Comments on: Consensus on Hurricanes and Global Warming http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: The Brussels Journal http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1211 The Brussels Journal Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1211 <strong>God’s Vengeance for America’s Wealth</strong> Do you remember the genuine wave of solidarity that swept across the Old Continent when the tsunami devastated six Asian countries last December? Now that the victim is the wealthy USA the scene is completely different. While private citizens have contrib God’s Vengeance for America’s Wealth

Do you remember the genuine wave of solidarity that swept across the Old Continent when the tsunami devastated six Asian countries last December? Now that the victim is the wealthy USA the scene is completely different. While private citizens have contrib

]]> By: The Commons Blog http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1210 The Commons Blog Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:36:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1210 <strong>RFK Jr. on Katrina</strong> It was only a matter of time, but RFK Jr. blames Republican opposition to the Kyoto Protocol for the destructiveness of Hurricane Katrina. Declaring that "the science is clear" Kennedy writes:Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap... RFK Jr. on Katrina

It was only a matter of time, but RFK Jr. blames Republican opposition to the Kyoto Protocol for the destructiveness of Hurricane Katrina. Declaring that “the science is clear” Kennedy writes:Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap…

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1209 Eli Rabett Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:31:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1209 Joel, out of curiousity, how did Trenberth's give offense? Joel, out of curiousity, how did Trenberth’s give offense?

]]> By: Joel Shore http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1208 Joel Shore Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:54:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1208 Your assumption here seems to be that Trenberth is the one who is completely responsible for any misunderstanding that occurred between him and Landsea. Perhaps this is understandable given, as you note, that Landsea is a close collaborator of yours. However, you really haven't provided the evidence here to support this claim. I must admit that I never actually saw Trenberth's press conference or a transcript of it, but after reading the correspondence between Landsea and the IPCC folks, it seemed to me that Landsea really flew off the handle and interpretted what Trenberth had said in the least charitable way...And, then wanted the IPCC to step in and act as a sort of world policeman of climate scientists in a very overbearing way. If any sort of apology is in order, it seems like it ought to be a mutual one by all parties. And, as for inviting Landsea back in the IPCC fold, I don't think the IPCC ever kicked him out or even implied that he was not welcome. It was his decision to resign from the IPCC and I assume that they would be just tickled to have him back if he chooses to come back. Your assumption here seems to be that Trenberth is the one who is completely responsible for any misunderstanding that occurred between him and Landsea. Perhaps this is understandable given, as you note, that Landsea is a close collaborator of yours. However, you really haven’t provided the evidence here to support this claim.

I must admit that I never actually saw Trenberth’s press conference or a transcript of it, but after reading the correspondence between Landsea and the IPCC folks, it seemed to me that Landsea really flew off the handle and interpretted what Trenberth had said in the least charitable way…And, then wanted the IPCC to step in and act as a sort of world policeman of climate scientists in a very overbearing way.

If any sort of apology is in order, it seems like it ought to be a mutual one by all parties. And, as for inviting Landsea back in the IPCC fold, I don’t think the IPCC ever kicked him out or even implied that he was not welcome. It was his decision to resign from the IPCC and I assume that they would be just tickled to have him back if he chooses to come back.

]]> By: Harold Brooks http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1207 Harold Brooks Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:54:01 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1207 I don't see how the Trenberth paper is relevant to whether Landsea's actions were justified. It seemed to me that Chris's actions were based on his view that "the part of the IPCC to which (his) expertise is relevant (had) become politicized." I don't see how the Trenberth publication changes that. Either the process is still politicized or it wasn't then. To me, the threat was that the writing of the relevant portions of the AR IV would be influenced by that politicization. To me, that led to two choices of actions for Chris: 1) Resign because he didn't want to participate in the process, risking that the politicization would change the content of the document. 2) Continue to participate and, if the lead authors of the chapter changed the meaning of Chris's contribution, raise a ruckus. Chris chose 1. I don't think I agree with that strategy, but I respect the decision. My preference would be to go through the roof if the editorial process tried to change the text. I participated in the TAR on the severe thunderstorm/tornado part and was concerned that my "we can't tell if anything's happened and have no basis to tell if anything will" tone would get changed. It didn't. I don't know if I'll end up getting asked to contribute anything this time, but I intend to follow the same path as I did last time. I don’t see how the Trenberth paper is relevant to whether Landsea’s actions were justified. It seemed to me that Chris’s actions were based on his view that “the part of the IPCC to which (his) expertise is relevant (had) become politicized.” I don’t see how the Trenberth publication changes that. Either the process is still politicized or it wasn’t then. To me, the threat was that the writing of the relevant portions of the AR IV would be influenced by that politicization. To me, that led to two choices of actions for Chris:

1) Resign because he didn’t want to participate in the process, risking that the politicization would change the content of the document.

2) Continue to participate and, if the lead authors of the chapter changed the meaning of Chris’s contribution, raise a ruckus.

Chris chose 1. I don’t think I agree with that strategy, but I respect the decision. My preference would be to go through the roof if the editorial process tried to change the text. I participated in the TAR on the severe thunderstorm/tornado part and was concerned that my “we can’t tell if anything’s happened and have no basis to tell if anything will” tone would get changed. It didn’t. I don’t know if I’ll end up getting asked to contribute anything this time, but I intend to follow the same path as I did last time.

]]> By: From Far Away http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1206 From Far Away Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:52:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1206 Om The Imside- Thanks for your comment. Everything that you write is completely consistent with our BAMS paper. Thanks! Om The Imside-

Thanks for your comment. Everything that you write is completely consistent with our BAMS paper. Thanks!

]]> By: OnTheInside http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3502&cpage=1#comment-1205 OnTheInside Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:12:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3502#comment-1205 Roger-- Not sure Trenberth's paper implies what you think. While he clearly states you can't link hurricane tracks/frequency with warming, he links intensity with warming. And I think that's what he was doing when made the remarks about the '04 Florida hurricanes. If I'm interpreting/remembering his press conference comments correctly, he was saying that one could not rule out the fact warming had some influence on the storms that formed. By this, I think he meant that human induced warming may have had some role in contributing to a favorable background environment (e.g. elevated SSTs) which, at least theoretically, could influence intensity (i.e. rain/wind). And in no way does he back down from that line of reasoning in the Science paper. Roger– Not sure Trenberth’s paper implies what you think. While he clearly states you can’t link hurricane tracks/frequency with warming, he links intensity with warming. And I think that’s what he was doing when made the remarks about the ‘04 Florida hurricanes. If I’m interpreting/remembering his press conference comments correctly, he was saying that one could not rule out the fact warming had some influence on the storms that formed. By this, I think he meant that human induced warming may have had some role in contributing to a favorable background environment (e.g. elevated SSTs) which, at least theoretically, could influence intensity (i.e. rain/wind).

And in no way does he back down from that line of reasoning in the Science paper.

]]>