Prediction for the proposed changes to the APS climate change statement?

Question

The American Physical Society has formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. Judith Curry has been part of the process and reports on it here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/

For those of you who want to get deep into the weeds, here is a transcript of the proceedings thus far. I've managed to get to about page 70. It does take some time to get through this: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

I guess the interesting part for me is why they think they need to change their official position on climate change (or at least take a detailed look at it).

For the possible outcomes, they could:

a. Leave the statement as is.
b. Reduce the urgency for action (soften its stance).
c. Increase the urgency for action (harden its stance).
d. Highlight the uncertainty in climate science (soften its stance).
e. Claim the science is truly settled (harden its stance).
f. Other??

What's your prediction?

Answer 1

My prediction is that the conclusion will be both B and D.



After reading your first link, it is clear that they find strong debate on many of the issues. So much so, that starting out with what they disagreed on was not feasible. So if they do not highlight the uncertainty in climate science, they are being extremely disingenuous.



With the increased uncertainty, the reduction in urgency become a natural consequence.



I would suggest that if D does not occur, then they have jump the tracks on what currently seems like a well-thoughtout review.



Generally, I think that when people do not have a dog in the fight, the truth as to the uncertainty comes out.



That is one annoyance I have with the warmers here. They seem to think that because the warming scientists are talking with certainty, that the certainty is a reality. I have worked in the pharma industry for awhile. All of the doctors speak with more certainty, than they have, and they all KNOW their drug works.



Pegminer,

So more uncertainty means more action to you???



Lets apply this logic. Without knowing anything about someone, I have no idea if he is a good person or a mass murderer. So I need more action and should shoot him now, just in case???



LOL. The uncertainty is whether or not there is going to be any significant negative impact. What is becoming more certain is that the prior idiotic crap that you warmers spewed about 7-10 degrees of warming and parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable, is complete BS.



Fact is that while you ask for economy-killing taxes, I want to know what my money is paying for.



Disagree??? Fine you pay my taxes, if you care so much.

Answer 2

From a statement on global warming by Judith Curry.



"Lack of warming since 1998 and the growing discrepancies between observations and climate

model projections"



As a trained climatologist, Judith Curry should be aware that climate is a function of what happens in 30 years.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html



As far as what APS will do with its climate change statement. The IPCC has hardened its statement about the probability of the warming being from human causes being very likely (>90%) to extremely likely (>95%) If APS is basing its review on the same literature, I would expect a similar revision.

Answer 3

So, you find it interesting – and possibly “meaningful” – that scientists critique and evaluate the current state of their knowledge? The reality is that every scientist does that every day. That is the nature of science – and it is what separates true skeptics (scientists) from Deniers.



When have you ever heard of Deniers taking a hard objective look at their position? Oh, yeah, Richard Muller did – and he discovered that the climate data were legitimate and that global warming was real. I can understand why Deniers do not want to go down that road again.

Answer 4

Why would any person's prediction of the outcome on this matter to you, me or to anyone else? All you are doing is trying to divert attention away from the actual science concerning the AGWT simply because you are incapable of showing any flaws in the physics involved in the science concerning this. So, what do you do? Distract, misdirect, misinform and pass along the lies of others. When you cannot deal with the science, this is the only thing left for you to do. Even you, a "skeptic" of the lesser degree, has stated that our adding more CO2 into the atmosphere will result in the warming of our climate. Yet you try to pass yourself off as a mere "skeptic" by claiming it will not be as soon or as pronounced as the "alarmist" claim that it will be. Who are you using as your reference when say it will not happen as fast or be as pronounced?



State the numbers, Ottawa Mike. How much warming do you think will occur by the year 2050 based solely on the amount of CO2 that is presently in the atmosphere? Are you able to back up these numbers through the use of science and void of any of the pseudo-science you have often used as sources in the past?



As for your question, my prediction is that no matter what the outcome is it will not alter the science concerning the AGWT. Would you agree with this prediction I have made, Ottawa Mike?



Added***

I call BS, Ottawa Mike! Even when the APS does decide on its official stance on climate change it will not alter the physics concerning the AGWT. Your question(?) remains as a distraction from this fact. Your response to me is nothing more than a distraction from this point. Unless you have evidence that the APS decission will change anything concerning the science then you are only trying to create a distraction from the real subject at hand. The planet is warming, the rising atmospheric CO2 levels is what is behind the climate warming and anthropogenic causes are behind the rising CO2 levels. Use the science that can dispute any of this. Try not to distract from this when you do so.

Answer 5

It will be interesting to watch the process. It has started out transparently and has even sought the opinion of sceptics. However, there is a long way to go. This is just the start of a long process. The results of the workshop will then be passed to other committees and up through the APS hierarchy. It will be interesting to see what actually comes out.



Using physicists, with no vested interests, in the process instead of "climate scientists" is novel.



@pegminer: "You and most other deniers made up your mind a long time ago, and I'm quite certain you won't be swayed by the latest statement from ANY scientific society. "

Quite right, but we don't mind giving them a chance to reconsider their position and home in to the correct answer eventually!

Answer 6

Personally, it makes me feel better when I see efforts to separate science and politics. They created the original statement for what I believe are political reasons and so I find it hard to believe they would change. If they changed, even a little, that would focus a lot of attention on them. I guess I am a true skeptic and unfortunately have become a little cynical lately. Hopefully I am wrong

Answer 7

As an APS member, I would guess that things won't change much. But does it really matter? You and most other deniers made up your mind a long time ago, and I'm quite certain you won't be swayed by the latest statement from ANY scientific society.



There is lots of uncertainty in what the exact consequences of AGW will be, but if anything that should make the problem MORE urgent, not less.



EDIT for Raisin Caine: Who said anything about MORE uncertainty? The exact details of what will happen have been uncertain, but the most likely eventuality is quite unpleasant.



IAs for taxes, if you want to pay my taxes for the bloated defense industry, I'll pay your taxes for global warming prevention.



Last time I looked at the accounting, the Iraq War was costing the U.S. more than a trillion dollars and it accomplished...what? Oh right, it destabilized Iraq and made it a terrorist breeding ground--not to mention killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. To a conservative like yourself I guess that's money well spent.



EDIT for C: Judith Curry is an accomplished climate scientist (as is her husband). She is also a complete flake bounces around like a pinball in her views. She seems to thrive on attention.



EDIT for graphicconception: That's what makes you a denier and not a skeptic--we scientists continually reevaluate the evidence, while you deniers refuse to accept anything that challenges your beliefs.



EDIT for Billy: You said "APS is a disgrace to Physics" I believe you're clinically insane, but when you say stuff like that you just sound uninformed. What makes you think you know anything about either physics or the APS?

Answer 8

Judith Curry is a diehard denier bimbo who is a self proclaimed climate scientist BUT she has never studied climatology. She hasn't even written a peer reviewed paper in her own field. That taints whatever it is they do.



My version



Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide, ground level ozone, CFCs and HCFC families of chemicals and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion, landfills and a wide range of industrial and agricultural processes.



The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.



If no mitigating actions are taken to reduce or eliminate these gases, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, economic stability, national security and human health will undoubtedly occur. We must immediately reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now, as well as improving and relying on alternative sources of power and fuels.

Answer 9

D). Everyone knew that the confidence level didn't follow expectations. You really don't need a pedigree to see that.

Answer 10

Definitely D then they can claim to be right whichever way it goes.