[asa] Climate scientists feeling the heat - predictions 'have created a monster'"... our credibility is at stake."

Two items below. ~ Janice

Climate scientists feeling the heat - predictions 'have created a monster'
Houston Chronicle ^ | January 22,2007 | Eric Berger
Posted on 01/22/2007 4:37:15 AM EST by Cincinatus' Wife
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771457/posts [refresh browser]

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 [D-rat-led C*ngr*ss], fed 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. H*use 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 G*re'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."

*

CEOs call for action against climate change
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/22/ceos.climate.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
^
Posted on 01/22/2007 5:04:44 PM EST by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1771836//~kcvl/>kcvl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1771836/posts [refresh browser]
[snip]

Comment:

Paleoclimate records show that in multiple prior
warming (deglaciation) cycles, temperature
increased for 800-1200 years *before* CO2 began to increase.

Thus, rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause of global warming.

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770600/posts>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770600/posts

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

<http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html>http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

14 posted on 01/22/2007 5:19:31 PM EST by Buckhead [Atlanta attorney]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1771836/posts?page=14#14

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 22 20:57:57 2007