Comments on: Climate Science and Politics, but not IPCC http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3397 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: bubba http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3397&cpage=1#comment-903 bubba Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:39:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3397#comment-903 ...while I'll applaud Dr. Overpeck's omission of his IPCC ties, I still find it somewhat startling that he is tieing the current drought, even indirectly, to global warming. A casual reader, unversed in the climatology of the desert southwest, after reading Overpeck's comments in the WAPO article would easily come away with the impression that the current drought is somehow linked to global warming and this is the beginning of AGW climate change in Arizona (my girlfriend, a former resident of New Mexico, certainly did). Being familiar with Mantua's research I kinda rolled my eyes and chalked it up to sloppy editing. Especially after following your link to Overpeck's report from last year. It very clearly denotes that "(t)here is no persistent long-term upward or downward trend in precipitation during the last century." So how can he now credibly infer "current drought and weather disruptions signal what is to come over the next century"? I should think a clarification is in order. …while I’ll applaud Dr. Overpeck’s omission of his IPCC ties, I still find it somewhat startling that he is tieing the current drought, even indirectly, to global warming.

A casual reader, unversed in the climatology of the desert southwest, after reading Overpeck’s comments in the WAPO article would easily come away with the impression that the current drought is somehow linked to global warming and this is the beginning of AGW climate change in Arizona (my girlfriend, a former resident of New Mexico, certainly did).

Being familiar with Mantua’s research I kinda rolled my eyes and chalked it up to sloppy editing. Especially after following your link to Overpeck’s report from last year. It very clearly denotes that “(t)here is no persistent long-term upward or downward trend in precipitation during the last century.”

So how can he now credibly infer “current drought and weather disruptions signal what is to come over the next century”?

I should think a clarification is in order.

]]>