Global Warming Physics Brouhaha
Last year over 200 physicists signed a letter to the American Physical Society calling for the APS Council to rescind or modify their Statement on Climate Change. In response, two weeks ago the APS issued an addendum to their 2007 Statement, which they refer to as a “Climate Change Commentary” [here].
Background:
The American Physical Society is the world’s second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the world renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than twenty science meetings each year. It is also a member society of the American Institute of Physics [here].
The APS Council issued a National Policy Statement on Climate Change on November 18, 2007 [here]. Many members (who number among the top physicists in the world) took exception to the wording (and content) of the Statement. Dissenting physicists issued an Open Letter last year [here]. Some excerpts:
Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society
Dear Editors:
Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical Society have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change. The Open Letter includes a proposed Alternative Statement which the signatories find a more accurate representation of the current state of the science than the unsupported assertion of the APS: “The evidence is incontrovertible.”
The signatories are a diverse group who share only their common background in physics and a concern for the integrity of the science process. They come from academia, industry, and government and have a variety of fields of interest and experiences. Many are distinguished prize winners (including a Nobel laureate), members of national academies, authors of books, chairs of studies of historical significance, and leaders of important activities in industry and government.
The Open Letter has now been signed by over 200 physicists.
At the November 8, 2009, APS Council meeting the Council decided to reject the Open Letter/petition but also to refer the 2007 Statement to the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) to address what were termed issues of “clarity and tone.” The Council also sent an email to members requesting comments on their decision.
Some of the comments sent to the APS have been posted on a website maintained by Dr. Robert Austin, Ph.D. of Princeton [here]. Some responders gave their names; some chose to remain anonymous. The comments are very enlightening.
The following comment was submitted by Dr. Edwin X Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physicist, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, and founder of ClimatePhysics.com [here]:
First, the heat that does not get to the earth’s surface cannot heat the earth. A one percent change in cloud cover overwhelms the carbon dioxide effect claimed by the IPCC. It is absurd to assume the IPCC’s hypothesis to manipulate the earth’s temperature is free to operate in the absence of changing cloud cover.
Second, there is no sound physical basis for assuming doubling carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere in the absence of clouds will increase surface temperature. Any transfer of the earth’s surface heat to air, whether by contact or by capture of earth radiation, will help the atmosphere move heat upward by convection. Surface temperatures of earth and Venus can be simply explained by the normal adiabatic lapse rates applied to the composition of their atmospheres without resort to a carbon dioxide “greenhouse” effect.
Third, the concept of a carbon dioxide “heat blanket” is unphysical. Air heated by more carbon dioxide does not remain fixed in place like insulation. Warmer air goes up. As it goes up it cools. The absence of the “hot spot” suggests this simple effect dominates the so-called greenhouse effect.
Fourth, no data shows more carbon dioxide causes temperature rise. All data show temperature change leads carbon dioxide change in all time scales ranging from a few months to 1000 years.
Fifth, the IPCC hypothesis as calculated by climate models makes incorrect predictions. This falsifies the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis.
Sixth, data show that one-year of human carbon dioxide emissions is absorbed by nature in 16 days. There is no data to show carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be significantly different today if humans did not exist.
Seventh, temperature has been rising at a fairly constant rate since the depth of the Little Ice Age in 1650. It is absurd to blame the temperature rise since 1950 on human carbon dioxide when this warming rate has not changed since 1650.
Eighth, no data show that the earth’s temperatures today are outside the bounds of natural historical temperature variations. And no data show that the earth’s carbon dioxide concentration today is outside historical values.
Ninth, no one has demonstrated that the earth’s ocean-atmosphere system, composed of uncountable, complex, irreversible processes, can in any way go unstable by man’s adding a small amount of carbon dioxide molecules. The fact that we are here today is evidence that our ocean-atmosphere system is stable.
Tenth, data show that more carbon dioxide helps rather than endangers the earth and its inhabitants. There is no basis for claims that a warming earth has or will cause any significant undesirable effects on life. By contrast, there is overwhelming evidence that the proposed political solutions to the non-problem of climate change will cause significant detrimental effect on human life and freedom.
Other comments are equally strong and condemnatory of both the APS 2007 Statement and the “pusillanimous” Climate Change Commentary addendum.
APS Members were given through March 16 to comment on the Commentary. Members were not asked to give a straight up-or-down vote on whether to scrap the 2007 Statement.
It is interesting that the ClimateGate scandal [here] broke November 18, 2009, ten days after the APS Council rejected the petition. Their Climate Change Commentary addendum was proposed in February and adopted April 18, 2010. The ClimateGate scandal does not appear to have influenced their decisions, nor apparently did any of the ensuing comments from APS members.
The APS Council has mistreated their own members by rushing to join the global warming hoax/scam without due consideration of member opinions. There is an ugly backlash brewing among APS physicists. Many have resigned and others are discussing unseating the Council.
It is one thing to pull the wool over the eyes of the lay public. It is another to compromise the integrity of physicists, who by definition are not fools.
The APS is an organization in the throes of institutional upheaval. This drama, a tempest in the highest echelons of science, is not over.
