Below is the press release (on the web here) from the American Physical Society, responding to the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday, October 8th. APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony
October 12, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements.
We know that the existing 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change was developed literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee had signed off on a more moderate Statement.
The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html
…delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels. Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the Society conduct an independent study and assessment.
As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007 APS Statement http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm . “[APS Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically unsound statements.” Evidently physicists should be excluded from inputting on a question of physics; only “physics monks” are entitled to do so ex cathedra .
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.
The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions . Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS 2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while under consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP. The position had been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.
Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor’s office that the APS will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has been silent on the documented practice by some climate scientists aimed at preventing opposing research from being published.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
- Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
- Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.
- The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “dwell time.” If it is the conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the statement is wrong – by a lot.. The IPCC’s Bern carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html gets a 16 year half life. If it is the time for the last molecule to get picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless. At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.
This is much better than the 2007 APS Statement itself. However, the phrase “climate disruptions” is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently introduced by Science Advisor John Holdren http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/ , evidently enabling advocates to assign any unusual weather event to human causes. It is curious that that the APS press release happens to echo this new phrase.
In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
What we have here is a bait and switch. No one is saying that the greenhouse effect itself is a scam. This passage seeks to transfer the ‘scam’ charge from its real target to the trivial. The fraud/scam is to be found in the continual drumbeat that the science is settled; that the effects will be catastrophic; that it requires draconian economic sacrifices to avoid; and that mandates and subsidies for rent-seeking corporations are justified.
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual whose research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming alarm. And you have to keep your eye on the pea. The dispute was not over the “significance” of the issue; it was over the alarmist nature of the statement. The addendum used more than five times the number of words to try to explain what the original statement meant. Not a good sign that they got it right the first time.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
Never mind that the Topical Group was proposed in a petition organized by a group of five members that included Dr. Lewis. Also, the Council has not yet approved a TG; therefore it is not in the process of being “organized.” It is being considered. No formal charter or bylaws have been set down. What we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes. This before it has even been approved by the APS Council.
Read the APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.
APS should be very reluctant to draw public attention to this Statement, with its infamous phrase, “The evidence is incontrovertible,” despite the fact that nothing in science is ever incontrovertible.
About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
=================================================
This page is available as a PDF here: APS Press Release Deconstruction
=================================================
Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum:
I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”
The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. — if there were no other climate effects involved. However, these other effects, generally called “feedbacks,” can amplify or attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2. The most prominent feedback is the “cloud-water vapor feedback,” which is very difficult to calculate or determine empirically. The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
Some visitors have expressed interest in learning more about the water vapor feedback. On his blog, Roy Spencer intersperses his up to date research findings with excellent tutorials on various aspects of the global warming issue. This is a recent one relating to to the water vapor feedback and is highly recommended. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/ Cloud feedbacks are yet more complex and represent the biggest ‘swing variable’ in the feedback issue. Technically inclined visitors may wish to consult the authoritative review by Colorado State Professor Graeme L. Stephens http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf. The early section of the paper will give one a sense of why the issue is so difficult and the large spread in model results.
Boris says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm
This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.
If these guys actually believe this, then they don’t need to be in the APS. Perhaps they should pick up a textbook on radiative properties of the atmosphere.
REPLY: Ah aged mega troll “Boris” returns with a smackdown. You might want to read Dr. Roger Cohen’s note above. Since you obviously didn’t see it, I’ll put it in the body in large print for you and the kids. -Anthony
Thank you, there being no posts listed as being from Dr Roger Cohen it was rather difficult to be sure what you were referring to. I’m not sure why I was asked to read it though.
Dr. Roger Cohen:
—I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”
The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. —-
How is the “saturation” argument “fact” if “it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming”?
—The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.—-
Can you point out the research? And I mean a closed system, where the energy budget is balanced.
Jordan says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Another comment if I may. It is possible to observe CO2′s radiative properties in the laboratory, but that does not permit us to conclude that these properties are necessarily evident in the climate.
Which is why the USAF etc sent loads of suitably equipped planes balloons etc. into the atmosphere to make in situ measurements which led to HITRAN.
Roger says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm
“……. for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.”
=======================================================
Either way, I can live with a 1-3 deg C increase. So can everyone else. I don’t believe the 3 deg. but, even if it were true……so what.
“Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum: …….”
This addendum appears to be the most interesting part of the post. All it needs is a graph showing how well the projections using the large positive feedback models compare with actual data and you have a nice story. I think it clearly says “The science is settled – but in the negative to the AGW case”.
AMEN, ‘YAHOO’ from a ‘Larikin’ American living in South Australia…
FINALLY, THE SCIENTISTS GET A VOICE!!! LONG LIVE SCIENCE! (which I humbly believe was birthed by observation???) and LONG LIVE FREE THOUGHT!!!
US LAYMEN (and women!) ARE REFRESHED BY SEEING YOUR SHACKLES LOOSED!!!
Given all the debate on what “saturated” lines of CO2 might mean in terms of definition and relevance, why not strike it or modify it so that it quantifies something of known relevance? What you’re doing is very confusing and leads to endless debate.
This is what these people want at the end of the day
(With appologies to Izaac Azimov for the plagarised and parodied, laws of robotics)
1.A skeptic may not injure an AGW supporter or, through inaction, allow an AGW supporter to come to harm.
2.A skeptic must obey any orders given to it by an AGW supporter, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.A skeptic must not protect his/her own existence, espcially if such protection conflicts with the First or Second Law
This whole Interwebby thing has really, really changed the ballgame when it comes to publishing spin. You can’t just publish what you think will be accepted, and ignore pertinent points and then sit back smug in the knowledge that you can prevent further publications, and anyway the average reader does not have the staying power to get to the end of this sentence.
I happen to believe that this effect will be the most significant social effect of the current century, and that means a lot when we’ve only just started.
And we’ve got His Goriness to thank for it!
For those people wondering why or how a company such a BP, Shell or Caterpillar could or would ever get in bed with the greenies.
First, PAY ATTENTION!!!! This has been common knowledge for sometime now. Just use Google, I believe Caterpillar and BP has since pulled out of the consortium, but I could be corrected.
As to the why……consider the proposed caps on carbon emissions and the schemes. First, the caps set a level of emissions that the world businesses can emit. They don’t care who does, they just care about how much. Secondly, they recognize the need for existing entities to be able to continue to emit, but set a limit on how much. So, they issue CO2 credits for each existing company. If they want to emit more, they have to buy from the market. If less, they can sell. Nice and simple. No mess, no fuss, everything goes on as usual except they’ll have to pay through the nose to emit more CO2. That’s the plan in a nutshell.
Hmm, we seem to be missing something from the economic model…..what could it be? Hmm……..let me think………..Oh, wait, I think I know……. new competitors!!!
Friends, that’s why Dutch Shell and BP and all the others jumped on the bandwagon and started funding this garbage like crazy. It’s called an oligopoly. In this particular case it would have set up several different sets and levels of oligopolies with absolutely no chance of ever having to compete with an upstart.
JDN:
Because the physics behind the “saturated” lines of CO2 is well understood. At best bringing it up is a red herring, at worst it displays a lack of understanding of the physics of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.
My few cents worth:
• I endorse Cohen’s remarks.
• I endorse the APS statement that global warming itself (since 1850) is incontrovertible. [To say a result is never “incontrovertible” displays ignorance in how science progresses… For example, Special Relativity is a superset of Newton’s Laws of Motion, Newton’s Laws will never be “thrown out” in their established domain of applicability.]
• I manage to hold my lunch while reading that it is incontrovertible that “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.” How can something they themselves term as “likely” be “incontrovertible”??? I don’t think that word means quite what they think it means.
• I disagree with the APS that these disruptions/negative effects are “likely”. I agree they are “plausible” outcomes, I do not agree we understand the science well enough to pin down their likelihood. IOW, I think this is pure BS.
Their statement started with this…”To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements.”
And ends with this… “About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.”
Like all propaganda mouth pieces, APS is also a one trick pony, all they respond with is the prestige/consensus card.
“On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”
Wow!!! They are fast!!! Already carrying out the orders of science Czar. Climate disruptions, what is that?. What a joke.
“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”
Dear APS leadership, since you have abandoned all use of experimental evidence in favor of argument from discredited authority, perhaps you can know bless us with an answer to the age old question, “How many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin ?”
I commend the APS for its bravery in making such a spirited defence of the CAGW position.
Man made climate disruption, cheers for that JH, underpins both the fiscal and ideological strategies of world governance; it must not be allowed to fail.
The end justifies the means, of course, and the time for evidential analysis is soo yesterday.
Keep it up yee staunch footsoldiers of the brave new future. You’re doing a grand job.
Respect!
Lewis responds here with personal attacks, such as the personal attack on the Chair of the Panel on Public Affairs. What I would love to see is a reply on science and only science.
This reply by Lewis would be appropriate if the APS had said earlier that he (Lewis) is an deranged old person (that is, an attack on a personal level). However, Lewis was not called crazy, not he was insinuated as being crazy.
Finally, Lewis referenced James Delingpole. He should have reference a neutral source because James is too partizan. In references we put neutral sources.
I just visited Lubos’ blog. He is such an idiot, attacking the press secretary, posting a photograph, and talking about her race.
Lubos should never be invited again to post here!
Jack says:
And, you know this how? I’d like to see your review of the cases. In fact, your statement is a shining example of a skewed sample. You simply ignore all of the crackpots that have been wrong and vanished in obscurity (who, of course, you have never heard of) and look at the few cases where the scientific consensus has been incorrect.
bob says: October 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Bob, you’ve got a whole basketful of BS there. Bad Science nuggets.
Oceans exude CO2 at the equator and in the summer hemisphere, inhale it near the poles and in the winter hemisphere. CO2 bounces back and forth with rain, huge flux. All obvious if you think about it.
Carbon isotope “proofs” have been terminally faulted.
O2 going down? I refuse to take that alarm seriously.
pH. Sorry, there is simply so many times over the quantity of CO2 in the oceans as is in the air, that atmospheric changes are literally a “drop in the ocean”. Work out the relative mass of oceans and atmosphere. Look up the dissolved quantity of CO2. Study Henry’s Law. Then read Floor Anthoni on the upcoming “acidification” nonsense alarm and why the ever-present Ca++ will ALWAYS prevent acidification.
I’ve checked all these points in the past, many are on my web pages, or on those of others posting here, but they can also be googled quite easily.
Gary P says:
October 13, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”
Dear APS leadership, since you have abandoned all use of experimental evidence in favor of argument from discredited authority, perhaps you can know bless us with an answer to the age old question, “How many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin ?”
======================================================
AARRGGH…..I came back to this thread to ask the same question!!!
Well said.
In the same vein, can some of the CO2 experts tell me if all the CO2 molecules uniformly lay on their backs or bellies? If they lay on their bellies, do they only absorb from their backs and then emit from their bellies, or do they, like like the girls on the beaches of Florida turn every half hour and emit and absorb from the same side?
In other words, can someone, without the vehement rhetoric, explain if a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits uniformly, and if extraterrestrial IR is the primary source of heat, how is more CO2 will allow the same IR to pass through and not reflect it as it comes in, but reflect it more as it tries to escape?
I am surprised that Dr Cohen would publicize his ignorance of heat transfer. Pointing to simple radiative transfer and saying CO2 is an excellent infra-red absorber gives the game away. He clearly has no engineering knowledge and does not understand thermodynamics, evaporation, convective heat transfer and would appear not even to understand simple radiation heat transfer as measured by engineers. Where is his ethical standards in making pronouncements about technology where he has no clues and in criticizing a fellow member who clearly has a better understanding of the complexity of climate.
One can only hope that APS members realize the incompetents that lead them and vote them out of existence.
As an engineer, I have always counted on using incontrovertible basic data as essential to successful projects, and in my career I have never heard another engineer question that assumption. During the last few years I have been astonished that so many scientifically trained people seem not only unwilling to question the data being used to support AGW, but throw roadblocks of every kind against those who want to get at the truth. I am beginning to think that there must be some kind of very high level conspiracy (besides the money) that is trying to use AGW as a tool to power. Perhaps it is the “one-world” crowd. In any event, it seems that in the internet period it is, fortunately, not possible for anyone to crush all the seekers after truth; and the public is beginning to catch on to the shenanigans of the so-called elite! So beware of any attempts to regulate the web. It will be our salvation.
cementafriend says:
October 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I am surprised you offer criticism without offering a basis for such criticism. If you have knowledge, share it. For instance, show where Dr. Cohen is wrong, or better yet, answer my question above.
At some point scientist of high character and respect for their field of endeavor begin stepping forward.
B. CH.E. (October 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm) says
“I have been astonished that so many scientifically trained people seem not only unwilling to question the data being used to support AGW, but throw roadblocks of every kind against those who want to get at the truth.”
But there’s no (empirical) data to question, B.CH.E. , only speculative projections based on compliant computer games and dressed up as “proof” to sway opinion. Scientifically trained people aplenty do hammer that point.
There is not even a discernible signal linking GHG emissions and global temperature. There is only the noise of “natural climate variability”.
http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/10/05/texas-am-study-shows-climate-change-may-not-show-up-for-many-decades/