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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…
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
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?
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 ….
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.
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.
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…”
Mosher defines what science is or isn’t the way debbie does dallas.
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
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.