Roger Pielke, in criticising a New York Times story on how the global warming debate is "over," offers an excellent summary on the sticking points of anthropogenic global warming being tied directly to carbon dioxide emissions. Four basic points are:
- It is true that if ONLY the radiative effect of added CO2 were considered, the lower atmosphere would warm. However, the radiative effect of added CO2 is only one factor that humans influence the climate system, as shown, for example, in the 2005 National Research Council report, “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties” [...] The effect of the human input of CO2 into the climate system needs to be considered together with the entire spectrum of diverse human- and natural-climate forcings and feedbacks.
- These [IPCC] assessment reports [...] are managed by only a small subset of climate scientists, who often use a platform as Lead Author to promote their research and their particular perspective. The authorship is hardly “an enormous international network of experts”.
- [The reporter] has ignored peer reviewed research that has shown a wide range of problems with the surface temperature records including a significant warm bias in the minimum temperatures over land. Contrary to his claim, most of the increase in temperature has actually been in the minimum temperatures at the higher latitudes. The temperature trends for the oceans and land have not been parallel.
- The data up through December 2006 show that actual global stratospheric temperatures after cooling from the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the early 1990s, have remained more-or-less constant since then. With added CO2, the stratosphere should be continuing to cool; a [sic] issue that the article chose not to mention.
In disagreeing with the line, "Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas," Prof. Pielke responded, "I assume I must fit outside of his category of “almost everyone." Me too.
This is bit over the top. Pielk is far from being in the "middle." He's a well-known contrarian who is constantly praised by industry consultants and conservatives.
ReplyDeleteAnd he has no training in climate science.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/oct/policy/pt_curry.html
Anon - can't argue against Pielke's assertions, so just tar him with "Guilt by association." Plus, your link is well over a year old, totally outdated science on hurricanes in that article.
ReplyDeleteAl Gore has no training in climate science, either. Do you trust him?
Anon:
ReplyDeleteSworn testimony before the Senate from Roger Pielke:
"I am a Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. I am also State Climatologist for Colorado and President-Elect of the American Association of State Climatologists. I received my M.S. and Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University in the Department of Meteorology. Since the 1960s, my research focuses on weather and climate studies using models and observations."
James Hanson, celebrated NASA scientist, also has no "training" in climate science, receiving his degrees in physics and astronomy, although he does specialize in planetary atmospherics. He's a well-known contrarian who is constantly praised by environmental activists and liberals.
What's the difference? Hanson agrees with you.