Climate scientists feeling the heat over global warming

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

[GaryC 7]

You gotta love this. Come on Steve, tell us all how they are wrong.

[Lurker 0]

You all better stop worrying about the damn climate and start worrying about the Muslim extremists. They are coming here, and I have plenty of bullets!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do you continually rely on people who are climate scientist to make such statement like this...

"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."

As I recall, you wanted me to cite a reliable scientific source when I posted about the health dangers of the bovine growth hormone.

It would be a little more credible if he actually was quoting that opinion from a climate scientist.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven and Gary,

I think you both prove the point of this article by missing the point.

The article basically says that the complexities and subtleties of climate science get lost in the black-and-white "you're wrong and i'm right" of partisan politics and the popular media.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We're dipping into the lower 40's overnight and are even expected to see some upper 30's in the near future. The days will barely reach the lower 60's. Global warming my ####### - it's mothafcuking cold in Florida.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

When I was in undergrad school, the rage was global cooling. Such nonsense gives Ph.D.s something to do. Phffft!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Green eyed girl - I wasn't alive back when this was published but I guess with the Internet, that no longer matters.

A story from TIME magazine in 1974:

Another Ice Age?

Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims.

During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in

centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may

well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from

uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the

American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest

winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing

number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological

fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from

place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe

they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend

shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,

for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the

waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the

Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is

at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of

Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite

weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had

suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in

the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered

year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable

expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that

sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of

cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds

and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-

ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds

have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the

same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the

winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is

pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air

masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent

rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy

that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun

could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either

hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year

sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of

how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A.

Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a

result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating

the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-

range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly

more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such

knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling

in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and

atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known

acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic.

Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip

the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age

within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at

least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as

high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of

another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one

or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food

stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president

of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the

Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe

that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yep, that was our big deal.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Of course, had Al Gore made a movie on global cooling in 1974, I'm sure it would have turned out to be fact.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We're dipping into the lower 40's overnight ...

Over here, the windchill is 3 degrees right now. Forecast high for tomorrow is less than 20. Good thing my heater works

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Of course, had Al Gore made a movie on global cooling in 1974, I'm sure it would have turned out to be fact.

I'll have to check on what he was doing then. He was a journalist then.

[Scott & Lai 12]

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.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

This is part of the problem I have with the emphasis that is often placed on "peer review."

[mrc 0]

OMG, THANKS FOR THE SECOND ARTICLE. MAYBE IT'S GLOBAL COOLING THAT'S ON THE RISE NOW! Even if it's old, I'll be sure to watch out for global cooling too!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

OMG, THANKS FOR THE SECOND ARTICLE. MAYBE IT'S GLOBAL COOLING THAT'S ON THE RISE NOW! Even if it's old, I'll be sure to watch out for global cooling too!

Yeah, it better be one or the other or a lot of people are gonna be real dissapointed!