comments

From skeptic to believer? Climate change turnabout stirs debate

Auburn area in for another La Nina, National Weather Service predicts
By: AP and Gus Thomson, Auburn Journal
-A +A
A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly. The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists. Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades. What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study. One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions. Colfax resident Gini Rapini, a leader with the Norcal Tea Party Patriots, said Monday that it would be “a stretch” to link local or national tea party organizations to the Koch Foundation – or link tea party members to one side or the other in the global warming debate. “People have donated to the Obama campaign as well as to the McCain campaign,” she said. “I’m not aware of them donating to the Tea Party and if they did, so what?” Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis. "The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias." Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before. Eric Eisenhammer, founder of Roseville’s Coalition of Energy Users, said that most people are on the sidelines in an academic debate that no longer has anyone predicting giant tidal waves. Instead, the debate has time to work itself out as advances are made in renewable energy and cleaner-burning of traditional fuels, Eisenhammer said. “There are a lot of examples of scientists changing sides the other way,” he said. “To me, it’s not a big deal.” There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be. Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels. "Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is. On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists. "Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things." Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now." And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures. The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice." The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism. Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too. Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn. "After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change." Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it." On a sunny, warm day in Auburn on Monday, the reaction to Muller’s surprise about-face was also muted. Al Hendrix, 76, said he was more concerned with the weather in the eastern U.S. that was causing problems for millions. “They’re really hurting,” Hendrix said. “We can count our blessings when we live in an area with such a good climate. I’m not an expert but I do listen to the pros and cons.” While the scientific world continues to warn about warming, Auburn won’t be feeling a big change again this winter, according to National Weather Service projections. Kathy Hoxsie, meteorologist at the Sacramento weather bureau office, said the area will be in for a second La Nina event this winter. A warm and wet autumn will be followed with temperatures cooler than normal in December, January and February, continuing wet, the weather service is forecasting. Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said. Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer — frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email. In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins. Climate change in the Sierra - By 2050, the Sierra snowpack is projected to decline by about 25 to 40 percent - Toward the end of the century, the snowpack decline could be between 30 and 70 percent - The ski season could be shortened by seven to 15 weeks by the end of the century - The average annual temperature in California is expected to rise to 69 degrees from today’s 59 degrees by 2100 - Increased temperatures are expected to cause increased wildfire danger throughout the state, with potential increases of up to 50 percent by the end of the century - During the past century, sea levels have risen seven inches on the coast and are expected to rise 22 to 35 inches in the next century – Sierra Nevada Conservancy statistics from sources that include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Climate Change Center