Monday, January 01, 2007

Post Bailey global warming divides scientists

Global warming divides scientists...

Even after Ronald Bailey sings "We're all global warmers now" in his article of August 11, 2005, wherein Bailey cites three published articles in Science Magazine as his reasoning for alteration of his skeptical position on global warming, scientists are continuing the debate... not only that, reportedly, there is some contention concerning the resignation of Roger A. Pielke Sr. See discussion and Pielke letter to NY Times author Refken (August 23, 2005), Open Comment to Andy Revkin with Respect to your 23 August 2005 Article in the New York Times Regarding my Resignation from the CCSP Committee).

We must sort through all of this as well in order to try to obtain the truth about the three (August 11, 2005) Science Mag articles!

Read global warming divides scientists by Mark Jaffe, Denver Post

Then read the blog of Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Pielke's postings concerning articles about his position and also his remarks concerning William Gray...

All comments worth reviewing including those of poster Joel at post no. 32 (I think Joel has the exact right approach and attitude about the issue). Also see Jim Clarke comments at no. 19 and particularly Clarke's response to Joel at no. 35 and throughout...

Whew, I was beginning to wonder if we'd ever know the truth, but we will. In about three, five, maybe eight years time.

The earth will cool. Now that is something to keep on trekking in the interest of finding truth, right...

Starting date: June 5, 2006

In 3, 5, 8 short years, we'll all know, one way or the other who is correct:

2009 William Gray vs _____ .

2011 William Gray vs _____.

2014 william Gray vs _____.

Statement Dr. William Gray

Discussion Wednesday, October 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm Bill Gray presentation

also don't miss Russ Steele August 2006 comments

Polar bears that are stressed and depressed from global warming are now called bi-polar bears.

Finally, review previous posts concerning Ronald Bailey, Global Warming, Michael Crichton, State of Fear, Science Magazine articles including dozens of links to additional information.

Global Warming : Global warming divides scientists

By MARK JAFFE - The Denver Post

DENVER (AP) -- The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam."

And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist."

At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this."

Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community.

At Boulder-based NCAR, researchers project a world with warmer temperatures, fiercer storms and higher seas.

From CSU, Gray and Roger Pielke Sr., another climate professor emeritus, question the data used to make those projections and their application to regional climate change...

Net the Truth Online Note Remember to review Pielke Sr. blog thoroughly. We've highlighted his dispute about such reports...

Global warming? By Mark Jaffe Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 12/26/2006 12:27:55 PM MST

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

Is the Destruction from Hurricane Katrina due to Global Warming?

...The media have almost universally ignored an accurate description of the spectrum of human forcings on climate as presented in the National Research Council 2005 report.

Thus the advocates of blaming global warming erroneously assume that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of this disaster, but miss the other human caused global warming forcings that we summarized in our August 29th blog. They miss that other climate change effects, both due to natural and human- caused influences, such as atmospheric and ocean circulation changes due to spatially heterogeneous climate forcings such as landscape changes and aerosol emissions, have a greater effect than the relatively small magnitude of global warming that has actually been documented (see Pielke and Christy 2005).The media fail to recognize that climate is complex and involves numerous natural and human climate forcings and feedbacks. To focus on the radiative warming forcing of carbon dioxide shows a complete misunderstanding of the climate system...

August 25, 2005

August 23, 2005
Open Comment to Andy Revkin with Respect to your 23 August 2005 Article in the New York Times Regarding my Resignation from the CCSP Committee
Filed under: Climate Science Reporting — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 10:03 am

The reference to my perspective and to the reasons I resigned from the Committee are mischaracterized and erroneous in the New York Times article (subscription required). One major reason that the Climate Science weblog was launched was to correct such mistaken communications. Anyone who has read my blogs will recognize that your article is inaccurate as to how it characterizes my perspective on human-caused climate change and on the reasons for my resignation from the CCSP Committee.

My comments on your article appear below

NY Times Article: “A scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity has resigned from a panel that is completing a report for the Bush administration on temperature trends in the atmosphere.”

Pielke Sr. Response: The well documented increases of atmospheric concentration of CO2 are due to anthopogenic emissions of this gas. This comes from vehicles, industry, biomass burning and other sources of combustion. CO2 warms the Earth’s climate system radiatively (i.e. it is a global warming effect). As I wrote in the article “Heat storage within the Earth system” and as summarized in the 2005 National Research Council report “Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties” of which I was a co-author, the Earth’s climate system has warmed, and human activities certainly have contributed. To state that I have “long disagreed..that global warming stems from human activity” is a completely erroneous characterization of my perspective...

NY Times Article: “Pielke contends that changes in landscapes like the spread of agriculture and cities could explain many of the surface climate trends, while most climate experts now see a clear link to accumulating emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.”

Pielke Sr. Response: This is a completely bogus statement of my conclusions on climate. My perspective on climate forcings is described by the NRC Report that I co-authored in which a diversity of climate forcings including the radiative effect of added CO2 is involved. I have repeatedly written in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. see Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system) that climate prediction (and therefore attribution to specific climate forcings) is a daunting challenge since the climate system is nonlinear and chaotic. Landscape change is only one of a number of climate forcings. I can only assume that this statement is written out of an intentional attempt to mischaracterize my work or simply a failure to comprehend my various peer-reviewed papers on this subject.

NY Times Article: “Pielke said he decided to resign after three papers on the troposphere trends were published online on Aug. 11 by the journal Science. The papers said errors in satellite and balloon studies in the tropics explained why earlier analyses failed to find warming in the troposphere. Several authors of those papers, who are also authors of the coming government report, said at the time that the new findings would be discussed in the report. Pielke said those statements were an effort to influence the shape of the final report.”

Pielke Sr response: This is also erroneous. You made no mention of the inappropriate shadow version of the Chapter that I was Convening Lead Author on that you were aware of, nor that it was not the publication of the papers, but the repeated cherry-picking of information from the draft Report that were prematurely presented to the media and to the Senate Committee that were the issue. What can explain this fictional reporting?

While readers of our Climate Science blog will be provided a correction, the more general readers of the NY Times will be presented with an extremely biased and error-laden view of this issue. I am simply aghast at the major errors and mischaracterizations in this article. I’d welcome your response...

William-I want to further clarify the one comment that you made:

“Your phrasing, probably unintentionally, is very similar to that of the skeptics, and is ambiguous.”

Our view on climate is certainly not that of a skeptic and was summarized in the testimony I gave to a Subcommittee of the U.S. House,Sr.1144.htm

I presented this view as President of the American Association of State Climatologists, and was representing this professional organization.

Our research has clearly demonstrated that human activities have very significant effects on local, regional and global climate. What we have shown, however, is that the important climate forcings include the radiative effect of CO2, but also include other first-order climate forcings such as the biogeochemical effect of additional CO2, land use/land cover change and the diverse effects of aerosol emissions. To define me as a “climate skeptic” is completely wrong. Indeed, by including the diversity of climate forcings, those who focus primarily on CO2 as the anthropogenic climate forcing are the true climate skeptics.

Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 24, 2005

Global warming?
By Mark Jaffe
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 12/26/2006 12:27:55 PM MST

The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam."

And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist."

At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this."

Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community...

Efforts to calculate what is going on in the oceans, the land and the atmosphere are an unparalleled exercise.

The task falls to mathematical models run by supercomputers like the one in NCAR's basement. These "general circulation models" attempt to keep track of a multitude of variables around the globe - such as ocean currents, air and sea temperatures, rainfall and the composition of the atmosphere.

"This is a unique exercise in science and a very difficult one," said Christopher Essex, a mathematician at the University of Western Ontario in Canada.

The models are trying to project a future world, Essex said, without a complete theoretical base on how climate works and the risk of small errors being amplified.

Another problem, Essex said, is in the inability to do controlled experiments - one of science's key tools.

"There's only one atmosphere, so you can't hold everything steady and change just one variable to see what happens," he said.

Essex offered his critique of the models at a Los Alamos National Laboratory climate conference in Santa Fe in July.

At the end of the presentation, CSU's Gray jumped up and demanded: "Should we base national policy on these models?"

"I'm not touching that," Essex replied.

And then Essex added: "At every stage of the history of science, there has been some element that was impossible, and we've found a way around it. I am sure we will here."

This did not assuage Bill Gray.

Gray is among the most strident critics, quick to use words like "fraud" or "gang" to describe the modelers.

Instead of model projections, Gray looks at the history and patterns of weather to find trends.

And befitting his 76 years, Gray has a long view. His first report on climate - on the return of the dust bowl - was in the early 1940s when he was in junior high school.

"We'd gone through a warming trend in the '40s, and everybody was saying we were going to win World War II but face terrible droughts," Gray said.

Soon after, temperatures went into a cooling trend and by 1975, Gray points out, there was talk of a coming ice age.

The Earth does have natural cycles of cooling and warming - during the past 740,000 years there have been eight cycles with four ice ages.

The cycles appear to be tied to slight variations in the tilt of the Earth toward the sun.

During the last ice age - which ended about 10,000 years ago - Earth was on average about 4 degrees Fahrenheit cooler, and what is now Manhattan was buried under ice.

At some point the Earth will wobble on its axis again, setting the stage for an ice age.

There are other phenomena affecting global temperatures over time, such as El Niño, a Pacific Ocean warm-water mass that appears in roughly five-year cycles and changes world weather patterns.

And there is the Atlantic thermohaline current, a conveyor belt moving heat north on the surface and then dropping it to the ocean floor and heading back to the equator - a 1,200-year trip.

Changes in the current lead to changes in temperature. Somehow the models have to account for these natural variations too.

Gray believes that the warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are linked to a natural slowing in the thermohaline current, not the carbon dioxide.

Some of the models also show the current is slowing and that, along with warming oceans, adds to hurricane risks.

This has sparked one of the biggest scientific disputes of the moment.

It is a debate in which NCAR's Trenberth and CSU's Gray are, of course, on opposite sides

June 29, 2006
On Professor Bill Gray and the Debate on Climate Change
Filed under: Climate Science Reporting, Climate Science Misconceptions — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 6:55 am

There has been considerable discussion regarding Professor William Gray of Colorado State University regarding his views on climate change, and hurricane trends, as affected by human activity, in particular. The news article in Westwood on June 29th provides a summary of the bitterness that has developed among the individuals who are performing research in this area of science...

Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away
By Joel Achenbach

The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — It should be glorious to be Bill Gray, professor emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical-storm season. He works in the atmospheric-science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.

But he's also outraged.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

He has testified about this to the U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out.

"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby-boomer, yuppie thing."

Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again.

Read the following analysis carefully. Actually, a reporter shouldn't be lampooning anybody, or skewing a report with his/her own opinion. A reporter should neutrally report the facts, and accurately present any quotes from experts, no matter what side of the question or issue the individual reporter personally takes...

June 2, 2006

05:25:25 pm, Categories: Global Warming and Climate Change, 1073 words

Achenbach's "Tempest" and the Global-Warming Skeptics
Last Sunday in the Washington Post Magazine, Joel Achenbach published "The Tempest" (registration may be required) which profiles the global-warming skeptic community through some of its most vocal and prominent members: hurricane expert William Gray, climatologist Richard Lindzen, Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others...

Marshall Institute Climate Change resources and links abound on the site...

William Gray

Global warming, bye-bye?
You heard it here first: Global warming will be over in 10 years.

So says William Gray, the Colorado State University hurricane prognosticator who has become an outspoken critic of the notion that human-induced global warming is making the storms worse.

Not only is that untrue, Gray said today at the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando, but he thinks the warming that the world has seen for the past 30 years is about to reverse itself, just as a previous warming spurt in the early 20th century turned to a brief cooling period until around 1970.

"I don't know exactly when, but I would expect the next five or 10 years or so," he said. Gray said his youthful assistant, Phil Klotzbach, "says he'll put some dandelions on my grave if 20 years from now the Earth is a little cooler."

Global warming, bye-bye April 14, 2006

Posted by: Paul Merrifield When: April 16, 2006 10:10 AM

My observations of this cultural phenomenon called Global Warming may be a little unappetizing for some but give it a try.

Kyoto Is A Solution In Search Of A Problem

Why is Canada spending almost as much on new icebreaking ships for it’s "melting" arctic as it is spending on Kyoto?

Canada’s Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota USA 300 years ago. (called Yellow Bears due to the summer coats they retained longer but still the same bear) and others...

Record Breaking Low Temperatures Sweep US, Canada
'Deep freeze sweeps US'
The Sunday Mail, January 18,2004

Science Magazine (Dec. 10th 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1976.

The Tempest By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, May 28, 2006; W08

Related with references

Global Warming : Global warming divides scientists
Posted by Jonathan_McGregor_Bethel on 2006/10/4 21:27:32 (163 reads)

Hyping a Hoax
By Cliff Kincaid July 14, 2006

Reprints The Tempest By Joel Achenbach Sunday, May 28, 2006; article and comments

Links galore

Critique of The Tempest

One major problem — scientists themselves do not believe that a scientific consensus exists.

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

1 comment:

liuhongyao0527 said...

hey, I just got a free $5000.00 Gift Card. you can redeem yours at Abercrombie & Fitch All you have to do to get yours is Click Here to get a $5000 free gift card for your backtoschool wardrobe