U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)


By —— Bio and Archives June 20, 2008

Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

[Note: Below are two critiques of the media hyped new report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) released an assessment report titled “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate.  Amazingly, real world data is not cooperating with the virtual world of dire global warming models.

A sampling of what the report reveals includes: Hurricanes declining, no long term increases in drought - There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms - There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters - There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record. But all of the above appear to be INCREASING in unverified climate models. Computer models predictions are not evidence. As Atmospheric physicist Jim Peden said on June 18, 2008: “Climate Modeling is not science, it is computerized Tinkertoys, with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.” Oddly, media reports have tried to promote the report as a dire event. See: ‘Thunderous Wake-Up Call’ On Climate Change];

Science Daily: Expect More Droughts, Heavy Downpours, Excessive Heat, And Intense Hurricanes Due To Global Warming, NOAA;

Wash Post: Report on Climate Predicts Extremes: More Droughts Likely in North America;

AP: Extreme weather to increase with climate change;

Reuters: Extreme floods, storms seen increasing in North America

Key Quotes Debunking Report:

“Since this assessment is so clearly biased, it should be rejected as providing adequate climate information to policymakers. There also should be questions raised concerning having the same individuals preparing these reports in which they are using them to promote their own perspective on the climate, and deliberately excluding peer reviewed papers that disagree with their viewpoint and research papers. This is a serious conflict of interest.” – June 20, 2008 - Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

“The CCSP report is notable because of what it does not show and what it does not say. It does not show a clear picture of ever increasing extreme events in the United States. And it does not clearly say why damage has been steadily increasing. Overall, this is not a good showing by the CCSP.” – June 20, 2008 - Roger Pielke, Jr. is a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado and a former director of its Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.


“Our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings. Human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills far more people than heat.” April 20, 2008 - Dennis Avery, Environmental Economist and global warming co-author of “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.”


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5164


“Climate Modeling is not science, it is computerized Tinkertoys, with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry.


What the CCSP Extremes Report Really Says-
By Roger Pielke, Jr. is a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado and a former director of its Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.

Excerpt: In closing, the CCSP report is notable because of what it does not show and what it does not say. It does not show a clear picture of ever increasing extreme events in the United States. And it does not clearly say why damage has been steadily increasing. Overall, this is not a good showing by the CCSP. […] 1. Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining. Yes, you read that correctly. From the appendix (p. 132, emphases added): The final example is a time series of U.S. landfalling hurricanes for 1851-2006 . . . A linear trend was fitted to the full series and also for the following subseries: 1861-2006, 1871-2006, and so on up to 1921-2006. As in preceding examples, the model fitted was ARMA (p,q) with linear trend, with p and q identified by AIC. For 1871-2006, the optimal model was AR(4), for which the slope was -.00229, standard error .00089, significant at p=.01. For 1881-2006, the optimal model was AR(4), for which the slope was -.00212, standard error .00100, significant at p=.03. For all other cases, the estimated trend was negative, but not statistically significant. 2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought. Yes, you read that correctly. From p. 5: Averaged over the continental U.S. and southern Canada the most severe droughts occurred in the 1930s and there is no indication of an overall trend in the observational record . . . […] What debate? The report offers not a single reference to justify that there is a debate on this subject.


Unfortunately, Another Biased Assessment”- New CCSP Report Appears “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate

By Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Excerpt: Since this assessment is so clearly biased, it should be rejected as providing adequate climate information to policymakers. There also should be questions raised concerning having the same individuals preparing these reports in which they are using them to promote their own perspective on the climate, and deliberately excluding peer reviewed papers that disagree with their viewpoint and research papers. This is a serious conflict of interest. […]  This report perpetuates the use of assessments to promote a particular perspective on climate change, such as they write in the Executive Summary: “It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Such studies have only recently been used to determine the causes of some changes in extremes at the scale of a continent. Certain aspects of observed increases in temperature extremes have been linked to human influences. The increase in heavy precipitation events is associated with an increase in water vapor, and the latter has been attributed to human-induced warming.” This claim conflicts with the 2005 National Research Council report. National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp where a diversity of human climate forcings were found to alter global average radiative warming, including from atmospheric aersosols and due to the deposition of soot on snow and ice. The claim of an increase in atmospheric water vapor conflicts with a variety of observations as summarized on Climate Science (e.g. see). To further illustrate the bias in the report, the assessment chose to ignore peer reviewed research that raises serious questions with respect to the temperature data that is used in their report. As just one example,  they ignored research where we have shown major problems in the use of surface air temperature measurements to diagnose long term temperature trends including temperature extremes.

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/20/new-ccsp-report-appears-weather-and-climate-extremes-in-a-changing-climate-unfortunately-another-biased-assessment/

 


EPW Blog -- Bio and Archives |

-Inhofe EPW Press Blog




{/exp:ce_cache:it}