NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

[CrONoS]

I don't remember a thread about it.

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

The following are excerpts from Griffin's conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:

It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?

I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.

Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it's worth studying, but you're not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy?

Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.

and

NASA Scientist Critiques Bush's Strategy

A NASA scientist says he welcomed President Bush's announcement Thursday of a new strategy on climate change.

Jim Hansen, a climate change expert at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says we must work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or face some dire consequences.

"Time is really running out," Hansen says. "If we don't begin to make some changes in our emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get some really large climate changes."

Hansen also takes issue with NASA administrator Michael Griffin's views on global warming during an interview with Madeleine Brand. Griffin told NPR's Morning Edition that he isn't sure global warming is a problem we must tackle, a view Hansen says is "remarkably uninformed."

[lord of the mark]

A really big scientist doesnt challenge the key science of global warming.

He does challenge the cost benefit analysis of changing climate. But then hes not an economist, not an expert in agriculture, etc.


Yawn.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Griffin's been on record before about this and was essentially pilloried for it

NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he’d stayed out of debate on climate effects

In a video obtained by AP, NASA administrator Michael Griffin says the debate over climate change "has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."
By Alicia Chang
Updated: 10:17 p.m. ET June 5, 2007

LOS ANGELES - The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.

“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his remarks ignorant.

An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and trigger heat waves, devastating droughts and super storms.

Observations by NASA satellites show evidence of rapidly melting glaciers and shrinking of critical marine plant life due to warmer seas.

Griffin reiterated that NASA’s job was to provide scientific data on global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do with it.

Griffin told JPL workers he tried to separate his opinions during the NPR interview, but that it got “lost in the shuffle.”

“Doing media interviews is an art. Their goal is usually to generate controversy because it sells interviews and papers, and my goal is usually to avoid controversy,” he said.

Hansen OTOH has been crying the blues about lack of exposure on the issue (censorship as he put it) despite the fact that he alone has done well over 1400 interview/job related references per year on the topic of global warming.

But he tends to only wish to present one side as evidenced by his choice and reasoning not to attend a 2006 House review on the state of science of Climate prediction. (censorship perhaps but self imposed)

A chronic illness only partly explains why James Hansen decided to skip the House Government Reform Committee's on global warming in seven years. The embattled NASA scientist also passed on yesterday's event because lawmakers are "still in denial" about the reasons for dramatic changes in the Earth's climate, he said last night in an e-mail.

In the message Hansen sent to reporters to explain his absence from yesterday's hearing, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies said he had a conflicting doctor appointment to deal with a cold that interacts with his asthma... But he also indicated he would have adjusted his schedule if the witness list did not also include skeptical points of view.

"I would get out of my sickbed to testify to Congress on global warming, if they were ready to deal responsibly with the matter," Hansen wrote. "But obviously they are still in denial, inviting contrarians to 'balance' the science of global warming."

Hansen apparently was objecting to the House panel's late addition of John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In his testimony yesterday, Christy told lawmakers that scientists "cannot reliably project the trajectory of the climate" for large regions of the United States.

Christy also said it would be a "far more difficult task" to predict the effects should the United States adopt a mandatory greenhouse gas policy.

Hansen's e-mail said skeptical points of view cloud the climate debate rather than enlighten it. "The function of the contrarians is to obfuscate what is known, so as to keep the public confused and allow special interests to continue to reap short-term profits, to the detriment of the long-term economic well-being of the nation," he said.

Hansen said Congress should direct the National Academy of Sciences to update its 2001 report to President Bush on the state of the science surrounding global warming. "Until then, it is just a charade," he wrote...

[Flubber]

The NASA chief sounds sensible at least in the exerpted bits above. His point of view is reasoned and practical, acknowledging both human impacts on climate and the FACT that climate does change even in the complete absence of humanity.

The hansen guy sounds like a bit of a case. He won't testify because othes that don't agree with him will testify?? WTF is that ?? If he has good science, he should be able to refute his opponents.

And Congress? Are they just supposed to listen to people that agree with each other? Leaving aside the particular topic, isn't it best if you are studying things, to listen to even some minority or opposing views. You don't need to give every wignut a voice but from what I read, very little seems truly "settled' when it comes to our understanding of climate

[rah]

Yeah, I thought he sounded sensible even if he might be a touch naive, and I hate to see him have to back off his statements because of people that don't want to have that type of discussion. "Oh he must be wrong because he won't come out and say a diaster is in the making"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber
The NASA chief sounds sensible at least in the exerpted bits above. His point of view is reasoned and practical, acknowledging both human impacts on climate and the FACT that climate does change even in the complete absence of humanity.

The hansen guy sounds like a bit of a case. He won't testify because othes that don't agree with him will testify?? WTF is that ?? If he has good science, he should be able to refute his opponents.

And Congress? Are they just supposed to listen to people that agree with each other? Leaving aside the particular topic, isn't it best if you are studying things, to listen to even some minority or opposing views. You don't need to give every wignut a voice but from what I read, very little seems truly "settled' when it comes to our understanding of climate

What balance is the committee presenting. 10 scientists who affirm that human made global warming is real, even while disagreeing about its extent, prospects, and impacts, against one skeptic? Or one scientist who affirms the consensus, versus one skeptic? Are they attempting to create the impression that no consensus exists? I think its perfectly reasonable of Hansen to make his own call on that.

You can keep debating the germ theory of disease, or you can move on and ask if what the cost benefit is for selected public health measures.

Similarly at some point, we have to accept the position that manmade global warming exists IS the consensus of mainstream science, despite a handful who disagree, and address the very serious questions of how difficult or easy it will be to adapt to warming, and how costly the best approaches to slowing warming will be.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
Yeah, I thought he sounded sensible even if he might be a touch naive, and I hate to see him have to back off his statements because of people that don't want to have that type of discussion. "Oh he must be wrong because he won't come out and say a diaster is in the making"

His dissent does not even seem to about the extent of warming but about the impact. He seems to be saying that folks worried about warming are privileging the past climate. Its more my sense that they are concerned about the impacts of climate change, from agriculture, to health, to coastal land use.

[lord of the mark]

"Hansen said Congress should direct the National Academy of Sciences to update its 2001 report to President Bush on the state of the science surrounding global warming. "Until then, it is just a charade," he wrote... "

this seems reasonable, if they really feel that the state of science is not known.

[lord of the mark]

"Griffin reiterated that NASA’s job was to provide scientific data on global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do with it."

Precisely.

[rah]

Hmmm

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Similarly at some point, we have to accept the position that manmade global warming exists IS the consensus of mainstream science, despite a handful who disagree, and address the very serious questions of how difficult or easy it will be to adapt to warming, and how costly the best approaches to slowing warming will be.

I didn't see anyone in this thread denying that global warming exists.
I see someone asking is it best to slow it. It seems no one want to discuss that openly. It's happening and that makes it automatically bad. It may be, but I am far from convinced of that and the people that assume that without questioning it scare me. They're just as stuborn as the people that claim it doesn't exist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
Hmmm



I didn't see anyone in this thread denying that global warming exists.
I see someone asking is it best to slow it. It seems no one want to discuss that openly. It's happening and that makes it automatically bad. It may be, but I am far from convinced of that and the people that assume that without questioning it scare me. They're just as stuborn as the people that claim it doesn't exist.

I see people criticizing Hansen for not wanting to testify before a committee that is also calling a MMGW denier.


In fact the IPCC discusses at some lengths the costs, possible offsetting benefits, and current data gaps (which are considerable)

I think thats a worthwhile discussion to have, Im just not sure that the head of NASA is particularly qualified to answer it. Certainly not in the terms that he is quoted as using.

I also dont think its wise to defer taking the first steps to deal with it until all the data gaps are settled.

[lord of the mark]

"[edit] Working Group II (WGII): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
The summary for policymakers for the Working Group II [2] report was released on April 6, 2007.[12]

U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, according to Patricia Romero Lankao, a lead author from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." The second sentence does not appear in the final version of the report.[13]

China objected to wording that said "based on observed evidence, there is very high confidence that many natural systems, on all continents and in most oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." When China asked that the word "very" be stricken, three scientific authors balked, and the deadlock was broken only by a compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.[13]"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Rah speaks truth. If anything Hansen's hissy fit resulted from true statements of Dr. Christy indicating we ""cannot reliably project the trajectory of the climate". He didn't state anything wrt to Global warming anthropogenic causes or otherwise merely that the science of prediction is rather meager at best.

This apparently was enough to set him off the deep end.

[lord of the mark]

Heres a 23 page SUMMARY of recent work on impacts

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

There is a tremendous range of impacts, on wide variety of weather, earth science, and biological systems. We are only now getting a handle on what those detailed impacts are, let alone adequately costing out their meaning to humans (positive or negative)

I can take all the pills in medecine cabinet at once - it COULD be a good thing. But its wise to slow down such a process until I know whats going on.

I could tax everyone till we have exactly equal incomes, and nationalize all industries and give to everyone accoring to their needs. It MIGHT work out well.

Its generally wise to be cautious about major changes. We've only got one planet to gamble with.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Rah speaks truth. If anything Hansen's hissy fit resulted from true statements of Dr. Christy indicating we ""cannot reliably project the trajectory of the climate". He didn't state anything wrt to Global warming anthropogenic causes or otherwise merely that the science of prediction is rather meager at best.

This apparently was enough to set him off the deep end.

Its uncontroversial that we dont know how much warming there will be. He presumably judged, based on his familiarity with Christys past statements, and how theyve been used by politicians and lobbyists, that his statement would be used to indicated that we cant even know that global warming will continue, which is against the scientific consensus, IIUC. Within certain parameters, we CAN project the trajectory of the climate.