“The Associated Press carried a very good news report on the Santa Fe Conference on “Global Warming and the Next Ice Age” (see).
I want to make a comment in response to a quote by Chick Keller. The news article reported,
âChick Keller, a retired Los Alamos lab climate modeler, said the scientists invited to the conference are honest scientists raising serious questions. But, he said, while the questions are legitimate, they are not sufficient to undermine the vast evidence for greenhouse gas-caused global warming. âThe trouble with the Chyleks and the Pielkes and to some extent Christy is theyâre nitpickers,â Keller said in an interview. âYou can always find something wrong.ââ?
What Dr. Keller refers to as ânitpickingâ? is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. Our research has investigated several major hypotheses that Dr. Keller dismisses without even commenting on. Apparently, Dr. Keller wants to trivialize by using the dismissive term “nitpicking” in order to avoid discussing the actual issues that remain unresolved in climate science.
I list several hypotheses here, that warrant a response from Chick Keller:
1. As was evaluated in the weblog of April 27 2006 âWhat Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2?â?;
Hypothesis-The human contribution to global warming up to the present from the radiative effect of added CO2 is estimated as at most 28 %.
2. As documented in Willis et al 2004, and discussed on the Climate Science weblog (e.g. see âComments on the Jim Hansen âsuper-El NiÃ±o Predictionâ?).;
Hypothesis-Most global warming has been in the Southern Hemisphere midlatitude oceans and north Atlantic.
3. As documented in Pielke and Matsui 2005 , and discussed on the Climate Science website (e.g. Why there is a Warm Bias in the Existing Analyses of the Global Average Surface Temperature) there is an amplified temperature increase in near surface air temperatures on light wind nights which is significantly larger than a temperature increase higher in the surface air;
Hypothesis-Thus there is a widespread warm bias in the use of minimum surface air temperatures as the assessment of global warming.
“Are Multi-Decadal Global Climate Simulations Hypotheses? Have They Been Tested, and, If So, Have the Hypotheses As Represented By the Models, Been Falsified?”
has already been discussed on the Climate Science weblog (see). It was concluded that,
“The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skillfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive. ”
This hardly appears to be “nitpicking”!
I also refer Dr. Keller to the eight summary bullets that headline the Climate Science weblog, each of which can be posed as a hypothesis, and involve major issues in climate variability and change.
I look forward to seeing Chick Keller’s papers (or his referral to peer reviewed papers) which contradict these conclusions. Chick has been invited to write a guest weblog on the Climate Science weblog in response to my reply to his quote.