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
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”
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:
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!
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
John Whitman – Enjoy!
Here is something to ponder.
Koonin was partbof the effort that debunked cold fusion.
Phil. says:
dbstealey says:
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.
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
This is off topic, but the US government (taxpayer) spending on climate change at the webpage below may be of interest.
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
Say, Rossi promised he’d show off his factory running on his Ecats come April. How’s that shaping up? Anyone know? Ric Werme?
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.
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?
John R. Christy | Climate science isn’t necessarily ‘settled’
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/03/20/4093680/john-r-christy-climate-science.html
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.
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
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.
I thought vacuums imploded.
John Whitman says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm
and ThinkingScientist,
===========
Please provide a link.
eyesonu says:
March 20, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Easily found by searching on the capitalized title.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
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..
milodonharlani says:
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.
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:
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.
Here’s a non-paywalled version of the paper that I linked to above: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/1020HumidityVaporWarming.pdf
Mosher says:
My consensus is bigger than your consensus.
Ner ner
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.
– – – – – – – – – –
eyesonu,
I see milodonharlani (@ur momisugly 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
Why do they need a position statement at all?