Hurricane specialist resigns from IPCC 21 January 05

of GW that no one will dispute it. Did you see the report today about an article in Science that supports GW as the cause of the Permian extinction? Check www.climateark.org for press releases.

Reading the text of Dr Landsea’s resignation letter suggests that he is angry about the misuse of his research to support a thesis that he does not agree with (i.e that global warming was responsible for the hurricanes that came ashore in Florida 2004).

Since his resignation is will lead to reduced income and loss of Business class air travel to Global warming conferences etc you would have to suppose it was motivated by intellectual integrity rather than ideology.

IS anyone surprised by this? Denial is going to get MORE, not less, hysterical as time goes by and “proof” becomes UNdeniably obvious. We had better get used to this, and start acting on our own, because the Powerful are NEVER going to get around to doing enough in time enough!

“Reading the text of Dr Landsea’s resignation letter suggests that he is angry about the misuse of his research to support a thesis that he does not agree with (i.e that global warming was responsible for the hurricanes that came ashore in Florida 2004).”

Trenberth didn’t say that! Landsea said he said that….Draw your own conclusions.

We have to act on our own the best way we can all the time. Later, the powerful may want to join in when it becomes obvious later as Lynn states that maybe we really do have a problem after all.

With all the uncertainty, we can never be sure of anything completely although most on this site agree we do have a problem and that it is getting worse.

When the signs become clear, we can only hope that it is still not too late to take further action. We cannot with certainty ever know that our actions are too late as long as we can still come up with viable ideas.

We can always hope our actions will ultimately bring us success. With that said, I can offer no excuse for us to not to do our part.

Our descendants may judge us all on that matter in our efforts. Even if we loose Vicki, will it be said that we did our very best to put up a good fight to save the climate.

And this message is to those of us who believe we have a problem that warrants serious attention.

This is a worrying development as it i suspect that it will be used to undermine any conclusions that the IPCC reports make. Critics will use this as evidence that the IPCC is not a neutral body, and therefore the science is not credible.

The following are excerpt from Landsea’s letter of resignation. It appears that he did not misquote Trenberth. Furthermore, nowhere in his letter does Landsea accuse Tenberth as having said that global warming had caused the Florida hurricanes.

. . . "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 transcripts 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. . . .”

There is much more. You can read the entire letter at the following site. Please read it. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/#000318

The following is a quote of Trenberth’s assessment of the link between global warming and hurricanes. If the quote is correct, and Landsea says that he listened to the tape, you have to agree with Landsea.

“Human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere and global warming is happening as a result,” says Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at NCAR and a convening lead author of the 2007 IPCC report for the chapter on observed changes. “Global warming is manifested in many ways, some unexpected. Sea level has risen 1.25 inches in the past 10 years as a result of warming of the oceans and glacier melting. The environment in which hurricanes form is changing. The result was a hurricane in late March 2004 in the South Atlantic, off the coast of Brazil: the first and only such hurricane in that region. Several factors go into forming hurricanes and where they track. But the evidence strongly suggests more intense storms and risk of greater flooding events, so that the North Atlantic hurricane season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future.”

The rest of this article is at http://www.occupationalhazards.com/articles/12560

Mr/Ms norbertzangox (may we please have your name?), your quote from Trenberth doesn’t appear to be the one that upset Landsea. Trenberth here appears to be saying:

(a) hurricanes are multi-causal,

(b) the environment in which hurricanes form is changing,

(c) the March 2004 hurricane in the South Atlantic was due to these changes,

(d) the 2004 North Atlantic hurricanes had the sort of effects (not causes) that we’ll see more of in the future,

(e) we’ll see more hurricanes in the future because of these changes.

I can’t see any assertion here that the intensity of the 2004 North Atlantic hurricanes was due to the increase in climate change. I dunno – all I have to go on is the words in front of me.

Among the posts below Landsea’s letter is this one: “Note that Dr. Landsea said nothing to indicate that he disagrees with the bulk of Global Warming science – only with the overstepping of an individual in linking Global Warming with hurricane occurrence. Dr. Landsea appears to have the highest level of integrity – and it may be that he may or may not agree with Global Warming Theory on the whole, but does not feel qualified to make a positive or negative statement about it. Which puts him miles ahead of most of the pundits out there who are willing to attack general scientific consensus with far less understanding of the theory and data than he.”

If you will read Dr. Landsea’s resignation letter at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/#000318, you will see that Landsea did not even use the word “Florida” in the missive. He did not accuse Trenberth of blaming the debacle in Florida on global warming. He accused Trenberth of having contradicted the accumulated state of knowledge in the field by alleging that there were more Atlantic hurricanes during the 2004 season than there had been in the past decade on global warming.

Trenberth repeated that allegation in an article in the Washington Post on Sunday ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29397-2005Jan22.html)and during a telephone interview reported in the Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo., (http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/science/article/0,1713,BDC_2432_3491666,00.html) also reported Sunday (23 Jan 04).

The Daily Camera article reports an interview with Kerry Emanuel, a professor and hurricane researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who supports Landsea’s contention that the current state of knowledge does not justify asserting that global warming has affected the frequency of hurricanes.

In answer to your question let me offer a reason why not. There are reasons to suspect that carbon dioxide-induced global warming should mitigate the frequency and severity of hurricanes. Hurricanes are heat engines; they transfer heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere and from the tropics to the poles. If the IPCC hypothesis is correct, the high latitudes and high altitudes will warm first. The increased warmth and humidity at high altitudes and high latitudes will reduce the need to transfer heat, since those conditions at those locations will be closer to the conditions at the surface and in the tropics. That is, the driving force to which hurricanes respond will have been reduced. That should reduce the frequency and severity of storms.

My answer to your final question is that Trenberth can say whatever he wants to say so long as he represents that his opinions are his own. The reason for Landsea’s resignation is that Trenberth appeared at a conference and represented that he was reporting the consensus of the IPCC committee on the subject. Trenberth’s misrepresentation lent undue weight to his opinion, by inferring that researchers in the field agree with him. That is patently untrue.

Landsea sought remedy from the IPCC, which refused to respond. That is why Landsea resigned.

If you are going to “have to go on the words in front of me”, you should read all of them. My original post and my response to Peter Hearnden (below) describe exactly what upset Dr. Landsea. I think that no one would dispute your a) and b) items. The dispute is about your final three bullets. Please read Dr. Landsea’s letter of resignation. You will see that he responds to all three of those.

Whether Dr. Landsea agrees or disagrees with the “bulk of global warming science” is not at issue here. You have made the original pronouncement on that subject.

Pundits continue to write about the general scientific consensus. Please refer me to a link that displays the results of the election.

A great many competent climatologists disagree with the IPCC position. Many of them have been and continue to be part of the IPCC process.

Does Landsea’s refusal to comment on the bulk of the IPCC position also put him miles ahead of the pundits who accept it without question and with far less understanding of the theory and data are willing to bet the future of humanity that the IPCC is correct?

What if the critics, are correct?

Rajendra Pachauri also has made some statements lately that were ill-conceived.

Surely by now he knows those vested interests people will seize on that – just as they have with Trenberth. It certainly seems as if Trenberth has stepped too far over the line, but also Landsea is overreacting.

More proof that science is done by humans.

D

The IPCC still consists of scientist sceptical about climate change. If they really want show that the work of the IPCC is biased they will need to show that the science is flawed.

Cynics might conclude that IPCC uses spurious scare tactics to prop up unconvincing science. In fact, anyone who thinks about it might come to the same conclusion.

Is that not what Chris Landsea tried to do?

I did not ask if you thought the IPCC would be proven wrong. I asked “What if they are wrong?”.

The question is what is the altenate plan should they be wrong. Is there one?

Well, those cynics should re-read what Dano said, and try to figure out how the heck you drew the conclusion you did from it. I suspect the word ‘seize’ Dano used said it all.

Of course more thoughtful cynics might wonder why someone would choose to snipe from behind the cover of anonymity.

Peter

Ms/Mr norbetzangox (your real name, please, or at least an explanation of why you won’t reveal yourself: are you employed by a petroleum producer? a paid lobbying firm? Or are you actually a bunch of people writing under a single name from a US “right-wing think tank”?).

We’ll see how the Landsea story unfolds. It’s probably a storm in a teacup and we’ll forget it in a month or so.

Meanwhile, you raise the central question: “are [you] willing to bet the future of humanity that the IPCC is correct?” The IPCC are not the ones “betting the future of humanity”. They are urging caution and – in my words – application of the precautionary principle. They don’t want to “bet the future of humanity”. It is the nay-sayers who are “betting the future of humanity”. If governments, corporations and individuals act decisively on the evidence of the IPCC reports, decisively enough to satisfy the millions throughout the planet who are concerned that anthropogenic climate change is imperiling the biosphere as we know it, AND the IPCC are wrong, then there is comparatively little harm done: at the end of the twentyfirst century, we can all resume driving Hummers, burning fossil fuels and lament a lost century of high energy use.

On the other hand, if the few nay-sayers carry the day and the biosphere is stuffed, we won’t be able to reverse the trend for hundreds of years. There is no picking up where we left off.

I look at the evidence, feel the climate change with my own body, see the effects in my own garden, look at the photos in Mark Lynas’ book, and I know something is happening. Personally, I think the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, but I also think that the destruction of vegetation (see Mark’s chapter on China) is a highly significant cause of changes in water vapour and shifts in precipitation patterns.

We will never understand enough about the complexity of climatic and biospheric systems to be able to satisfy reductionists about cause and effect. But we can tell at the broad level when things are changing and our failure to face up to the facts and take the best action we possibly can to reduce – and then reverse – the impact of these changes could well imperil “the future of humanity” – and more than that.

I am not employed by an oil company, a think tank or anything else. I have retired after over 40 years in environmental consulting. I am a registered professional engineer and have a Ph.D. I have only me; I have no cadre of helpers, though I am flattered that you might believe so.

It is easily possible to over-bet on the precautionary principle, whatever that is. The most glaring and egregious example of precaution costing far too much lies in the banning of DDT. The result has been at least 40 million needless deaths and more than a half a billion needless malaria infections, with zero offsetting environmental benefit. Add the cost in human misery and in the damning most of sub Saharan Africa to abject poverty for two generations and the toll becomes astounding. Future historians surely will see it as the most abominable case of mass murder and deprivation ever to visit the planet.

To believe that humanity as we know it could survive after reducing emissions of carbon dioxide to levels that would satiate the IPCC models is naï. The cost of the Kyoto agreement, which calls for a reduction of only 5%, is nearly unbearable. The IPCC acknowledges that full implementation of Kyoto would reduce the upper temperature prediction of their models by just 0.7 degrees. What good is that? None.

The only way to reduce emissions by the 70% that would satisfy the beast would be to abandon all of modern civilization. That would not include just the hated, profit mongering corporations, it would include modern health care, adequate food and shelter and any prospect of peace. The resulting struggle for the remaining meager resources would likely plunge the world into global war. Billions would starve.

I agree, land clearing and many other activities probably have contributed somewhat to the current warming trend. I do not agree that we can lay the blame entirely or even substantially on carbon dioxide emissions or other human activities. I agree that the climate is warming. However, there is no real evidence that our activities have caused a substantial portion of the present warming. We have only the predictions of undocumented computer models to relate it to human activities.

Natural climate cycles are the most likely explanation.

There is no evidence that the atmosphere will be stuffed. Less than 60% of the carbon dioxide that we have emitted has shown up in the atmosphere and that fraction appears to be shrinking. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations stimulate plant and algae growth; ergo carbon sinks.

I think that you are somewhat confused about the definition of the enhanced greenhouse effect (EGE). IPCC invokes the specter of EGE because it is not possible for combustion of all of the fossil fuels remaining on the planet to increase the carbon dioxide concentration high enough to cause a significant rise in temperature. I believe that they calculate that a doubling of carbon dioxide would increase the temperature by about a half a degree C.

The EGE is the assumption that the average relative humidity in the atmosphere will remain constant as the temperature rises. That would mean that the absolute humidity, the concentration of water vapor in the air would increase. The increase in water vapor would then foment further evaporation. The hypothesis says that the increased water vapor would cause the remainder of the temperature rise.

Unfortunately for IPCC, preliminary NASA data have shown that the amount of water vapor in the air is not increasing. This observation casts doubt on the entire EGE concept and portends a modest, pleasant and manageable temperature rise.

Even if we go crazy and pretend that the most likely of the IPCC temperature rise predictions (about 2.5 degrees C) is on the way, we can deal with the effects for with far less adverse effect on humanity and the environment than would be caused by massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

If I thought for even a moment that it were possible for us to affect the future climate I still would want to know what other climate effects would accrue from emission reductions. Think ice age.

Paying for emission reductions is akin to paying for a homeowner’s insurance policy that would replace your house in case of disaster yet costs more than your house is worth.

Why hide if you are the one with the ‘truth’ about global warming? It only makes sense if one is a part of a organized attempt to muddy the waters as it were. Allow no discussion of global warming without getting in there to sow the seeds of doubt, without and evidence to back one up. As for me, I never read what the mystery man writes. One who hides and claims to speak for science is in fact a kind of person I will not pay any attention to. If he/she is correct, Publish your work, and let science have a go at it. Otherwise, give me one reason to read a word you say.

while NOT decreasing productivity or living standards. There are plenty of examples of this being done. One was on the Newshour last night with Jim Leherer. But the best information is in NATURAL CAPITALISM by Paul Hawken & Amory Lovins, and on the Rocky Mountain Institute website (rmi.org). The book has a very good vision for the entire economy, backed by experience and tremendous knowledge. It is a very uplifting, positive read. An engineer or architect, especially, would enjoy reading it.

As a retired, well educated engineer, you could join forces with such enterprises to help our extremely inefficient economy (operating well within its production possibilities frontier, based on off-the-shelf technology available). Then, if you’re right and GW isn’t happening, we will have at least made great strides in helping our economy, & we can thank the global warming myth for its impetus in doing so.

norbertzangox, you wrote: “The EGE is the assumption that the average relative humidity in the atmosphere will remain constant as the temperature rises. That would mean that the absolute humidity, the concentration of water vapor in the air would increase. The increase in water vapor would then foment further evaporation. The hypothesis says that the increased water vapor would cause the remainder of the temperature rise.”

However, this is what I have always understood as the EGE: “enhanced greenhouse effect. An increase in the natural process of the greenhouse effect, brought about by human activities, whereby greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide are being released into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than would occur through natural processes.”

My quote is from:

http://www.science.org.au/nova/016/016key.htm

A Google search revealed a number of mainstream sites which concur with the definition I have quoted.

The utility of the term “enhanced greenhouse effect” is that it reminds us of the natural greenhouse effect, vital for virtually all life on earth as we know it.

Please let me know if I still appear to be ‘confused’ by the notion of the EGE.

You are correct. I confused enhanced greenhouse effect with enhancement of warming by water vapor. You can read a description of the water vapor effect at, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm. OLR means, outgoing long-wave radiation (i.e. infrared), SST means, sea-surface temperature.

I apologize for the error.

From the current New Scientist

””A review of 928 peer reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept we can expect some warning. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC’s scale”

The latest IPCC scale is between 1.4 to 5.8C. To put that into a historical context in the terms of human history that will be the largest rise in temperature ever experienced – and that is at the lowest measure of 1.4.”

I think the last paragraph is pretty compelling.

To talk of DDT being a great tragedy may be true however I do not think that it has a logical connection with why one should never attempt anything. And to declare a drastic reduction in current lifestyles will be a result of Kyoto effects is to argue that man cannot possibly adjust his lifestyle for less conspicous consumption.

In the US and the UK happiness indexes have not improved since the 50’s. It would suggest then that the human race could be as happy at that level of resource use …....

I think that there is a serious problem in that the growth in car ownership in India & China and further industrialisation is really upping the ante. China will be the largest car market in the world this year so competition for oil will keep prices up if not rising.

If we want to act decisively the wasting of generated energy could be addressed easily if enough political will is there. However most politicans in power want to stay there and anything that can possibly harm there re-election chances is a no-no.