says:
    March 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm says: “… since the three “skeptics”are amongst only a small handful of climate scientists of any standing that hold such positions….” So that means that most of “climate scientists” are whores trafficking those who dole out grants and other benefits? I laugh at your pomposity.

  70. eyesonu says:
    March 20, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    @ John Whitman says:
    March 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    and @ ThinkingScientist,

    Please provide a link.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    eyesonu,

    I see milodonharlani (@ March 20, 2014 at 5:58 pm) gave you link guidance.

    Also, here is how to link to APS transcript through Judith Curry’s post.

    Here is a link to the post at Judith Curry’s blog where she discusses here participation in APS workshop:

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/

    Here is the link in her blog post to the transcript of the whole APS workshop that she was part of:

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

    Enjoy.

    John

  71. joelshore says:

    The IPCC’s best estimate has always been around 3.0 degrees C.

    Then they are flat wrong.

    Who are you gonna believe? The IPCC? Or Planet Earth?

    Joel Shore believes the IPCC.

    Eric1skeptic says about joelshore’s beliefs:

    A false dichotomy based on the red herring of scientific consensus on CAGW where there is none.

    If it were not for false dichotomies, psychological projection, and cognitive dissonance, joel shore wouldn’t have much to say.

    Rational folks accept what the planet is telling us: the IPCC’s numbers are nonsense. Furthermore, the IPCC’s numbers have steadily declined since AR-1. So even they know what’s reality. Their problem is couching their reports in such a way that they don’t seem to be backing, filling, and climbing down. But WUWT readers know the truth…

  72. If you want to have an impact you have a choice.
    Follow the lead of curry mcintyre masters odonnell nic lewis
    Jeffid and do science or follow cripwell dragon slayers and cyclomaniacs

  73. Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    By “cyclomaniacs”, do you mean those who have observed that earth has undergone extensive glaciations at about 100,000 year intervals for the past c. 2.6 million years or so, & interglacials between these ice sheet episodes that last on the order of 10,000 years, with periodic decadal, centennial & millennial scale fluctuations around trend lines within the interglacials?

    And are these supposed maniacs those who also have noted that the Holocene hasn’t experienced anything like the warmth of the prior interglacial, the Eemian, which was much hotter than the Holocene, without benefit of a Neanderthal industrial age? Would that be the same maniacs who also can marshal so much evidence for the fact that the Holocene Climatic Optimum was a lot warmer than the recent Modern Warm Period, which is cooler than the Medieval Warm Period, which was cooler than the Roman Warm Period, which was cooler than the Minoan Warm Period, which was about as warm as the tail end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum?

    Which raises the question, who are the real maniacs in the room?

  74. milodonharlani says:
    March 20, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    Steven Mosher says:
    March 20, 2014 at 8:43 pm
    ——————-
    No no no. The rules of mental masturbation must be followed if one has to have any impact ….

  75. philincalifornia says:
    March 20, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    I will never be able to expunge the implications of that alliteration from my mind. Until now, I’ve been able to subsume the horror of CACA mental derangement disorder under the concept of a Mosh Pit. But now you’ve gone & done it. There can be no turning back.

  76. If by cyclomaniacs Mosher means Fourier transforms of crappy temperature records (mainly due to overweighted local influences) I am in complete agreement. Bad data is bad data no matter what it is used for. But the general idea that weather can have secular trends in excess of the IPCC-mandated 15 or 30 years or some other arbitrary cutoff is sound. The best explanation for the 20th century temperature rise remains some combination of CO2 warming and natural LIA recovery. Just because the kindergarden models of CO2 forcing result in warming and the red herring oversimplified models of TSI do not, is irrelevant.

    Could Jupiter and Saturn modulate the sun in long cycles? Possible. Or the sun could do that all by itself. A better explanation for long term secular trends IMO is some combination of meridional overturning changes and external influences including solar and background GCR. If that makes me a cosmomaniac, so be it.

  77. Yeah and the math’s real and the giant light on in the sky no instrument can find is real and the warming that isn’t happening is real and the computer models that don’t obey ideal gas law are real and the Hockey Stick is real and the millions of climate refugees is real…

    and the growing alarm is real and the crisis is real…

    You’re another “energy moves without charge differential” climate clown who’s got the news way, way, too late.

    joeldshore says:
    March 20, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    “it’s magically not the infrared cooling model of the earth but the infrared warming model…yada yada…”

  78. From Breitbart News this morning:
    American Physical Society Sees The Light: Will It Be The First Major Scientific Institution To Reject The Global Warming ‘Consensus’?
    by James Delingpole 20 Mar 2014 1025 post a comment
    The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on “climate change” by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).
    They are:
    Professor Richard Lindzen, formerly Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a highly regarded physicist who once described climate change alarmism on The Larry King Show as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”

    John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has written: “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.”

    Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a former Warmist (and still a self-described “luke warmer”) who has infuriated many of her more extremist colleagues by defending skeptics and by testifying to the US House Subcommittee on the Environment that the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater than the alarmists will admit.

    As Anthony Watts has noted, this is news guaranteed to make a Warmist’s head explode.

    The reason it’s so significant is that it comes only three years after one of the APS’s most distinguished members – Professor Hal Lewis – resigned in disgust at its endorsement of what he called “the global warming scam.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/20/American-Physical-Society-Sees-The-Light-Will-It-Be-The-First-Major-Scientific-Institution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus

  79. Good news.

    What they did in 2007 was embarrassing—I’ve often said most “climate scientists” weren’t scientists in the same sense that physicists are, hinting strongly that physicists tend to be smarter.

    That’s what I was hinting at; that’s what I meant.

    So it was both not surprising that so many more physicists protested this abomination of a position in 2007, and disappointing that the committee which is the APA took it.

  80. This is better than nothing but I doubt it will lead to any substantial change. Notice that the POPA in its entirety can either accept or reject the statement from the subcommittee. Given the composition of the subcommittee an stalemate is likely which may lead the POPA to make a few cosmetic changes in the previous statement and send it on to the APS executive board. Too many universities and quite a few physics departments are on the AGW gravy train to let it go now.

  81. @ onlyme says: March 20, 2014 at 7:51 am

    One often reads that the globe has warmed since the LIA. One seldom sees a mechanism for this. Several are plausible, such as redistribution of the location of ocean heat, a change in radiative energy entering/departing the global system, a systematic change in surface albedo, geometric cycles and so on.
    So, my question is, if the globe has warmed since the LIA, what is the energy source or store that caused the warming?
    It would assist if step features like the seemingly rapid jump up of global temperatures around 1998 were explained. It would also assist if we could be shown that there was one dominant warming source, but I fear that there are many sources, some independent, some interactive, resulting in a wicked problem, to use an apt Judith Curry term.

Comments are closed.