SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIESMichael Bass

CREOL, The College of Optics and Photonics

University of Central Florida

Orlando, FL 32816

Current and recent controversies• Global warming – basically a physics problem though very

complex.• Very hard for physicists much less the general public to grasp.• Conflicting data leads to vigorous discussion.• Big money is involved.• It has spread far beyond scientific community and is in the public sphere, the

media and political communities.• Resorting to the opinions of experts is not the scientific method.

• Neutrinos traveling at speeds faster than light.• CERN released results suggesting the Einstein might be wrong.• This would be a major blow to modern physics as relativity is one of its

foundations (quantum mechanics is the other).• Shortly after theorists in the Netherlands indicated that the 64 nsec too fast was

exactly that which would result from using GPS clocks without properly accounting for relativity.

• Must be checked in an independent experiment – that is the scientific method.

Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism• Except for the calendar shifting geocentrism worked for

every day life.• Copernicus comes along and says the earth goes around

the sun, not the reverse.• Astronomers accepted this view because it was much

simpler than geocentrism.• Tycho Brahe however, while having his own data, objected.

• If the earth is moving one should see parallax in the shifting of the stars during an orbit of the earth about the sun.

• Galileo, with a telescope, showed that the stars were too far away to result in an observable parallax so Tycho’s objection was invalid.

• By 1838 with much improved telescopes parallax for some stars was observed.

The power of belief – holding on to the model

• Some scientists could not give up the model and would not even look through Galileo’s telescope.

• Others came up with wild models to reject heliocentrism.• In the 17th century Copernicus’ ideas were generally

accepted by scientists.• However, it took until the 18th century for the idea to be

accepted by the public.• Keep in mind that the Catholic Church did not

acknowledge that it had done Galileo wrong until the end of the 20th century.

Science and politics – Galileo and the Church

• In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine stated that we should admit that we did not understand scripture rather than declare false something that we know to be true.• A very interesting statement at the time of the Inquisition.

• Then in 1616 he officially declared Copernicanism false.• He claimed there was no evidence to support it even in the face of

Galileo’s observations.

• Galileo was taken to Rome to stand trial before the Inquisition and forced to recant his defense of Copernicanism.• He was sentenced to house arrest and there lived out his

remaining years.• Legend has it that he said as he was near death that the earth still

went around the sun.

A global warming parallel• There is no doubt the globe is warming.

• Now called climate change to be politically correct

• There is no doubt that humans are polluting their own atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.• You only have to stand on a street corner to know that.

• There is no doubt that many things not done by humans are critical to the global climate.• Volcanoes put huge amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere.• Temperature and CO2 concentration records going back 800,000 years show that

temperature goes up before the CO2 concentration.

• Is the sun’s energy output fluctuating? It appears to be getting less.• A Maunder minimum in sun spots and solar energy output may be starting.• We may soon see global cooling.

• The last 15 years show warming to have slowed dramatically.• None of the models predicted this.

• Too many models and not enough data.• Debating these issues without clearer data can only confuse the public

since science is not determined by opinion but by facts.

Recent results• Sunspots now seem to be increasing in number.• The sunspot cycle is ~11 years.• Maybe the last 11 years was an anomaly.• But maybe global warming is not all anthropogenic.• There is no conclusion yet but,• Associated Press reported with a bold headline that,

• “Warming skeptic has changed his mind and now supports human caused global warming.”

• When in fact he sees the data and says yes temperatures are up over 160 years ago.• 160 years ago was the end of the little ice age – look it up.• It is unclear if human caused emission of CO2 alone caused it.

• See how the media can slant things to suit their agendas.

Comments on the little ice age – climate affecting human civilization• Lasted from about 900 to 1850.• Contributed to the Viking raids in Europe.

• Led to the abandonment of the Greenland settlements.

• Probably contributed to the rapid spread of diseases:• Bubonic plague• Tuberculosis• Small pox

• People were stuck indoors for long periods when they did not have private rooms and minimal sanitation. Rarely ever bathed.

• Restricted growing season meant limited harvests – people went hungry.

• American and French revolutions.• In 1814 after Mount Tambora blew up in Indonesia the world

temperature dropped even further.• In New England there was snow in July – it was the year without summer.• Mary Shelly had the chance to write the novel – Frankenstein.

Antarctic ice• Arctic ice is decreasing and Greenland glaciers are melting but

• Antarctic ice is changing• Land ice in the western peninsula is decreasing, but• Sea ice is increasing dramatically.• The loss of land ice affects sea level.

• Why is snowfall increasing inland?

• The increase of sea ice affects albedo.• Why is sea ice increasing in a warming ocean?

• New research has shown that the ice sheet covering Antarctica froze into being when the world had a much higher level of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than it does today.

• There is often concern that the Antarctic ice sheet might melt due to global warming (climate change).

• As scientists you have to think about it. How long would it take to melt that much ice?• You can estimate it but it is well over several thousand years.• There will be time to make plans and arrangements if climate change crosses a

threshold leading to melting of Antarctic ice.

What to think?• Not only do the scientists disagree with each other they

disagree with themselves.• Even in the same issue of Science!!!!

• Is it simply too early to tell or are there flaws in the measurements?

• Implications:• Maybe as CO2 goes up more plants grow and use up the CO2.

• Maybe as things warm more CO2 is released from the oceans where CO2 is dissolved.

• Maybe climate is dominated by, • The sun,• Volcanic activity,• Continental drift,• The extent of ice cover, and• ????

Politicians divided over global warming

• The agitation over global warming has provoked a strong backlash against science.• Recall the e-mails about adjusting data and conclusions.• Follow the money that went to scientists speaking for human caused

warming.

• In Galileo’s time the Church had been seen as a supporter of scientific inquiry.• Many devout Catholics were shocked and a schism arose.

• Those for and those against Galileo.• Those for could do nothing for fear of the Inquisition.

• In the 1970s Republicans and Democrats were equally concerned about warming.• Not so today – they have rejected much climate science to

concentrate on economic matters.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming – Wall Street Journal January 27, 2012• There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action

to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.• In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a

supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: '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?"

For the politicians –comments from a letter signed by those listed• If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the

excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

• Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

• Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Think of your money going to “green” industries

• If “green” industries are so important why do they need government help?

• If they have a worthy product to sell then there will be buyers for it.• Solyndra, $527,000,000, and bankruptcy.

• and this is not the only case.

• No one in their right minds thinks we should continue to be wasteful of resources nor should we pollute our environment but until there are “green” alternatives we must do the best we can.• Try telling someone living in Minnesota that they can’t heat their home in

winter if they use fossil fuel.

• Better design, use of insulation, more efficient lighting, more efficient vehicles and so on are the most important steps.

• Windmills and solar will not, in the short term, provide what 7,000,000,000 people need.

Who are the worst polluters?

The People’s Republic of China

India

and the rest of the developing world.

So, what we do in the USA is important but what we do to change attitudes outside the USA is more

important.

Another controversy - Relativity• For nearly 200 years Newton and his concept of space as a

fixed reference frame through which things moved worked well.• In the every day world Newton still works very well.

• Einstein showed during his Miracle Year (1905) that space and time were one and they were relative to the observer and his motion.

• Of course this came as a shock to the community of physicists.• But, experiment showed Einstein was right whenever his ideas were tested.• Still there were those who tried to deny relativity by throwing mud at

Einstein.• Once when he came to the USA a group of women picketed him as they

thought he was a communist.• Einstein held communism in very low regard which is why

he never visited the USSR.

Now the neutrino problem• Neutrinos have mass albeit a very small mass.• They interact with stuff very weakly.• Einstein showed that anything with mass can not move

at a speed greater than that of light, c.• This has been confirmed in every experiment in which it was

tested.

• Now a very complex experiment involving the accelerator at CERN and a detector in Italy using GPS satellites for timing suggested some neutrinos exceed c.

• There are theoretical reasons to doubt this result but an independent experiment to check it would be necessary.

• Otherwise the neutrino problem may be relegated to the category of suggestive but not proven ideas.

Science gets it right!• While the news media blathered on about time travel and

the need for a new theory to replace Einstein’s,• The experimenters at CERN were re-checking their

experiment.• Theorists in The Netherlands suggested that a timing

error in using the GPS might have caused the result.• Others tried to work up an alternative to relativity.• The experimenters found a loose connector that resulted

in a 64 nsec timing error that led them to believe the neutrinos arrived 64 nsecs too soon.

• The spurious result was just that. AN ERROR. SCIENCE CHECKED ITSELF AND FOUND ITS ERROR.

The effect on society• When scientists fight over heliocentrism, relativity or

global warming the public gets confused.• In fact, when there is the slightest hint of scandal in the

scientific process the public cuts off funding.• This usually means key experiments or observations are not made.

• Politicians use the scientific controversy to gain advantage over their rivals.

• The result is a misinformed public, body politic and scientific community.

H5N1 avian flu virus• Bird viruses are usually not transmissible to humans.• Government funded scientists to see if they could modify

its genome to make it readily transmissible.• The reason was to try to figure out if it could change.• If it could, what vaccine would be required to prevent a pandemic.

• When the research showed that the modification could be made, the researchers submitted articles to Science and Nature.

• The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity wanted the articles redacted to reduce the risk of terrorists creating modified H5N1.

• Is this censorship reasonable and meaningful?

We, the scientists, have a responsibility

• Be sure the data is incontrovertible.• Be sure the models are based on established principles

and are compatible with the data.• The models explain and predict.

• Communicate this to the public without using the phrases• In my opinion, or• Such and such percent of scientists agree…

• Remember that those who agreed with Galileo or Einstein when their ideas first came out were the precious few.