Have scientists oversold Global Warming?

[vbhoutex]

Jan. 22, 2007, 9:45AM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.


Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.


Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

eric.berger@chron.com

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headlin ... 87421.html

[wbug1]

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that 6+ billion people whose energy consumption and modification of large masses of land surface area (farming, cities, roads) and creation of CO2 emissions is increasing (and will continue to increase, as heavily populated China and India become fully industrialized) will make the planet warmer. As the polar ice caps melt and overall snow cover decreases, the amount of light reflected back into space will be reduced causing a rapid increase in heat absorbed by the earth.

We may all of a sudden have a need to control the amount of the suns rays absorbed by the planet. Perhaps a controlled attempt at nuclear winter? too bad we still need to grow food.. hmmm.

A report is about to be released on global warming, and according to preliminary reports the evidence is compelling. I know I already made up my mind about 8 years ago.

I'm surprised nobody else has responded to this post.

[Yarrah]

Also, the large amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost regions will be released by the increasing temperatures, making global warming go even faster.

[x-y-no]

It drives me nuts ...

We're willing to spend half a trillion dollars and counting and launch pre-emptive wars killing tens or hundreds of thousands based on a "one pecent doctrine" but anything short of an absolute mathematical certainty is reason for total inaction on climate change.

[Lindaloo]

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=83678

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Climate Change: Unpredictable Results

Oct. 7, 1912 New York Times Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an
Encroaching Ice Age
Still encroaching…



June 28, 1923 Los Angeles Times The possibility of another Ice Age already
having started… is admitted by men of
first rank in the scientific world, men specially
qualified to speak.

Must be a slow starter.



Aug. 9, 1923 Chicago Tribune Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out
Canada

Still there last time we checked.



December 1932 The Atlantic We must be just teetering on an ice age
which some relatively mild geologic action
would be sufficient to start going.

Still teetering.



Feb. 20, 1969 New York Times
from Col. Bernt
Bachen
The Arctic pack ice is thinning and that
the ocean at the North Pole may become
an open sea within a decade or two.

Santa still is safe.



February 1974 Fortune magazine
from Reid Bryson
There is very important climatic change
going on right now… It is something that,
if it continues, will affect the whole human
occupation of the earth – like a billion
people starving.

World population increased by
2.5 billion.



March 1, 1975 Science News The cooling since 1940 has been large
enough and consistent enough that it will
not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely
to quickly regain the “very extraordinary
period of warmth” that preceded it.

If “not soon be reversed” means
“reversed by the next decade,”
then yes.



March 1, 1975 Science News The temperature has already fallen back
some 0.6 degrees, and shows no sign of
reversal.

So much for climatologists reading
the signs correctly.



July-August 1975 International Wildlife But the sense of the discoveries is that
there is no reason why the ice age should
not start in earnest in our lifetimes.

There’s still time.



1992 Al Gore, “Earth in
the Balance”
About 10 million residents of Bangladesh
will lose their homes and means of sustenance
because of the rising sea level,
due to global warming, in the next few
decades.

While periodic monsoons still
cause flooding, rising seas have
not been a problem.



Feb. 2, 2006 The Daily Telegraph “Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells
us that he is not normally a gloomy type.
Human civilisation will be reduced to a
“broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”,
and the plague-ridden remainder of the
species will flee the cracked and broken
earth to the Arctic, the last temperate
spot, where a few breeding couples will
survive.


,,,,
Why should I fall for it again?

[Extremeweatherguy]

Very good post Matt-Hurricanewatcher. Shows how unpredictable the Earth's climate really is.

[wbug1]

Those things Matt-Hurricane watcher said are interesting anecdotes, but I find this graph more interesting as to the current topic. and correlation between CO2 and temperatures during the 400,000 years. Notice the exponential rise in CO2 and methane emissions during the last 100 years. I don't think my granny's farting caused that either.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/globclimate/600kyrs.htm

As an aside, I was wondering what those scientists are doing in the antarctic.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/

There's no doubt there's a correlation between these. Which one is the cause, and which the effect?

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html

Their analysis says this current warm period is the longest in 420,000 years.

The IPCC report will be released soon, it's already known the data support
the above.

[Janie2006]

Okies.....I don't think that pouring tons of pollutants into the atmosphere is a good thing. Inevitably changes will occur due to this process, whether they are on a macroscopic scale remains to be seen. I say this because there is still a lot about the climate and earth cycles that we do not understand. Our data is incomplete. We're going to need a lot more than, say, 150 years of accurate temperature measurements. Certainly the research seems to indicate that global warming is occuring. On the other hand, some of these same fellows are the people who stated that the Abominable Snowman was going to get us 30 years ago.

As in everything else, follow the money. If I get a $400,000 grant from Greenpeace (for example) to study global warming, well, I wonder what kind of result I might get from my research? Similarly, if someone gets a grant from Exxon-Mobil for the same amount I'd bet they'd have a different outcome...from the same set of data.

Politics and scientific research have gone hand in hand ever since humans began wondering about the world. Sometimes science is used for political purposes and at other times the reverse is true. We are going to have to be cynical and assume that propaganda takes place in scientific research, because it does! There is no purely objective experiment, IMO. The expectations and needs of the researcher will always affect the outcome in some manner. This holds true for global warming research, just as it did for earlier climatic research.

Edited to add: BTW, it does seem to me that global warming is occuring at an alarming rate. However, we should be aware of what goes on behind the scenes as well.

[wbug1]

NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) and CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), major contributors to the IPCC climate change report, certainly seem to have a reputable history, structure and financing. I mean, what would you find more reputable than the following:

i.e, from their website, NOAA@NSIDC activities are made possible by support from NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC, and the NOAA Arctic Research Program.


"The National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), with support in part from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, under cooperative agreement NA17RJ1229 and other grants."

http://nsidc.org/noaa/index.html#disclaimer

cooperative agreement NA17RJ1229
http://cires.colorado.edu/pubs/admin/annual/

CIRES referenced in NOAA Earth Sciences Research Laboratory
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/#content_link

Main CIRES funding is from NOAA and the University of Colorado at Boulder through cooperative agreement.

CIRES funding also from: "Funds to support CIRES research are also provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other federal and non-federal sources."

http://cires.colorado.edu/collaboration/

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I don't know why the snow and ice data center is going a long with this. Their snow,ice maps shown 2006 far above the last few years, in snow and ice coverage. A month ago I looked at the chart to 2005,2004.

[kevin]

You have to look at the trend, not specific locations!! Weather = varied. Climate = trends.

[Yarrah]

New Climate Report Too Rosy, Experts Say

Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

New Climate Report Too Rosy, Experts Say

Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Thats to scare people, read this.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html

[Yarrah]

New Climate Report Too Rosy, Experts Say

Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Thats to scare people, read this.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html

I'd rather believe an official and scientific panel of experts then someone's personal and non-scientific website which doesn't seem to notice the fact that solar activity has been pretty stable the last 50 years and which newest reference dates from 2001.