Former Obama Official: Climate Change Not 'Settled' Science

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-science/2014/09/21/id/595969/?ns_mail_uid=41614470

A former high-ranking Obama administration official says climate science and the implications of global warming are not "settled," insisting such claims are "misguided" and stifle debate on the matter.

Writing a Page One story in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review section, Dr. Steven Koonin argues that group think among experts has been inhibiting "the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future."

Koonin, who served at the Energy Department as President Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

Koonin’s position strikes a blow against climate change activists as People’s Climate March organized demonstrations at more than 2,000 locations worldwide.

In New York, tens of thousands participated in the demonstration demanding urgent steps against carbon emissions as the United Nation’s General Assembly opened.

"We often hear that there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change," writes Koonan. "But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences."

Koonin says his extensive training as a computational physicist with a 40-year career of scientific research and management, has given him an up-close knowledge of climate science.

"Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate," writes Koonin.

The point, Koonin says, isn't whether the climate is changing, as "the climate has always changed and always will."

Further, he says, there is little doubt that humans are influencing climate change, as greenhouse gases, mainly from carbon-dioxide emissions, have had an effect.

But the main question remains about how the climate will change under both natural and man-made influences, which will affect energy and infrastructure choices.

"Those questions are the hardest ones to answer," writes Koonin.

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

Meanwhile, while the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit over the last quarter of the 20th century, the increase has been much slower over the past 16 years, while the human contribution to carbon dioxide has gone up by 25 percent.

"Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise," says Koonin. "Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling."

Koonin says current global warming models have limitations. Many advocates of global warming dismiss or downplay contradictory data, he writes.

To this end, Koonin cites:

Models that show Arctic ice melting over the past 20 years forget to note the almost equal growth of ice across Antarctica, which he says is “now at a record high.”
A prediction that the “lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere” has not materialized.
The fact global sea levels in the first half of the 20th century rose at almost the same rate as today.
Climate sensitivity— "that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration," he says is "no different, and no more certain" than it was 30 years ago.

These, and many other factors that are still not decided will not allow lawmakers and the public to make a definite decision when it comes to climate change, he contends.

"But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is 'settled' (or is a 'hoax') demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters, he writes.

"Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences ...

"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future."

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-science/2014/09/21/id/595969/?ns_mail_uid=41614470

A former high-ranking Obama administration official says climate science and the implications of global warming are not "settled," insisting such claims are "misguided" and stifle debate on the matter.

Writing a Page One story in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review section, Dr. Steven Koonin argues that group think among experts has been inhibiting "the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future."

Koonin, who served at the Energy Department as President Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

Koonin’s position strikes a blow against climate change activists as People’s Climate March organized demonstrations at more than 2,000 locations worldwide.

In New York, tens of thousands participated in the demonstration demanding urgent steps against carbon emissions as the United Nation’s General Assembly opened.

"We often hear that there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change," writes Koonan. "But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences."

Koonin says his extensive training as a computational physicist with a 40-year career of scientific research and management, has given him an up-close knowledge of climate science.

"Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate," writes Koonin.

The point, Koonin says, isn't whether the climate is changing, as "the climate has always changed and always will."

Further, he says, there is little doubt that humans are influencing climate change, as greenhouse gases, mainly from carbon-dioxide emissions, have had an effect.

But the main question remains about how the climate will change under both natural and man-made influences, which will affect energy and infrastructure choices.

"Those questions are the hardest ones to answer," writes Koonin.

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

Meanwhile, while the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit over the last quarter of the 20th century, the increase has been much slower over the past 16 years, while the human contribution to carbon dioxide has gone up by 25 percent.

"Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise," says Koonin. "Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling."

Koonin says current global warming models have limitations. Many advocates of global warming dismiss or downplay contradictory data, he writes.

To this end, Koonin cites:

Models that show Arctic ice melting over the past 20 years forget to note the almost equal growth of ice across Antarctica, which he says is “now at a record high.”

A prediction that the “lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere” has not materialized.

The fact global sea levels in the first half of the 20th century rose at almost the same rate as today.

Climate sensitivity— "that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration," he says is "no different, and no more certain" than it was 30 years ago.

These, and many other factors that are still not decided will not allow lawmakers and the public to make a definite decision when it comes to climate change, he contends.

"But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is 'settled' (or is a 'hoax') demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters, he writes.

"Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences ...

"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future."

Crickets.. we keep getting told believe the guys with experience.. This guy had the guts to tell the truth

[GandD 5,966]

97% of climatologists say climate change is real and caused by humans. Why are we still talking about this?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

97% of climatologists say climate change is real and caused by humans. Why are we still talking about this?

Because denying the undeniable is big business in the USA. The business interests that deny climate change have a large herd of anti-science followers in this country. Nowhere else in the developed world are there so many people with such a deep distrust for the scientific method. Scientists are communists. About half of this country believes that.

[Rob L 3,811]

Crickets.. we keep getting told believe the guys with experience.. This guy had the guts to tell the truth

He is also the former chief scientist for BP which makes him another Petrobusiness lackey in my book. Leave it to the WSJ to find a dissenter to back business views. I don't see anything particullarly novel in his piece, he says that the world is warming, that greenhouse gas generated by humans is a factor, but that we lack the models and instruments to see how much of a factor. I have no doubt he is a skilled scientist, but is he an expert in climatology? No he is an expert in theoritical physics. So you have to stack his op ed piece in the WSJ against the weight of all scientists who dont agree with him.

But of course the Oil and Coal industry does not need to convince us that the science is wrong, they only need to erode enough public confidence in the science, to support the politics, to allow them to have the influence to extend their business model a few more years which adds billions to their shareholders bottom lines. They are not interested in truth or science, just money.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

So let's assume for a moment that things ARE heating up, and it's all because of humans. So what? What difference does it make? Are YOU going to stop driving your car or heating your house and putting off all that pesky CO2?

Blathering on about climate change, whether it exists or not, is pretty much pointless, unless we demonstrate a need for change, and then enact that change, right? So what are we going to do about it, except argue about its existence?

[eieio 1,594]

So let's assume for a moment that things ARE heating up, and it's all because of humans. So what? What difference does it make? Are YOU going to stop driving your car or heating your house and putting off all that pesky CO2?

Blathering on about climate change, whether it exists or not, is pretty much pointless, unless we demonstrate a need for change, and then enact that change, right? So what are we going to do about it, except argue about its existence?

Buy Carbon credits. This will take care of everything.

People, for whatever reason, need to feel that something bad is going to happen.

Global warming advocates have a new religion. One which they worship religiously. No need for common sense or logic to be brought up.

[Rob L 3,811]

So let's assume for a moment that things ARE heating up, and it's all because of humans. So what? What difference does it make? Are YOU going to stop driving your car or heating your house and putting off all that pesky CO2?

Blathering on about climate change, whether it exists or not, is pretty much pointless, unless we demonstrate a need for change, and then enact that change, right? So what are we going to do about it, except argue about its existence?

You are correct, Blathering is ineffective. One of my favorite thinkers is Jeremey Rivkin in 2011 wrote the Third Industrial revolution... these ideas are already at work in Germany

http://www.forbes.com/sites/terrywaghorn/2011/12/12/jeremy-rifkins-third-industrial-revolution/2/

The Five Pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution

Rifkin describes how the five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution will create thousands of businesses and millions of jobs, and usher in a fundamental reordering of human relationships, from hierarchical to lateral power, that will impact the way we conduct business, govern society, educate our children, and engage in civic life. The five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution are (1) shifting to renewable energy; (2) transforming the building stock of every continent into green micro–power plants to collect renewable energies on-site; (3) deploying hydrogen and other storage technologies in every building and throughout the infrastructure to store intermittent energies; (4) using Internet technology to transform the power grid of every continent into an energy internet that acts just like the Internet (when millions of buildings are generating a small amount of renewable energy locally, on-site, they can sell surplus green electricity back to the grid and share it with their continental neighbors); and (5) transitioning the transport fleet to electric plug-in and fuel cell vehicles that can buy and sell green electricity on a smart, continental, interactive power grid.

The creation of a renewable energy regime, loaded by buildings, partially stored in the form of hydrogen, distributed via a green electricity Internet, and connected to plug-in, zero-emission transport, opens the door to a Third Industrial Revolution. The entire system is interactive, integrated, and seamless. When these five pillars come together, they make up an indivisible technological platform—an emergent system whose properties and functions are qualitatively different from the sum of its parts. In other words, the synergies between the pillars create a new economic paradigm that can transform the world.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

So let's assume for a moment that things ARE heating up, and it's all because of humans. So what? What difference does it make? Are YOU going to stop driving your car or heating your house and putting off all that pesky CO2?

Blathering on about climate change, whether it exists or not, is pretty much pointless, unless we demonstrate a need for change, and then enact that change, right? So what are we going to do about it, except argue about its existence?

New power added to the U.S. Grid was 96% renewable last quarter (mostly solar and wind with a dab of geothermal). This is not so huge a deal as we are a mature economy with tremendous energy production so we don't need to add new energy like say China.. We should be doing something to force retirement of older systems.. Standards for fuel mileage is continuously increased so that new efficiency are put into more MPG instead of more horse power for the same MPG which was popular for so long.

Beyond those types of things they can raise the taxes on gas and they are already piloting programs targeting taxes on actual miles driven - that is probably the best way to slow energy consumption: make it expensive.

The debate on climate change weird to me - there is no denying the co2 levels are rising and if you removed what humans have produced from the total it would not be rising - so we are the cause for the increase. We know that CO2 traps energy in atmosphere that is converted to heat and then interacts with the climate. Debate of the rate and time factors sure but that it is actually happening? We already have checked for that and know the answer.

I think that was my first serious post in a month.

[Rob L 3,811]

New power added to the U.S. Grid was 96% renewable last quarter (mostly solar and wind with a dab of geothermal). This is not so huge a deal as we are a mature economy with tremendous energy production so we don't need to add new energy like say China.. We should be doing something to force retirement of older systems.. Standards for fuel mileage is continuously increased so that new efficiency are put into more MPG instead of more horse power for the same MPG which was popular for so long.

Beyond those types of things they can raise the taxes on gas and they are already piloting programs targeting taxes on actual miles driven - that is probably the best way to slow energy consumption: make it expensive.

The debate on climate change weird to me - there is no denying the co2 levels are rising and if you removed what humans have produced from the total it would not be rising - so we are the cause for the increase. We know that CO2 traps energy in atmosphere that is converted to heat and then interacts with the climate. Debate of the rate and time factors sure but that it is actually happening? We already have checked for that and know the answer.

I think that was my first serious post in a month.

We are honored....are you sure this has nothing to do with the fact the Captain Underpants is now the most "ban" requested book in America? Does that put you on haitus? ( beating out Fifty Shades of Grey I might add)

Edited September 23, 2014 by Rob L

[Dakine10 5,452]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-science/2014/09/21/id/595969/?ns_mail_uid=41614470

A former high-ranking Obama administration official says climate science and the implications of global warming are not "settled," insisting such claims are "misguided" and stifle debate on the matter.

Writing a Page One story in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review section, Dr. Steven Koonin argues that group think among experts has been inhibiting "the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future."

Koonin, who served at the Energy Department as President Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

Koonin’s position strikes a blow against climate change activists as People’s Climate March organized demonstrations at more than 2,000 locations worldwide.

In New York, tens of thousands participated in the demonstration demanding urgent steps against carbon emissions as the United Nation’s General Assembly opened.

"We often hear that there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change," writes Koonan. "But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences."

Koonin says his extensive training as a computational physicist with a 40-year career of scientific research and management, has given him an up-close knowledge of climate science.

"Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate," writes Koonin.

The point, Koonin says, isn't whether the climate is changing, as "the climate has always changed and always will."

Further, he says, there is little doubt that humans are influencing climate change, as greenhouse gases, mainly from carbon-dioxide emissions, have had an effect.

But the main question remains about how the climate will change under both natural and man-made influences, which will affect energy and infrastructure choices.

"Those questions are the hardest ones to answer," writes Koonin.

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

Meanwhile, while the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit over the last quarter of the 20th century, the increase has been much slower over the past 16 years, while the human contribution to carbon dioxide has gone up by 25 percent.

"Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise," says Koonin. "Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling."

Koonin says current global warming models have limitations. Many advocates of global warming dismiss or downplay contradictory data, he writes.

To this end, Koonin cites:

Models that show Arctic ice melting over the past 20 years forget to note the almost equal growth of ice across Antarctica, which he says is “now at a record high.”

A prediction that the “lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere” has not materialized.

The fact global sea levels in the first half of the 20th century rose at almost the same rate as today.

Climate sensitivity— "that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration," he says is "no different, and no more certain" than it was 30 years ago.

These, and many other factors that are still not decided will not allow lawmakers and the public to make a definite decision when it comes to climate change, he contends.

"But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is 'settled' (or is a 'hoax') demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters, he writes.

"Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences ...

"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future."

Nobody has ever claimed that climate change science is settled. Koonin says climate change has occured and humans played a part in that. He also says computer models have limits, that it's hard to predict the future accurately and that some aspects of climate change are more certain than others.

I'm not really sure who he's arguing with.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Nobody has ever claimed that climate change science is settled. Koonin says climate change has occured and humans played a part in that. He also says computer models have limits, that it's hard to predict the future accurately and that some aspects of climate change are more certain than others.

I'm not really sure who he's arguing with.

And went on to say

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

[Dakine10 5,452]

And went on to say

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

2% of the greenhouse effect is just under 1 degree celcius, so that is also in line with the concensus.

[GandD 5,966]

We know CO2 is causing the planet to heat up which is leading to the melting of the poles and rising of the ocean. We KNOW this. However, there's lots of theories on what may happen next. There's lots of good reading on the North Atlantic Current of the Gulf Stream. Its heavily responsible for England and Europe's warmer temperatures. What I mean is, look at the longitudinal coordinates for London then compare it to the same Longitudinal line in Russia or Canada. Much much colder. With the changing of the dynamic of water temperature as a result of global temperature, this "water highway" could shut down and stop the flow of warmer water to England. Which could lead to a cooler Europe. This is just one example of many many many many things that are studied and talked about by real scientists. None of them discuss last nights temperature. The last decades, perhaps.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Interesting study out of Germany on a group of trees that has been studied since 1870. Starting in 1960 the trees started growing faster (adding more biomass - sucking more carbon out of the air). They only had very accurate measures starting in 1960 but since then the trees have grown as much as 77% faster than they did in the past. More Carbon Dioxide in the air? plants grow faster and clean the air.

It is amazing the balancing the planet can do and even handle the occasional spikes and clean the air. One thing we are going to get out of this is we will know exactly what the limits are of the natural balancing of the planet as we overwhelm it and push secondary effects into play. Aliens motoring the planet will probably learn a lot and it will be a very interesting read somewhere.

Edit: should put a link http://www.tum.de/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/short/article/31796/

Edited September 23, 2014 by OnMyWayID