Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[The Ferret]

I remember reading this sometime back... It's an open resignation letter penned by Chris Landsea (see bio) who at the time was working on hurricane links with GW with the IPCC. Essentially, he resigned because he recognised the IPCC was a sham and he could no longer be involved with a process that had become based on poor science and political ends.

Chris Landsea- About.

Christopher Landsea, formerly a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, is now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He earned his doctoral degree in Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Over the years, his work has involved the general hurricane FAQ currently on the National Hurricane Center website and the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis. He has been focal on the link between global warming and hurricane intensity change.

Open Letter

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclo nes more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, whic h is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Cl imate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

Interesting....

 

[metric]

sorry to interupt wayneL and 2020.

failed (one could argue robbed) presidential candidate al bore says GW non believers are like fringe groups whom dont believe in the moon landing. IMO, he can throw 911 in with that, weapons of mass destruction, and a heap of other stuff...


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_3974389

CBS) Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.

The former vice president and former presidential candidate talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl

 

[2020hindsight]

Any comment about Johnny Howard's attitude ferret?

Or Stern or Garnaut ?
Is there perhaps an economic advantage in following any of them on this?

Next question..
Are we wasting our time to even monitor it?:
Or are you so sure that it doesn't matter
and the only important factor here is the mighty dollar -
in your pocket not the third worlds.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne
you said there was proof that AGW had been proven wrong
a) got any evidence?
b) don't forget it's a chaotic system - and that works both ways
difficult to prove it's "yes"
and difficult to prove it's "no"

ferret
like I said, I didn't expect many to answer those points in my post.
so much easier to say "bs" - and / or watch as fauna and other bird life is destroyed - who gives a damn - takes more than that to ruffle your feathers.

Or watch as the extent of deserts increases. "Civilisation leaves bludy great footprints - they are called deserts" .

Personally I'd be real happy if my grandkids could scuba dive on the Barrier Reef (and a stack of other reefs around the world also heading deeper and deeper into troubled times) as I 've been lucky enough to do. And that some of the living colour was around to witness.

* You don't read or ignore posts (eg metric's argo post)
* You confuse AGW with environmental degradation. They are two separate issues.
* You want your grandkids to snorkel the barrier reef? Better make a personal stand and stop building bridges for BHP. It might not directly help the reef, but it would be a great example... especially to your grandkids.

 

[The Ferret]

Any comment about Johnny Howard's attitude ferret?

Or Stern or Garnaut ?
Is there perhaps an economic advantage in following any of them on this?

Next question..
Are we wasting our time to even monitor it?:
Or are you so sure that it doesn't matter
and the only important factor here is the mighty dollar -
in your pocket not the third worlds.

Not wasting time monitoring- By all means, monitor it.

Had you actually taken the time to read all my previous threads you would have seen that "the mighty dollar" is the only thing that would save us from GW, if it were true, and that "the mighty dollar" and free trade is the only thing that will save third world countries.

Do try and keep up....

 

[2020hindsight]

Meeting between Rudd and Bush - no mention of GW.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/29/2202407.htm?section=justin

Rudd strong on Iraq troop withdrawal
Posted 1 hour 53 minutes ago
Updated 38 minutes ago
United States President George W Bush says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a loyal ally on Iraq despite the planned withdrawal of Australian troops.

Mr Bush and Mr Rudd held talks in Washington at the White House this morning and the US leader says he understands Australia is withdrawing troops from Iraq as part of an election promise.

bit like last time they met in Sydney I guess...

US PRESIDENT George W. Bush was shocked that Labor leader Kevin Rudd did not seriously raise climate change during their private chat at APEC, sources close to the meeting claimed yesterday.

Sources said Mr Rudd never mentioned the topic during his 45-minute chat with Mr Bush on Thursday, despite Labor's strong position on global warming.

"The Opposition leader did not raise the issue of climate change with Bush. He did not utter the words 'climate change','' the source said.

In the context of an APEC meeting dominated by the need to get consensus to alleviate global warming, Mr Rudd's failure to press Labor's stance surprised the Americans.
......

"Well, the President was the host of the discussions. I regard that (keeping details confidential) as normal diplomatic discourse,'' Mr Rudd said. .

 

[2020hindsight]

1. You don't read or ignore posts (eg metric's argo post)
2. You confuse AGW with environmental degradation. They are two separate issues.
3. You want your grandkids to snorkel the barrier reef? Better make a personal stand and stop building bridges for BHP. It might not directly help the reef, but it would be a great example... especially to your grandkids.

1. so are you saying that the evidence that AGW is proven wrong is given in someone else's post?

2. no , I am saying that the other matters come with it - reforestation is a way to get carbon credits yes? - directly encouraged by Kyoto incidentally.

3. I know enough to know there's damn all I can do alone. Somehow I have to try to convince others to participate. - the good news is that the general community - including some pretty smart university dudes - are totally behind the message of Kyoto, whether prophylactic or otherwise. And so - looking at that poll at the start of this thread - what (at most) 17% of people on this forum think (i.e. ignore Kyoto) doesn't really matter in the end.

btw, the goal of 1.9% reduction in CO2e per annum is manageable , whether or not BHP has bridges.

PS that's 1.9% per annum - provided we start today (i.e. to limit temp rise to 2degC)
it's 2.5% per annum if we wait 7 years

 

[2020hindsight]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198186
......
ask people who have lived with apes, and chimps, and "kings of beasts"
which laws of jungle matter most, and which ones matter least
man, self-styled "Lord of all things" – surely gets the dunce's cap
and God must rue he made man king – and give the rest a rap.

you search the traits of this small world, the “traitors” carved in granite
you’ll see how much God screwed up / erred - when he chose the world to "man-it"
you watch "the Planet of the Apes", which God has “boy-and-girled”
...
which other creature first pack rapes - and then PACK RAPES THE WORLD. ?

 

[Aussiejeff]

If all respondents to this heated thread turned off their PC's for one hour and refused to type another word during that time (I know, that sort of restraint would be extrememly difficult), at least 25kg of CO2 could be saved.......


LOL



AJ

 

[2020hindsight]

If all respondents to this heated thread turned off their PC's for one hour and refused to type another word during that time (I know, that sort of restraint would be extrememly difficult), at least 25kg of CO2 could be saved.......

AJ - you're right of course -
83% here are pro Kyoto -
I think some of the rest are gonna die in the trenches rather than accept any positives of supporting reforestation, reduction in CO2 and other pollution, a new mindset that makes us more environmentally aware about all manner of environmental matters - recycling, waste, plastic, methane, mercury, CFC pollution, wildlife awareness, alternative cleaner energy, less fossil fuels etcetc .

Think I'm wasting my breath trying.

 

[The Ferret]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198186
......
ask people who have lived with apes, and chimps, and "kings of beasts"
which laws of jungle matter most, and which ones matter least
man, self-styled "Lord of all things" – surely gets the dunce's cap
and God must rue he made man king – and give the rest a rap.

you search the traits of this small world, the “traitors” carved in granite
you’ll see how much God screwed up / erred - when he chose the world to "man-it"
you watch "the Planet of the Apes", which God has “boy-and-girled”
...
which other creature first pack rapes - and then PACK RAPES THE WORLD. ?

WTF??? 2020... I think it's time for a bex and a good lie down, yes? You've got a big night tonight.. "Earth Hour". Maybe you should have a break, collect your thoughts and have a snooze...

 

[The Ferret]

AJ - you're right of course -
83% here are pro Kyoto -
I think some of the rest are gonna die in the trenches rather than accept any positives of supporting reforestation, reduction in CO2 and other pollution, a new mindset that makes us more environmentally aware about all manner of environmental matters - recycling, waste, plastic, methane, mercury, CFC pollution, wildlife awareness, alternative cleaner energy, less fossil fuels etcetc .

Think I'm wasting my breath trying.

lol... The irony is lost....

Fact is we could turn off for 20 hours and nothing would be saved. Power station still produces the same amount of energy, still burns the same amount of coal. The only thing that changes is the output to the grid. Nothing saved... nothing gained.... no reduction of anything.

 

[2020hindsight]

Maybe you should have a break, collect your thoughts and have a snooze...

no ferret,
I'm off for a walk in the bush - go visit with my god

 

[The Ferret]

no ferret,
I'm off for a walk in the bush - go visit with my god

No worries. Say hello to L Ron Hubbard for me.

 

[wayneL]

1 I know enough to know there's damn all I can do alone. Somehow I have to try to convince others to participate.

So you do nothing, yet try to convince others to do something?

You are a true Al Bore disciple. You've got religion.

 

[2020hindsight]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=276555&highlight=raping#post276555

you are wrong about me doing nothing. ok.

PS wayne I notice you say you do something about it.
including less co2
can I ask why?

 

[wayneL]

I've changed my mind.

I've bought a Hummer and I drive it around as much as possible. I was trying to prevent snow falling at easter ever again. But alas, that is futile, co2 <> AGW. Now I just drive it around to get my fair share of oil before it runs out

I have a question for you: Do umbrellas cause rain?

 

[2020hindsight]

I've changed my mind.

I've bought a Hummer and I drive it around as much as possible. I was trying to prevent snow falling at easter ever again. But alas, that is futile, co2 <> AGW. Now I just drive it around to get my fair share of oil before it runs out

I have a question for you: Do umbrellas cause rain?

do umbrellas cause rain - ? - nope. ( perhaps imaginator - or a red indian raindancer would disgaree)

question for you in return
Have you joined your friend David Suzuki's Nature Challenge yet?

PS as for the hummer and the nonreply to my previous question / post - you will no doubt accuse me of a disingenuous post in the near future

 

[wayneL]

do umbrellas cause rain - ? - nope. ( perhaps imaginator - or a red indian raindancer would disgaree)

question for you in return
Have you joined your friend David Suzuki's Nature Challenge yet?

I'm not into bragging about my environmental credentials, it is unverifiable anyway. But as a general point Suzuki's challenge is aimed at the Canadian consumer. Some people here in the UK and Europe already go much further than what he is suggesting.

Re umbrellas: Did you miss the point?

 

[metric]

I've changed my mind.

I've bought a Hummer and I drive it around as much as possible. I was trying to prevent snow falling at easter ever again.

:jerry