UNITED STATES
Dr. George T. Wolff is a Principal Scientist with General Motors’ Public Policy Center. He has a B.S in Chemical Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology, a M.S. in Meteorology from New York University, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences from Rutgers University.
“As an atmospheric scientist for over thirty years, engaged in studying and seeking solutions to environmental problems, I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science. For too many in the field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained. The basis for the crisis-level global warming concerns are climate models (and their predictions) that are not validated and poorly reproduce the observed hydrological cycle. In addition, the surface temperature networks are contaminated by urban and other land-use influences. T hese facts alone should be reason for skepticism.
However, many additional reasons exist. There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere. Historical accounts and paleoclimatological evidence tell us that it has been significantly warmer and significantly colder in the past. Moreover, in the past, temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 concentrations, which imply that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not visa versa. Furthermore, statistical relationships between solar activity proxies and climate hint at a controlling relationship with the sun even though observed solar variability alone is insufficient to explain all of the variation in temperature. It is unconscionable that solar and other natural phenomena, such as the oceanic oscillations, are not included in the dialogue as we pursue explanations for the recent warm temperatures and a more recent apparent cooling trend,”
More...
Dr. George T. Wolff is a Principal Scientist with General Motors’ Public Policy Center. He has a B.S in Chemical Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology, a M.S. in Meteorology from New York University, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences from Rutgers University.
“As an atmospheric scientist for over thirty years, engaged in studying and seeking solutions to environmental problems, I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science. For too many in the field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained. The basis for the crisis-level global warming concerns are climate models (and their predictions) that are not validated and poorly reproduce the observed hydrological cycle. In addition, the surface temperature networks are contaminated by urban and other land-use influences. T hese facts alone should be reason for skepticism.
However, many additional reasons exist. There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere. Historical accounts and paleoclimatological evidence tell us that it has been significantly warmer and significantly colder in the past. Moreover, in the past, temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 concentrations, which imply that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not visa versa. Furthermore, statistical relationships between solar activity proxies and climate hint at a controlling relationship with the sun even though observed solar variability alone is insufficient to explain all of the variation in temperature. It is unconscionable that solar and other natural phenomena, such as the oceanic oscillations, are not included in the dialogue as we pursue explanations for the recent warm temperatures and a more recent apparent cooling trend,”
More...
No comments:
Post a Comment