Leading Climate Scientists Research Articles

Leading climate scientists welcome Judge’s decision on temperatures

Leading climate scientists welcome Judge’s decision on temperatures

10 Science Insights for COP27

As nations convene in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, leading climate scientists share a new report to support more effective policy.

Book Review: Pfister, C.; Wanner, H. Climate and Society in Europe: The Last Thousand Years; Haupt: Berne, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN: 978-3-258-08234-9

The book Climate and Society in Europe: The Last Thousand Years, through an appropriate interdisciplinary approach, identifies and analyses the nexus between past and present climatic variability (opening also a window on the future) but also its impact on environmental contexts, on historical events and on the becoming of European societies in the last millennium. This relevant publication is a must not only for scholars but also for any reader who is interested in the study of climate and its history and is curious to find out how much climate change has had an impact on the history of human societies in Europe. Climate and Society in Europe: The Last Thousand Years, written by two of the leading climate scientists in Europe, achieves an advanced goal through an innovative methodological approach, harmoniously managing to connect the historical climate sciences with the natural climate sciences, thus obtaining new and significant insights into both branches of knowledge. The authors paint an exhaustive picture of the relationships between climatic variability (long and short term) and historical and social aspects in Europe, producing a clear and intriguing text even for non-insiders, with an excellent iconographic apparatus and numerous in-depth inserts.

РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ УГЛЕРОДНОГО СЛЕДА В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ ИЗМЕНЕНИИ КЛИМАТА

The article calls into question the theory of the global greenhouse effect escalation attributable to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity, as well as the very ability of industry to influence the Earth’s climate. The author finds dubitable the very approach to understanding greenhouse gases and their impact on the climate reflected in the Paris Agreement. Analysis of authoritative opinions of the world’s leading climate scientists leads to the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures due to industrial production, given a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, would constitute about 0,02 degrees. This is lower than the margin of error in modern global temperature measurements.

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND SPORTS

Climate change is not the new phenomenon. The palaeo-climatic studies reveal that during the Pleistocene and Holocene periods several warm and cold periods occurred, resulted change of sea level and change in climatic processes like rise and fall of global average temperature and rainfall. The last medieval warm period was observed from 950 to 1350 AD, followed by the little Ice Age from 1400 to 1900 AD. Occurrence of these climatic changes and their impacts are considered due to natural processes that are geological and astronomical. In 1970s environmentalists and some climate scientists pointed that earth’s average temperature is rising linked with the anthropogenic causes of global warming and emission of carbon dioxide through fossil fuels. In late 1980s the problem was discussed in politics and media. To examine and monitor the global rise of temperature and its impacts due to the emission of carbon dioxide an organization of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The IPCC released several reports based upon anthropogenic causes of climate change and their impacts. According to IPCC, 2007 report on climate change during the last 100 years the earth’s average temperature has increased up to 0.6 degree Celsius and if emission of greenhouse gases particularly carbon dioxide continues to rise, global temperature will rise up to 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of 2100 AD. Similarly as a result of this threat of global warming, glaciers will disappear even from Antarctica and Arctic sea will open for navigation throughout the year. Many islands and coastal cities will submerge as a result of sea level rise. In 2004 Canadian Broadcasting T.V presented a documentary with the name “ The doomsday called off” in which leading climate scientists, astrophysicist and geophysicist presented evidences that science of global warming presented by IPCC scientists is incomplete and incorrect based upon computer models and stimulations which are deliberately exaggerated. Many climate scientists have shown disassociation with the IPCC views and speculations on the basis of its doubtful manipulated and exaggerated figures of global warming and some consider it a climate scam. Since then debate between UN pro man-made global warming scientists and anti-man-made global warming climate scientists continue.

God's Greenhouse

God's Greenhouse

Future imaginings and the battle over climate science: an interview with Michael Mann

Professor Michael Mann is one of the world’s leading climate scientists and best known for his work on historical temperature trends and hemispherical climate reconstructions, including the iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph of long-term temperature variations. As a result of his work, Professor Mann became a central target of criticism from conservative politicians, industry groups and the climate change denial industry. The following edited interview was conducted in October 2012.

The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy?

AbstractIn mid‐November 2009, emails were removed without authorization from a University of East Anglia server and posted to the internet; within 24 h an international scandal was born—alleging fraud by leading climate scientists—which almost immediately became known as climategate. Multiple investigations concluded that no fraud or scientific misconduct had occurred. Despite the exonerations, however, the email controversy has had impacts, both negative and positive. On the negative side, a small minority of the American public and a somewhat larger minority of American TV news professionals—mostly political conservatives—indicated that the controversy made them more certain that climate change is not happening, and undermined their trust in climate scientists. Conservative organizations and politicians continue to cite the controversy in justifying their opposition to government action on climate change. On the positive side, the controversy impressed upon the climate science community the need for improved communication and public engagement efforts, and many individuals and organizations have begun to address these needs. It also reminded the climate science community of the importance of transparency, data availability, and strong quality assurance procedures, stimulating many organizations to review their data management practices. Although it is too soon to gauge the lasting legacy of the controversy, if the climate science community takes it as an opportunity to improve its already high standards of scientific conduct—as well as improve its less well‐developed approach to public engagement—the long‐term prognosis is good. WIREs Clim Change 2012 doi: 10.1002/wcc.168This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Imagination and reason: rival perspectives on science

Much of the flavor of this book can be drawn from its dedication to a short list of ‘‘Scientists of Dedication and Integrity’’, which includes some of the leading climate scientists of recent years. Writing for a general readership, Powell sets out to uncover ‘‘why only half the public accept[s the] ... evidence’’ for global warming, focusing upon ‘‘deniers [who] submit climate scientists to a modern inquisition conducted not in a courtroom but on the front pages of newspapers, on right-wing radio and television, on the blogosphere, and on denier websites’’ (3). Powell, a geochemistry Ph.D. and former member of the US National Science Board, generally does a good job of explaining the fundamentals of climate science and in illuminating the institutional and ideological character of climate denialism. Although not as detailed as Oreskes and Conway’s recent Merchants of Doubt, which focused on the ‘‘template’’ for contemporary denialism provided by the Marshall Institute, Powell’s coverage of denialism is broader and more up to date. While focused upon climate science denial, Powell is also fundamentally concerned, as were Oreskes and Conway, with the broader implications of the attack on established science that climate denialism involves and its intimate association with campaigns such as that of ‘‘Creation Science’’, those against AIDs treatments, and also the effects of tobacco smoke on health. I share these concerns but am inclined to believe that the naive positivist perspective that Powell shares with much of the science community tends to nourish denialism rather than challenge it. This review elaborates this argument in light of those made by Powell. In his introduction, Powell (4) clarifies his use of the term ‘‘deniers’’.

Climate Literacy as a Foundation for Progress in Predicting and Adapting to the Climate of the Coming Decades

No Abstract available.

Book Review: “Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”

Talk of global warming is nearly inescapable these days -- but there are some who believe the concept of climate change is an elaborate hoax. Despite the input of the world's leading climate scientists, the urgings of politicians, and the outcry of many grassroots activists, many Americans continue to ignore the warning signs of severe climate shifts. How did this happen? Climate Cover-up seeks to answer this question, describing the pollsters and public faces who have crafted careful language to refute the findings of environmental scientists. Exploring the PR techniques, phony "think tanks," and funding used to pervert scientific fact, this book serves as a wake-up call to those who still wish to deny the inconvenient truth.

Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing

There is uncertainty about the response of the climate system to future trajectories of radiative forcing. To quantify this uncertainty we conducted face-to-face interviews with 14 leading climate scientists, using formal methods of expert elicitation. We structured the interviews around three scenarios of radiative forcing stabilizing at different levels. All experts ranked "cloud radiative feedbacks" as contributing most to their uncertainty about future global mean temperature change, irrespective of the specified level of radiative forcing. The experts disagreed about the relative contribution of other physical processes to their uncertainty about future temperature change. For a forcing trajectory that stabilized at 7 Wm(-2) in 2200, 13 of the 14 experts judged the probability that the climate system would undergo, or be irrevocably committed to, a "basic state change" as > or =0.5. The width and median values of the probability distributions elicited from the different experts for future global mean temperature change under the specified forcing trajectories vary considerably. Even for a moderate increase in forcing by the year 2050, the medians of the elicited distributions of temperature change relative to 2000 range from 0.8-1.8 degrees C, and some of the interquartile ranges do not overlap. Ten of the 14 experts estimated that the probability that equilibrium climate sensitivity exceeds 4.5 degrees C is > 0.17, our interpretation of the upper limit of the "likely" range given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Finally, most experts anticipated that over the next 20 years research will be able to achieve only modest reductions in their degree of uncertainty.

Climate change science and policy

This is the most comprehensive and current reference resource on climate change available today. It features forty-nine individual chapters by some of the world's leading climate scientists. Its five sections address climate change in five dimensions: ecological impacts, policy analysis, international considerations, United States considerations, and mitigation options to reduce carbon emissions. In many ways, this volume supersedes the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on (IPCC). Many important developments too recent to be treated in the 2007 IPCC documents are covered here. Overall, Climate Change Science and Policy paints a direr picture of the effects of climate change than do the IPCC reports. It reveals that climate change has progressed faster than the IPCC reports anticipated and that the outlook for the future is bleaker than the IPCC reported.

Climate cover-up: the crusade to deny global warming

Talk of global warming is nearly inescapable these days -- but there are some who believe the concept of climate change is an elaborate hoax. Despite the input of the world's leading climate scientists, the urgings of politicians, and the outcry of many grassroots activists, many Americans continue to ignore the warning signs of severe climate shifts. How did this happen? Climate Cover-up seeks to answer this question, describing the pollsters and public faces who have crafted careful language to refute the findings of environmental scientists. Exploring the PR techniques, phony think tanks, and funding used to pervert scientific fact, this book serves as a wake-up call to those who still wish to deny the inconvenient truth.

From Obscurity to Action

Why Canada must tackle the security dimensions of climate changeHumanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.1This was the consensus conclusion of the first international conference on climate change and security - held in Toronto in 1988 and attended by scientists and policymakers from about 50 countries, including Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. In the 22 years since that groundbreaking event, the climate change-security nexus has not been discussed, debated, or analyzed in any serious, sustained, or comprehensive way in Canada. Today, the security implications of climate change are obscure, almost invisible, to Canadians. This situation seems to be rooted in one or more of the following assumptions. First, the skeptics are right: climate science is imprecise and uncertain, and scientists cannot agree on the origins or consequences of a changing climate. Second, the people who are raising concerns about the possible security implications of climate change are scaremongers who lack credibility and tend to exaggerate risks and dangers. Third, climate change scenarios are not serious enough to translate into genuine security concerns for Canada. And fourth, Canada's security arrangements are adequate to handle whatever happens, and therefore it is okay to wait and see.This article explores each of these assumptions and argues that too few people and organizations in Canada are paying serious attention to how climate change will affect Canadian security interests. This inattention is puzzling, particularly because two federal government departments have produced solid, science-based studies that could serve as the basis for assessing security risks and ensuring the right security strategies, policies, capabilities, and plans are in place.Natural Resources Canada engaged hundreds of Canadian scientists in the production of From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate, while Health Canada followed with Human health in a changing climate: A Canadian assessment of vulnerabilities and adaptive capacity.2 Together, these two reports provide almost iooo pages of Canada-specific scientific analysis and projections - an extraordinary advantage that most other countries lack. Yet, paradoxically, security officials and organizations in Canada have failed to leverage this exceptionally strong foundation of scientific expertise.This article examines why the climate change-security nexus is being ignored in Canada and recommends concrete actions for assessing and tackling a myriad of potential public safety, national security, and international security implications.ASSUMPTION i: THE SKEPTICS ARE RIGHT: CLIMATE SCIENCE IS IMPRECISE AND UNCERTAIN, AND SCIENTISTS CANNOT AGREE ON THE ORIGINS ORCONSEQUENCES OF A CHANGING CLIMATE.Wrong. An unprecedented consensus now exists among the world's leading climate scientists. They agree that the climate is changing in dramatic ways, that no region of the world is untouched, and that human activity is the principal contributor to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Scientific uncertainty cannot be cited as a legitimate reason for ignoring the security implications of climate change.The current go-to document for the scientific consensus on climate change is a 2007 report issued by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).3 The IPCC concluded that changes in the global climate system during the 21st century will exceed those observed during the previous 100 years, primarily as a result of fossil fuel consumption, agricultural expansion, and other human activities. Scientific academies and societies around the world, including the Royal Society of Canada, have endorsed these conclusions.Four interrelated dimensions of climate change dominated the most recent IPCC assessment and are critical to understanding potential impacts on Canadian security interests. …

Introduction to Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response

Introduction to <i>Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response</i>

Science, media and public perception: implications for climate and health policies

International climate policy has been set back by the failure to achieve a strong and legally binding agreement at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen in December 2009. This has been compounded by the unau-thorized release of email content dating back 10 years from leading climate sci-entists, and an acknowledged error (and other alleged errors) in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), leading to widespread negative reporting of climate science.This is occurring just as the public health community has begun to pay much more attention to climate change, as evi-denced by a 2008 World Health Assembly resolution and statements by major public health associations. Given the allegations that are now being levelled at climate sci-ence, is this attention misplaced?At the most basic level, the answer is clearly no. The conclusion that climate change is happening, and is due mainly to human activities, is based on well-established physics, supported by a large and coherent body of theoretical and observational evidence. It is also endorsed by most relevant experts, i.e. more than 97% of climatologists who are actively publishing on the issue, according to a recent survey in the United States of America (USA).

The Strategic Implications of Climate Change

Climate change of the magnitude and time frames projected by the world's leading climate scientists poses fundamental questions of human security, survival and the stability of nation states. While state weakness and destabilising internal conflicts are a more likely outcome than inter-state war, climate change will be a stress multiplier for all nations and societies, especially those already at risk from ethnic and religious conflicts, economic weakness and environmental degradation. Prudence and sensible risk management suggest that policymakers need to take this issue far more seriously. And strategic planners ought to include worst-case climate-change scenarios in their contingency planning, as climate change is set to rank with terrorism, pandemic diseases and major war as one of the principle challenges to security in the twenty-first century.

The Heat Is on: The High Stakes Battle over Earth's Threatened Climate

In The Heat Is On, Ross Gelbspan exposes the deliberate campaign by oil and coal interests, teamed with conservative politicians, to confuse the public about global warming and the disruptive weather patterns that mark its initial stages. He shows how these fossil fuel proponents have supported the efforts of a small but highly vocal group of "scientific skeptics" whose statements distort the nature of scientific debate, raising doubts in the public mind about this threat which is, in fact, a matter of solid scientific consensus. Gelbspan sets the record straight with contributions from four of the world's leading climate scientists. Ironically, The Heat Is On also shows that the news about climatic change is now so bad that it may well help to save us as it brings the worldwide insurance industry, saddled with billions in unprecedented claims from weather-related damage, into the battle against fossil fuels. The book explains what this emerging alliance among the insurance industry, environmentalists, and a number of the world's most vulnerable nations must do to save the planet. Capturing both the global scope and the historical uniqueness of our dilemma, it shows that the price of inaction may extend well beyond flood-prone lowlands and drought-prone agricultural lands. One casualty could be democracy itself as nations faced with weather-related destabilization resort to totalitarian measures to control their populations.