Skip to comments.Hurricane Scientist Leaves U.N. Team. U.S. Expert Cites Politics in a Letter
Posted on 01/23/2005 12:58:57 PM PST by FairOpinion
A federal hurricane research scientist resigned last week from a U.N.-sponsored climate assessment team, saying the group's leader had politicized the process.
Chris Landsea, who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division in Miami, said Monday that he would not contribute to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's chapter on atmospheric and surface climate conditions because the lead author had told reporters global warming contributed to intense Atlantic hurricanes last year.
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming," he wrote. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here is his letter:
Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
Posted to Author: Others | Climate Change | Science Policy: General
This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
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.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberths role as the IPCCs Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation - though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Attached are the correspondence between myself and key members of the IPCC FAR, Download file.
Posted on January 17, 2005 11:39 AM
Christ Landsea has an e-mail address. I think he could use some encouragement for his courageous stand for truth and science, and against politicizing science.
Thank you Mr. Landsea.
What a great name for a hurricane scientist.
ping a ling
IMO perfect bedfellows - The Media and the UN.
Very young, naive, both???
A serious question that can only by answered with cynical observations or sarcastic comments. So, I would say the U.N. is not even worth the paper its charter is written on.
They both have parallel agendas, amounting to damaging the US in any way possible, by blackmailing it to accept the Kyoto Dream. This will finally allow Brussels to squeak and yap and pass motions in the World Court and rule the world, teaching the World that it does not really suffer from Small Country Syndrome.
How big is Brussels, anyway...5 or ten megatons?
For those who are not scientifically trained, how does one assess the statements made by policy advocates anywhere, knowing 1) (left-wing)politics abounds in funding, prestigious Chair awards, Nobel Prize selections, tenure, etc., and 2) the media will not expose the lies and exaggerations when the policy advocates are lefties? This is really troubling since real science should be very highly respected. Certainly it can't be true that the world is drifting to a new ice-age (as alleged in the 70's), and is now shifting to global warming, a mere 30 years later. So many non-scientific people can smell a rat but can't say for sure what's true and what isn't. The socio-economic logic of division of labor means that many people have come to specialize in non-scientific professions and cannot independently assess the veracity of coordinated "scientific" scams. It seems that in the long run if Science can't be relied upon to be truthful then real progress for mankind is unsustainable.
It is essential to understand, The IPCC is not a scientific panel. It is an "advisory" panel of (largely) political appointees, who use scientists to give them cover and credibility with the media and the lay public.
Their original report was altered at the last minute and the published version contained material that can only be called flat out fraudulent.
This was documented years ago in a book called Satanic Gasses, written by scientists who understood the world was being sold a bill of goods from the git-go.
A lot of scientists have worked in good faith, like this one, perhaps naively, only to see their work mangled and twisted by politicians.
Kudos to Chris Landsea for having the integrity to remain dedicated to science rather than politics. I wish more scientists would act like this, rather than being manipulated by those who are not scientists.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I plan to increase my hurricane insurance coverage anyway...Ivan scared the poop out of me. (About 15 miles and a last minute turn saved my butt)
Worthy of your science ping?
A scientist, who won't sell out truth and science facts to politics.
Thanks for the ping. This isn't quite right for my list, but farmfriend keeps a ping list that may be right.
Michael Crichton has a new "fiction" book out about the politicization of climate science. I just read it, but the name escapes me at the moment. It is OUTSTANDING, not for plot or characters, but for the FACTS that he bases his "fiction" on, clearly expounded in the book
Interestingly, I borrowed it from a university professor, who was thrilled to see the book out too--especially if the author who wrote Jurassic Park and other popular thrillers can get people to read about the literal prostitution of research to the leftist agenda and Kyoto Accords.
Not only was the US correct not to sign, the whole "movement" is nothing but an attempt to economically cripple the United States of America at the expense of each taxpayer here.
Yes, thanks! That's the one.
State of Fear is a fun book, hilarious in the way it points out the flaws in the global warming industry.
I enjoyed it, especially amused by the confused guy who was traipsing all around the world, trying to help stop the terrorism, nearly falling to his death in an ice crevasse in the Antartic, nearly getting eaten by cannibals, etc. etc. Escapist fiction. ;-D
But the science was excellent, and I really enjoyed that.
I suppose the computer models which predict all the scary scenarios are making an assumption that CO2 emissions in the future will be not only increasing arithmetically, but multiplying over the years.
If so, that is probably not the case, as emissions in the US, for instance, have apparently already plateaued.
I can't remember the exact figures, and I've returned the book, but the computer models quoted and footnoted in the book have been politicized also. The actual prediction of warming which can be attributed to total worldwide CO2 emissions was on the order of 0.023 PERCENT, which is like 23 one- thousandth of a degree, if I have my math right.
Global warming is probably (not certainly) occurring because of natural cycles in the sun's energy output. There was, if I recall the book correctly, a "Little Ice Age" from something like 1300s to 1600s. The normal cycle of earth includes lengthy world-wide ice ages interspersed with warming periods, and the energy forces involved are so large as to be completely unaffected by any small variations in human CO2 emissions.
Many caveats in my post here because I can't refer back to the book. I'll buy it when it comes out in paperback, and then I can do more justice to Mr. Crichton's excellent essays, clearly outlined and footnoted, in the book.
Yes, I've pinged several similar articles.
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
I've corresponded with Dr. Landsea in the past and was very impressed by him. This is a strong affirmation of my initial assessment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.