UPDATE5: (Saturday 10/16/10) It has been a week, and I think this piece has been well distributed, so I’m putting it in regular queue now and it will gradually scroll off the page.
UPDATE4: (Friday 10/15/10) APS member Roger Cohen comments here on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth op/ed.
UPDATE3: (Friday 10/15/10) Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
UPDATE2: (Wednesday 10/13/10) This just in…click for the story.
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
UPDATE: (Saturday 10/9/10) Since this came in late Friday, many of our weekday WUWT readers might not see this important story, so I’m sticking it to the top for a couple of days. New stories will appear just below this one, please scroll down to see them. – Anthony
(Originally posted on 10/8/10 ) We’ve previously covered the APS here, when I wrote:
While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting.
Indeed, not so quiet now. It looks like it is getting ugly inside with the public airing of the resignation of a very prominent member who writes:
I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
…
In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis
Below is his resignation letter made public today, via the GWPF.
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.
Readers, we can do this. Here’s the place at WaPo to ask for it. For anyone writing to the WaPo, the national@washpost.com, is the national news editorial desk. The Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, is the readers’ representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
Spread the word on other blogs. Let’s see if they have enough integrity to provide a counterpoint. – Anthony
======================================
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
==========================================================
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Very little, actually. The “more energy” in the atmosphere is trivial noise compared to the heat energy fluctuations of the oceans and crust.
Wow. And now Mr. Watts imploring his followers to propagate the resignation letter of Mr. Lewis’ – a man who apparently knows little about climate science – to disingenuously elevated him as a “devastating authoritative voice” to denounce climate science. I mean, he is a physicist after all, right? {roll eyes} Never let a weak but exploitable opportunity to distort perceptions of casual observers pass.
Propaganda at its worst. Very, very, very sad.
REPLY: Yes, it’s terribly sad that physicists (Astronomers even) have something to say about climate science and are cited worldwide:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
Of that other physicists (Geologists even) are cited for hockey sticks by the IPCC:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
Why it’s just terrible how so many people listen to physicists who expound on climate change. – Anthony
/sarc
*********
REPLY by Mr. Watts: Yes, it’s terribly sad that physicists (Astronomers even) have something to say about climate science and are cited worldwide:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
Of that other physicists (Geologists even) are cited for hockey sticks by the IPCC:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
Why it’s just terrible how so many people listen to physicists who expound on climate change. – Anthony
*********
Well that was an unexpected pointless response … comparing scientists who’ve made climate research their profession with a scientist who doesn’t seem to know much about climate science.
I’ve asked multiple times, but I’ll ask you, Anthony … Do you have any links to thoughtful, detailed climate science-based arguments published by Hal Lewis? … I haven’t found a single one. I doubt you’ll find any, but that certainly won’t stop you from trying to distort his relevance to the climate science debate.
REPLY: Actually the response was quite pointed, you just don’t like the point. Al Gore has no scientific papers on climate published, yet millions listen to him. George Monbiot has no scientific climate papers published, neither does Bill McKibben, or eco snuff film producer Franny Armstrong, yet thousands hang on their every word and are moved to action. It wouldn’t matter what was presented, you’d ignore it and call it propaganda just as you did above. You don’t like Dr. Lewis, you think he’s irrelevant. We get it. It won’t change how I present Dr. Lewis here. – Anthony
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
No problems with your comment, except for:
in fact every single year in the arctic around the north pole the atmospheric CO2 drops by 18 ppm in just 5 months; and at that rate of removal, the present 110 ppm excess over the supposedly stable background level of 280 ppm would be removed in about 2 1/2 years, or 99% removal in 12 1/2 years if it followed a normal single time constant exponential decay.
The comparison doesn’t hold: the 18 ppmv variability in the Arctic is mainly from growing vegetation in spring/summer and almost all comes back by vegetation decay in fall/winter, blowing in from the mid-latitudes via the Ferrel cells, as the d13C levels show. The net effect over a year is only some 1.5 GtC net uptake by vegetation (of the 110 GtC excess). Together with the 2.4 GtC going into the deep oceans, that makes some 4 GtC net uptake per year, about halve the human emissions. Thus it will take a little longer than 2.5 years half life time…
Far less than the hundreds of years the APS (and the IPCC) claims, which anyway is only relevant for a fraction of the total excess and if you burn all reachable oil and lost of coal.
But some 40 years half life time for the bulk of the excess will do the job, see the calculation of Peter Dietze at:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
**********
REPLY by Mr. Watts: Actually the response was quite pointed, you just don’t like the point. Al Gore has no scientific papers on climate published, yet millions listen to him. George Monbiot has no scientific climate papers published, neither does Bill McKibben, or eco snuff film producer Franny Armstrong, yet thousands hang on their every word and are moved to action. It wouldn’t matter what was presented, you’d ignore it and call it propaganda just as you did above. You don’t like Dr. Lewis, you think he’s irrelevant. We get it. It won’t change how I present Dr. Lewis here. – Anthony
**********
So, no, you have zero links that supports Hal Lewis having any significant knowledge base in the climate science field – now there’s a surprise.
I’m talking about the science, Anthony, not political/propaganda mouthpieces on either side. You’re not really interested in the science itself. Your primary interest is in “opportunities” to exploit – that is your chosen profession.
REPLY: You are entitled to your opinion, even if wrong. You assume that people such as Dr. Lewis aren’t capable of having a valid opinion on climate science because their chosen profession went in a different path. Dr. Hansen was an Astronomer before he started publishing on climate, yet nobody stood up then and said “sir, you’ve only published in astronomy, so your opinion is invalid”. Einstein hadn’t published much either, and worked as patent clerk at the time. Yes, by all means ignore that fellow.
Mr. Greer. your opinion is the height of arrogance and your own actions show that you really aren’t interested in the science, you only want to denigrate Dr. Lewis because you disagree with him. It is an oh-so-typical and transparent MO. Here’s the deal, what Dr. Lewis has said is spreading, resonating, and being repeated worldwide. Tough noogies that you don’t like it. – Anthony
“”” Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
No problems with your comment, except for:
in fact every single year in the arctic around the north pole the atmospheric CO2 drops by 18 ppm in just 5 months; and at that rate of removal, the present 110 ppm excess over the supposedly stable background level of 280 ppm would be removed in about 2 1/2 years, or 99% removal in 12 1/2 years if it followed a normal single time constant exponential decay.
The comparison doesn’t hold: the 18 ppmv variability in the Arctic is mainly from growing vegetation in spring/summer and almost all comes back by vegetation decay in fall/winter, blowing in from the mid-latitudes via the Ferrel cells, as the d13C levels show. “””
What Comparison Ferdinand; I made no comparisons with anything. I merely stated the incontrovertible fact that in the arctic; and I also added “around the North Pole” ; which arguably would apply to even just the Arctic ocean; On which I wasn’t aware that plants even grew; 18 ppm of CO2 is removed in just 5 months; and it takes the remaining 7 months of the year to return. That is NOT indicative of any 40 year decay time constant.
Now I’m not aware that plants whether growing in the subarctic on land or in the arctic ocean on ice or water, are able to distinguish between human introduced CO2 and Nature introduced CO2; and decide to decay with a 40 year Time constant in one case and a 2 1/2 year time cnstant in the other. Surely the isotopic difference in carbon doesn’t alter the decay time constant by such a large amount.
In any case it is irrelevent; the CO2 is in the atmosphere permanently; just as the water vapor is; and how long it takes to switch one molecule for an exact copy is of no consequence.
************
REPLY By Mr. Watts: You are entitled to your opinion, even if wrong. You assume that people such as Dr. Lewis aren’t capable of having a valid opinion on climate science because their chosen profession went in a different path. Dr. Hansen was an Astronomer before he started publishing on climate, yet nobody stood up then and said “sir, you’ve only published in astronomy, so your opinion is invalid”. Einstein hadn’t published much either, and worked as patent clerk at the time. Yes, by all means ignore that fellow.
Mr. Greer. your opinion is the height of arrogance and your own actions show that you really aren’t interested in the science, you only want to denigrate Dr. Lewis because you disagree with him. It is an oh-so-typical and transparent MO. Here’s the deal, what Dr. Lewis has said is spreading, resonating, and being repeated worldwide. Tough noogies that you don’t like it. – Anthony
************
There is no detailed offered by Mr. Lewis to support his position – there is no basis to believe Dr. Lewis is capable of having a valid opinion on climate science – that’s my point. Lewis hasn’t published and/or spoken anything of depth on the subject. Lewis’ shallow public comments on the science itself, in fact, lead one to believe he’s quite incapable of a valid scientific opinion re: climate.
As to the “spreading, resonating, and being repeated worldwide” part, well, that’s your job – that’s the purpose of this site – recognize the exploitable narrative, formulate a hyped message, then blast it into the echo chamber. That’s how you earn your living – warp public opinion to align with your benefactors.
However inconsistent with your objectives, Anthony, the actual science should always be the focus … so if you do find true climate science-based arguments offered by Hal Lewis, please share. Until then you’re effectively pushing the podiatrist’s opinion on brain surgery … not particularly relevant.
REPLY: like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, even if wrong. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Anthony..
With all due respect Mr. Watts (and I dip my toe into this discussion with fear and loathing) but I must say that in what I have read so far, I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Hal Lewis is not welcome to his opinion(s) on anything including AGW.
But you are presenting his resignation from APS as representing a huge blow to the science of AGW, as if he has much more than an opinion – informed or otherwise. Mr. Greer is quite correct to point out that he (Mr. Greer) is not talking about ‘political propaganda mouthpieces’ but about serious published scientists and if we are to take Hal Lewis’ resignation as representing anything that we should pay attention to then you should be able to point us to recent research that he has undertaken.
I’m confident that if George Monbiot quit the Guardian in a huff or if Bill Mckibbon stopped writing books in a fit of pique, you would not be trumpeting it as a death blow to AGW.
REPLY: If they quit like Dr. Lewis did, saying their parent organization was corrupt, and the science was faulty – you betcha I’d write about it. And to point, “death blow” is your phrase, not mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
My point is this: Dr. Lewis APS resignation letter is comparable to the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. Like Lewis, he made a stand against the consensus of the time. That set off “The Reformation”:
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/reformation/reformers/luther.shtml
– Anthony
Alan Caruba on Hal Lewis and WUWT:
From desperate housewives to desperate climate liars
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-desperate-housewives-to-desperate.html
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I was only saying that you can’t use the seasonal drop and increase of CO2 to deduce any thing about the real time constant of removing an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of the drop in CO2 in spring is by the sudden growth of leaves in the moderate forests. That is measured midst these forests by tall towers. And confirmed by a huge change in d13C levels (up in summer, down in winter). The air of the mid-latitudes is moved up and comes down again near the Arctic via the Ferrel cells.
The oceans react the other way out: increasing emissions of the warming mid-latitude oceans. In the NH with far more land, vegetation is by far dominant, in the SH there is hardly an amplitude visible.
That all says nothing about how fast an extra amount of CO2 is removed, as most the CO2 which was removed in spring/summer returns in fall/winter at about the same rate. The real removal rate is the difference between removal and release at the end of the year, thus after a full seasonal cycle. And that is about 4 GtC, which implies an excess removal half life time of about 40 years.
Re: Dr. Lewis’ publication record in climate science
From the APS response:
So it appears that the officers that wrote the APS statement on climate and the majority of the membership don’t have a publishing record in climate research.
And yet the argument seems to be that Professor Lewis shouldn’t be taken seriously because he hasn’t published on climate.
I know what that argument would be called:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
Mr. Watts..
Point taken..you are correct to point out that ‘death blow’ is my phrase and not yours. Although in terms of hyperbole I think death blow is fairly benign if one puts it up against comparing this resignation with Marten Luther’s nailing up of his 95 theses.
That being said it seems to me that the consensus of the present time is one of ‘business as usual’ inwhich the clergy would be represented by the fossil fuel interests who – like the church of Luther’s time – have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Further, Mr. Lewis’ characterization of APS as corrupt and his statement that the science is faulty is still only an opinion: an opinion that is perhaps more considered than my own, but still only an opinion and therefore I still do not see how his resignation warrants comparison with Luther and the Reformation.
REPLY: Thank you for a reasoned discourse. Martin Luther’s discourse was only an “opinion” at the time. It was the act of defiance that elevated it, just as Dr. Lewis has done – Anthony
John says:
Re: Dr. Lewis’ publication record in climate science
From the APS response:
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.
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.
So it appears that the officers that wrote the APS statement on climate and the majority of the membership don’t have a publishing record in climate research.
And yet the argument seems to be that Professor Lewis shouldn’t be taken seriously because he hasn’t published on climate.
I know what that argument would be called:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
So now we are paying attention not only to a resignation that means little but it is a resignation from a society that means little as neither the one resigning nor the organization from which he is resigning have any publishing record in climate research. Who’s on 1st?
Anthony:
I would agree that an opinion, forcefully put forward can indeed set in motion huge changes in society. I guess where we disagree is about who is the church and who is Martin in the present context.
I would suggest that it would be more correct to assign the Martin role to someone like James Hansen who has been attempting to nail his thesis to the door of the status quo for some thirty years. It seems apparent to me that the overwhelming consensus of our time (and I’m not speaking to the ‘scientific consensus’ regarding
AGW) is the paradigm of free market capitalism and its attendent mantra of constant and infinite growth and technological innovation.
This, to my mind, is the ‘church’ that the Martin Luthers of AGW are up against. I feel that you present a mirror image of this picture with the characters reversed.
Is this a mis-representation of your position?
“I have decided to resign my membership of the American Chemical Society this year because of dogmatic warmist editorials in its weekly magazaine, C&EN”
Ulick Stafford, I am joining you. I have been member of ACS for 28 years, but am no longer proud to say so.
OT:
Standing Up Against the Oil Lobby, in California and Beyond
by Al Gore
Chairman, Current TV
Posted: October 12, 2010 05:36 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com//al-gore/standing-up-against-the-o_b_760172.html
Steve Mennie says:
October 13, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Well, whoever wrote this entry thinks what scientific socieities say is important even though most of these organizations have a very small percentage of members who have published in climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Of course, you are free to edit the entry.
Keep us posted on how that goes.
John/CA;
Huffington? Gore? Standing up? I doubt they can.
The problem may simply be that our priorities lean too much to physics and not enough to philosophy.
All this didn’t happen suddenly, or in a vacuum. It was well under way when the academic community of North America threatened a boycott of Velikovsky’s publisher over the content of “Worlds in Collision” half a century ago. Academia had already lost its integrity at that point, and become a priesthood enforcing orthodoxy by any means instead of a community dedicated to the search for knowledge.
And so now, when we need reliable scientific insight more desperately than ever, we have public relations contests determining public policy on environmental issues critical to the survival of our society.
Oakden Wolf says:
October 8, 2010 at 10:00 pm
(quoting from an APS statement)
“Since 1996, demand for oil and natural gas has continued to grow with the expansion and globalization of the world’s economy. In addition, our nation’s dependence on imported energy has increased, and the effects of burning fossil fuels on the global environment are becoming a major concern. The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy-efficient technologies can, over time, promote the United States’ energy security and reduce stress on the world’s environment.”
In my opinion, the APS position is mostly about money. But long-term energy security is a secondary consideration, as Oakden points out. Most physical scientists believe that the Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) is finite.
Side note. I’m agnostic about the Abiogenic Petroleum Hypothesis (APH). On the one hand, some evidence is consistent with the hypothesis. Example: the frequent occurrence of adamantane derivatives (aka ‘diamondoids’) in petroleum. H/t to Louis Hissink. On the other hand, two deep boreholes in central Sweden (in the Siljan Ring) failed to provide strong evidence for the late Thomas Gold’s variation on the APH theme.
Anyway, even if the APH is true, it begs the question: At our current rates of CONG consumption, will we run out before Sol goes red giant, and toasts our cookies? Even if the answer is no, it’s obvious to me that we’ll need to spend more money in order to drill deeper. And even with improved extraction and refining technology, CONG will become more expensive. And that means lower living standards for most people in the developed countries.
Yes, increased use of nuclear power–including thorium/U233 reactors–will soften the blow. But we’ll still need a convenient energy storage medium for our cars, which we’ll be driving considerably less frequently. And petrol substitutes don’t come cheap.
Yes, driving a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle as a second car for local shopping, and for local commuting, is a viable option for some families right now. And when petrol becomes prohibitively expensive, more communities will be willing to decrease their surface-street speed limits to 25 mph, the safe upper limit for NEVs. On the other hand, Tesla Motors has yet to demonstrate that their faster, longer-range products are more than play-toys for rich people, who want to enhance their images as Environmentalists.
As an outsider, my take on the APS position is that
1. Many physicists are deeply concerned (as am I) about the energy situation in the future.
2. The believe (as do I) that we’ll experience a softer landing if we get proactive now.
3. They believe that most non-scientists are too bloody stupid to see beyond their own noses.
4. There are considerable overlaps between proposed solutions for energy security and for the CAGW ‘problem’.
In my opinion, these four factors explain the willingness of many physicists–who should know better–to ‘go with the flow’.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm
That all says nothing about how fast an extra amount of CO2 is removed, as most the CO2 which was removed in spring/summer returns in fall/winter at about the same rate. The real removal rate is the difference between removal and release at the end of the year, thus after a full seasonal cycle. And that is about 4 GtC, which implies an excess removal half life time of about 40 years.
Well, with a one sigma error on this of ,lets say,ten years it is a consistent number with the claims that certainly it is not hundreds of years.
Actually it is a number consistent with new tree growth establishing itself. In the 1960’s a pine forest burned down in my area and it is now having some mature trees.
If, due to warming, the habitat expands to higher in the mountains and more north, the time scale is not bad.
Larry Fields :
October 13, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I am curious. Are you a physicist?
More curious, if so, have you read the physics justification of the AR4 report? It should raise the hackles of any real physicist.
1. Many physicists are deeply concerned (as am I) about the energy situation in the future.
2. The believe (as do I) that we’ll experience a softer landing if we get proactive now.
3. They believe that most non-scientists are too bloody stupid to see beyond their own noses.
4. There are considerable overlaps between proposed solutions for energy security and for the CAGW ‘problem’.
In my opinion, these four factors explain the willingness of many physicists–who should know better–to ‘go with the flow’.
Those physicists have not read the AR4 physics justification report.
Also one reason physicists go with the flow is that good ones trust in the integrity of other physicists, and by extension of other scientists. Each real physicist would never dream of fudging data, using uncalibrated proxies, spaghetti graphs, gross oversimplifications, etc. So they cannot imagine that if, for example, a low temperature chemists came up with a new formula that only works near kelvin zero, it would be a suspect formula. They would trust his scientific integrity. That is the problem with the APS bulk physicists. They have not read the AR4 physics justification to see what a jumble it is.
I, as many physicists, until challenged to read AR4, thought that there was truth in AGW because climatologists, who should be the experts, said so.
The scales fell from my eyes three years ago, and since then, in my small way, I try to lecture in my area and open more peoples eyes.
Your 4th point also is shaky in logic. Eliminating 4/5ths of the human race would have the same effect on the energy consumption. Should one espouse the logic?
There seem to be a greater correlation between the amount of funding for climate research and the amount of hysterical statements about global warming than there is between the rise in temperature and human CO2-emissions.
anna v says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Larry Fields :
October 13, 2010 at 10:20 pm
“I am curious. Are you a physicist?
More curious, if so, have you read the physics justification of the AR4 report? It should raise the hackles of any real physicist.”
No, my academic background is in analytical chemistry. I’m also an amateur mathematician. And no, I have not read the AR4 physics justification report.
from my earlier posting:
4. There are considerable overlaps between proposed solutions for energy security and for the CAGW ‘problem’.
“Your 4th point also is shaky in logic. Eliminating 4/5ths of the human race would have the same effect on the energy consumption. Should one espouse the logic?”
Sorry, I should have expressed myself more clearly. In my 4th point, I was not advocating anything in particular. My main purpose in listing the 4 points was to make an educated guess at what rank-and-file APS physicists are thinking. I was playing amateur psychologist.
I’m not a Free-Market Fundamentalist. And I don’t think that having a carefully-crafted energy policy is necessarily a bad idea. But some of the particulars in the proposed energy policies of others are bad ideas. I was thinking of ETSs (emissions trading schemes), outlawing incandescent light bulbs, and building poorly-sited wind turbines that operate on average at only 5% of their capacity.
About eliminating 4/5 of the human race. No, I’m not in favor of that. But John Holdren, Obama’s ha-ha science adviser, may be comfortable with the idea. He’s a population-control extremist, and he scares the bejesus out of me. Apparently Holdren cannot comprehend the theory of the Demographic Transition. And that’s surprising, because his academic background was in physics, before he went crackers. Until recently, I’d assumed that there were no dummies in that scientific discipline.
By the way Anna, I always appreciate your opinions. I wish that more physicists were like you and the late Richard Feynman.
To John Whitman
I have no where implied that my comments are worthy of attention. However if someone replies to them then I think that we can take that as evidence that the commenter thought them worthy (for good or ill).
I simply noted in my follow up that what I was being asked to comment on was off topic.
This is a blog that invites comments. I have done so. I hardly see contributing a dissenting opinion to be self important or my disagreement with Anthony Watts to be equivalent to levelling a charge of cowardice.
You ask;
Restate please, if you condescend to do so.
May I suggest you use the scroll bar, it would save both of us time.
A Recipe for Disaster:
I hope I am not alone in seeing a pattern emerging here:
*The Economy is in shambles world wide and getting worse (we are not in a recovery),
*Climatology/Environmentalism is spiraling down into zealotry and politics,
*Physics has devolved into celebrity and paradox and is indistinguishable from science ficion.
What connects these three observations? 1. Greed, 2. Hubris, and most important…
3. Bad math and silly computer modeling.
Greed and Hubris are part of the human condition, we will not escape them as long as we are human, but we do need to keep them under better control. Vigilance is the cost of freedom and clean living.
Bad math and silly computer modeling are sadly at the root of the collapse of our economies, our climate prediciton and energy policies, and our comprehension of the universe through physics. The financial experts and world leaders, the climatologists and environmentalists, the physicists and mathematicians , have ALL been drinking from the same trough of delusion. They all want to believe that computer modeled reality is “real”, even when they don’t fully understand what they are modeling. They look at the output of their computer models and simulations as equivalent to reality, granting them godlike predictive powers and insight over the earth. Problem is, take ANY computer simulation with many many varibles and terms, all of which are not known, all of which are not accurate, now run a calculation, take the results and use them to run another calcuation, and another , and another, ad infinitum….
Take the computer forcasted and terribly flaky results , fold in the Hubris and Greed, disgard any self restraint, and VOILA!! What you get is what we got. Disaster. Both real and imagined.
Observation should always trump prediction, not the other way around.