backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Sep 26 at 10:53 AM


Dr. Ivar Giaever  (Source: newmediajournal.us)
Dr. Ivar Giaever announced his resignation Tuesday, September 13

A well-known physicist has resigned from his position with the American Physical Society (APS) due to its recent policy stating that global warming is real.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel Prize winner in physics and former professor with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, announced his resignation from the APS on Tuesday, September 13, 2011.

The APS' official policy supports the theory that human actions have inexorably caused the warming of the Earth through heightened carbon dioxide emissions.

Giaever responded by refusing to pay his annual dues, and writing an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society, saying that he disagreed with this policy.

The following is the email sent from Giaever to Kirby on September 13:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

 

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 and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

 

Best regards,

 

Ivar Giaever

 

Nobel Laureate 1973

 

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.


Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

According to the Wall Street Journal, Giaever announced he was an avid global warming skeptic in 2008, saying that global warming was "becoming a religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?," said Giaever in 2008. "I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993. Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."

Giaever, who earned his Nobel Prize for his experimental discoveries with tunneling phenomena in superconductors, joined more than 100 signers of a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama criticizing his position on climate change in 2009.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: A question about the big experiment
By rikulus on 9/16/2011 10:00:32 AM , Rating: -1
We're not talking about 13 years. We're talking about temperature change since major sources of carbon started being re-released into the atmosphere from burning oil and coal - since the industrial revolution. Here is NASA's graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gi...

Yes, it is flat near the end, there are small ups and downs, but the overall trend seems very clear. The overall temperature bar trend follows right along with CO2 emissions, and 98% of scientists agree this is the cause. Lots and lots of peer reviewed studies and papers support this, and it makes sense. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's transparent to most solar energy, letting it in, but absorbs in the infrared, trapping some of the heat radiating from the earth.

Almost all scientists agree that the warming is supportive of the hypothesis. And there is NO peer reviewed counter hypothesis to explain what else might have caused the change in temperature from 1880 until now. It certainly wasn't sun cycles, which are very low at the moment (and could explain why temperatures have been close to level since 1998 - but if it was just the sun, then temperatures would have gone way down instead of staying level.)

It is a hypothesis, it's supported by observations, there is no competing hypothesis that matches the observations. When I drop a pencil, we all expect it to fall to the ground - nobody has PROOF that gravity exists, we don't even know how it works - but we know what the effects are. We have a theory about how fast the pencil will fall, that theory matches past results, so we use it all the time to predict future ones. Nobody complains about designing structures not to fall down because we don't know how gravity actually works.


RE: A question about the big experiment
By vortmax2 on 9/16/2011 11:27:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It certainly wasn't sun cycles, which are very low at the moment (and could explain why temperatures have been close to level since 1998 - but if it was just the sun, then temperatures would have gone way down instead of staying level.)


How can you be "certain" that sun cycles don't have a more significant impact? As with all climate change 'sources', there is significant lag time before the full effects of that 'source' are felt. Being a Meterologist myself (with limited, but more than your average-Joe knowledge about our climate), I believe the real effects of the new solar minimum we appear to be entering will be realized in full force over the next decade or so.


By rikulus on 9/16/2011 2:53:16 PM , Rating: 1
I was talking about the 11 year sun spot cycle.

And why would there be such a long lag between the suns output change and the effect on earth's temperature? A decade? (Maybe you are saying the solar minimum won't bottom out for a decade or something?)

I notice a pretty dramatic and immediate effect from the change in solar heating every day, and every season. What mechanism would there be to cause a 10 year delay in it's effects?


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki