New AMS statement on Climate Change

Seems almost a planned effort this week, Sea Ice, Iasaac, and now the AMS statement.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

  617-227-2426 ext. 3901   August 27, 2012    kseitter@ametsoc.org

American Meteorological Society Releases Revised Climate Change Statement

August 27, 2012 –The American Meteorological Society today released an updated Statement on Climate Change, replacing the 2007 version that was in effect. The informational statement is intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public. The statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed in recent decades and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the majority of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

“This statement is the result of hundreds of hours of work by many AMS members over the past year,” comments AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter. “It was a careful and thorough process with many stages of review, and one that included the opportunity for input from any AMS member before the draft was finalized.”  The AMS releases statements on a variety of scientific issues in the atmospheric and related sciences as a service to the public, policy makers, and the scientific community.

The new statement may be found on the AMS web site at:

HTML Version:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

PDF Version:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“This statement is the result of hundreds of hours of work by many AMS members over the past year”
Never in the history of the world have so many worked so much to produce so little

Dodgy Geezer

From the statement:
“..Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. ..”
I had thought that observations showed a DECREASE in water vapour. Was I wrong? I wish they had provided references….

Kaboom

Never let a potential crisis go to waste when political hay can be made.

JohnB

Dodgy,
Cloud has decreased (possibly). Water vapor has increased. Different thing.

Kitefreak

I went to the AMS link and visually scanned the document to see how much there was to read. I read one sentence in the middle of it and gave up right there:
“Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate”.
That did it for me, it’s the old “I smell sh*te” moment:

They totally missed the single most important issue: sunspots.
The sun has gone quiet, and the dramatic worldwide cooling is underway.
Dr. Abdussamatov of Russia is correct in predicting imminent global cooling.
As one wag put it, “Nature bats last.”

R. Shearer

I think it is equivocal.

gator69

What planet do THEY live on?

Bob Kutz

Hey Anthony, isn’t this ‘your’ organization? I mean, I know you don’t run it or have control over AMS, but you are a meteorologist by training, are you not? You are/were a member of AMS, no?
What’s your take on this? I notice you are holding back saying anything. That is very typical for you. Gather facts and so forth, not prone to making ‘off the cuff’ remarks that you have to take back later.
I notice at least one statement in the paper which appears to be factually untrue, and I notice not a single author’s name in the document itself.
Any comments?

rogerknights

As one wag put it, “Nature bats last.”

And laughs last.

KR

Dodgy Geezer – “I had thought that observations showed a DECREASE in water vapour. Was I wrong”
Water vapor is _increasing_ as predicted, according to the data, almost doubling the CO2 forcing (a strong positive feedback):
Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html) data directly measuring vertical column water vapor – indicates a strong water increase and radiative feedback, ~2 W/m^2/1°C.
Dai 2005 (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai_JC06-sfcHumidity.pdf): global surface relative humidity changes are quite small over 1976-2004, less than 0.6%, although there are significant regional changes. Absolute humidity is therefore _increasing_ at close to the Clausius-Claypeyron equation for constant RH, about 5%/1°C warming globally.

Gail Combs

Dodgy Geezer says: @ August 27, 2012 at 10:40 am
….I had thought that observations showed a DECREASE in water vapour. Was I wrong? I wish they had provided references….
_______________________________
No you were not wrong, but then this is not the first ERrrr, MMMuuummm, …Data manipulation we have seen from the ‘Team’
Global Relative Humidity Graph (1948 – 2008)
Atmospheric Specific Humidity at different heights above the surface from NOAA: Graph (1948 – 2012)
Cloud & Atmospheric water Graph (1983 – 2010)
Cloudiness by cloud type Graph
Change in Earth Albedo Graph (Earthshine Project) WUWT Article

Ged

@JohnB
From all the charts I can find, water vapor has been going down over the past few decades, not up. http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif for specific water vapor (g water per kg atmosphere)

beesaman

There must be a run on bandwagons!

Mailman

Bob Kutz,
Isnt it Anthony’s dog that is a member of AMS?
Mailman
REPLY: No, Union of Concerned Scientists, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
…only a valid credit card required, name of member doesn’t even have to match – Anthony

R Barker

Didn’t see any mention of Antarctica. This is global, right?

davidmhoffer

Wow. More intense storms…. except the data says otherwise. More water vapour… except the data says otherwise. Acclerating sea level rise…. except the data says otherwise.
I lost track of how many statements they made as being true that are the exact opposite of what the data shows.

Peter Miller

I thought the English and grammar was very good. The rest was a distorted interpretation of natural phenomena.
Well, you can hardly expect them to pan their pals or the contents of their pal reviewed research papers. The Global Warming Industry (GWI) must grow, or wither – maintenance of the status quo is simply not an option.
Scary statements are designed to continue the desired path of growth for the GWI.

Speaking of a concerted planned effort; National Geographic rag showed up a couple of days ago. Title story is “What’s up with the weather“.
I haven’t opened nor read one of their propaganda compilations in a long time so I don’t intend to open this one. No, I don’t subscribe; I think my late Father was subscribing for us even though he denied it. Hopefully it will lapse soon. It has been a long time since NG published real science or cutting edge photography of nature without trying for the most heartstring tugging faked shot they can.
As far as the AMS, that is a very disturbed notion of the current state of weather/climate. I wonder how they determined CAGW is unequivocably man’s fault or how they decided that the oceans are taking up heat…

Roger Sowell says:
August 27, 2012 at 10:47 am
Dr. Abdussamatov of Russia is correct in predicting imminent global cooling.
We have in an earlier thread shown that Abdussamatov’s ‘prediction’ is already falsified.

KR says:
“Absolute humidity is therefore _increasing_ at close to the Clausius-Claypeyron equation for constant RH, about 5%/1°C warming globally.”
Then where is the warming??

Steve C

“Seems almost a planned effort this week” … Oh, I dunno, I reckon they just work on the principle so well expressed by Dickens’ character Wilkins Micawber – “Something will turn up”. Sit and wait, and sooner or later … Bingo! Like buses, three turn up at once!

The AMS statement completely ignores the fact that there even IS an alternative possible explanation for recent warming: the high levels of solar activity that persisted over most of the 20th century. The only solar effect mentioned is “variation of the Sun’s energy emission,” or TSI. Full cover-up mode. Radical fraud.

Billy Liar

Reads like it was written for the them by Skeptical Science. /sarc

Ian_UK

Perhaps somebody should tell the Chinese and Indians to stop now.

davidmhoffer

I noticed one rather interesting thing about the AMS statement. They go out of their way to explain that meteorolgy is incapable of making accurate predictions more than two weeks out. Then they explain that climate science is based on completely different drivers than is weather.
Which begs the question:
If the AMS, by their own admission, have expertise that has nothing to do with climate science, how can they possibly assert that their opinions on climate science have merit?

Allen

If the left screams “statistics show” in attempts to debunk perceptions about certain things like getting tough on crime then it is fair to bring to the left-leaner’s attention how statistics put the lie to the perception about certain things like linking weather events to climate change. Unfortunately this fair-minded approach hits a barrier when the media is in the tank for the left.

Alec Rawls says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
The AMS statement completely ignores the fact that there even IS an alternative possible explanation for recent warming: the high levels of solar activity that persisted over most of the 20th century.
Solar activity was equally high during the 18th and 19th centuries.
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs.pdf

Kitefreak

Alec Rawls says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
“Full cover-up mode. Radical fraud”.
Business as usual…..

As I posted on Climate Etc. Shades of Tom Lehrer’s,The Vatican Rag
“First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect, genuflect”

RHS

Perhaps I missed the layman’s explanation on how less than 500 parts out of 1,000,000 parts (CO2+H2O2+ aerosols+anything leftout) affect the remaining 999,500 parts of the atmosphere. I certainly haven’t seen an explanation from any of the Government or alarmist figure heads.

Theo Goodwin

Key points in their paragraphs on models:
“Climate models simulate the important aspects of climate and climate change based on fundamental physical laws of motion, thermodynamics, and radiative transfer. These models report on how climate would change in response to several specific “scenarios” for future greenhouse gas emission possibilities.”
They follow Trenberth in using “radiation only” models. They realize that models are no more than scenarios. See third paragraph below for further explanation of this point. They are quite aware that their work is “a priori” and without a physical science to support it.
“A valuable demonstration of the validity of current climate models is that when they include all known natural and human-induced factors that influence the global atmosphere on a large scale, the models reproduce many important aspects of observed changes of the 20th-century climate, including (1) global, continental, and subcontinental mean and extreme temperatures, (2) Arctic sea ice extent, (3) the latitudinal distribution of precipitation, and (4) extreme precipitation frequency.”
They overlook the fact that models do not include all known natural and human-induced factors that influence the global atmosphere. That makes their statement a trivially true conditional. In other words, it has no content at all.
“Model limitations include inadequate representations of some important processes and details. For example, a typical climate model does not yet treat fully the complex dynamical, radiative, and microphysical processes involved in the evolution of a cloud or the spatially variable nature of soil moisture, or the atmospheric interactions with the biosphere. Nevertheless, in spite of these limitations, climate models have demonstrated skill in reproducing past climates, and they agree on the broad direction of future climate.”
They admit that their models are substantially incomplete. Any one of these factors could explain most temperature increase in the last 150 years. Yet they do not point out that this fact makes their earlier statement trivially true. And, as we all know, successful hindcast does not imply successful forecast or provide any evidence for it whatsoever. Successful hindcast shows only that models can be tuned to a known set of numbers.
In summary, after trumpeting the fact that they have embraced AGW totally, they reveal that their one tool for projecting future climate is the same old broken down Model T that they have yet to get up and running.

Gail Combs

KR says:
“Absolute humidity is therefore _increasing_ at close to the Clausius-Claypeyron equation for constant RH, about 5%/1°C warming globally.”
_________________________
Smokey says: @ August 27, 2012 at 11:17 am
Then where is the warming??
___________________________
Smokey, that is CHEATING!
You used raw data. You have to use value added. massaged and manipulated data. You should know that by now. It is well past the year 1984 and your re-education has still not sunk in.

So how much “greenhouse effect” can we now attribute to water vapor increase?

Eugene Watson

This entire issue is really quite simple. The IPCC was charged with the mission of determining how much climate change WAS caused (not IF IT was) by human activity – an introductory fraud since there had/has been no empirical evidence uncovered to support the hypothesis that human activity had/has any detectable impact on global climate. During the past quarter century the search for such evidence has consumed millions of hours of ‘research’ (and travel to inumerable exotic foreign spas) and billions of dollars, all to no avail.
No such evidence has been uncovered and it only takes common sense to know this – if such evidence existed we would all know about it. Algor would be shouting it from the rooftops and skimming the proceeds from carbon credits trading as a result of cap and trade legislation.
The tragic result of all of this time and money fruitlessly spent? Many useless careers have been created and prosper from the calamitous transformation of science from the search for ‘truth’ (verisimilitude) to the quest for eternal government funding of projects that never end because the projects (the search for non-existent evidence) only become more difficult requiring ever more time and money, and the luxury careers contine until a comfortable retirement. And the AMS is one of the participants and enablers in this scam. Shame!

Ron

Why was the initial point picked in the 1950s? Because there was a cold period? This looks like a bad initial-value selection. Data goes back much farther. The skew due to UHI pollution also needs to be removed from the global data since it skews an already bad ides (that there is a global average temperature that has any meaning.)

Theo Goodwin

Ian_UK says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:20 am
“Perhaps somebody should tell the Chinese and Indians to stop now.”
Clearly, if the Chinese and Indians continue in their profligate use of carbon based fuels and continue to threaten the very existence of human life on Earth and continue in their disgusting Denier Ways, then the outcome can only be a righteous and holy war to stop them. /sarc off

But this declaration is consistent with the ignore factual reality and hard science in order to use modelling and systems theory that pretends the Earth and climate are closed systems where human actions necessarily have physical or biological effects. I wrote http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/hobbling-minds-and-misrepresenting-reality-mounting-a-political-coup-from-within/ recently after I discovered that systems theory was becoming one of the dominant pushes in schools and classrooms all over the world. Literally teaching students to pretend that the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth was good science. And about to become the dominant theory in the US.
If the students mindset and perceptions of the world are being shaped by bogus and discredited political theories, you do get the result of a false sense of reality actually altering future events. Just like the schemers described in that USCGRP 2012-2021 report I wrote about that said the future primary tool for climate science would be education and the behavioral and social sciences.
This really is Lysenkoism all over again. Remember his natural science may not contradict political ideology caused massive starvation in the USSR? Haven’t we learned anything? This is just another way of getting to Paul Ehrlich’s New Mindedness. Just ignore reality until ed alters future realities is not going to end well. And it’s atrociously expensive of tax dollars to boot.
We need a non-corrupted NAS. I don’t think all the federal science agencies reporting to John Holdren is the least bit helpful to us. Probably thrilling to Ehrlich of course.

KR

Smokey“Then where is the warming??”
Ah, another exceptional but misleading graph from Smokey. I’ll leave HadCRUT3 in for the sake of argument (HadCRUT4 includes more of the Earth’s surface, and should be better data overall), drop the HadSST2 (as it’s already included in the HadCRUT global data), include 17 years rather than 15 (as per the Santer et al statistical analysis of RSS data, the _minimum_ needed to establish a trend given the variance), and you have this. Trends are 0.096 (+/- 0.12) per decade HadCRUT3, 0.068 (+/- 0.18) per decade RSS, very short and inconclusive datasets for the trends but rather indicative of rise.
See also http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/ – warming for yearly identifications of El Nino, La Nina, and neutral years all show long-term upward trends of 0.16 C/decade. The next few El Nino’s should be quite interesting.
The “no warming since 1998” (starting in a major El Nino) as in your graph is a _classic_ cherry-pick.

J Martin

Statements that purport to represent the views of a professional society’s members should be made illegal unless approved in a proper democratic vote by a 2/3 majority of their members.
One would expect that the membership of a professional society would have sufficient intellect to understand the issues and not need an (often unelected) quorum to speak on their members behalf.
Presumably they are afraid of the outcome of such a vote, they risk getting a surprise along the lines experienced by the authors of the infamous “97% of scientists” survey.

Alvin

These “reports” are all released for the RNC and DNC events. They need fresh rhetoric to back their insane policy decisions.

Theo Goodwin

davidmhoffer says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:11 am
“Wow. More intense storms…. except the data says otherwise. More water vapour… except the data says otherwise. Acclerating sea level rise…. except the data says otherwise.
I lost track of how many statements they made as being true that are the exact opposite of what the data shows.”
Yep, Kool Aid time for the AMS. However, as you point out, their claims undermine their position. Their claims about models do the same, as I explain above.

It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the majority of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. In other words full of CR@P.

P Wilson

The same old nonsense

Richard T. Fowler

Everything I need to know about this AMS statement, I found at the end:
“Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA
“DC Office: 1200 New York Ave NW, Suites 450 & 500, Washington, DC

Pamela Gray

Here is as close as I can get to what AGW theory says should be happening. The less than 500 parts is supposed to create a lot more water vapor because the 500 parts warms the atmosphere just a bit more. That bit more allows the atmosphere to hold more evaporated water from the oceans (which would mean the oceans would be cooling yes?) and land surfaces. It is water vapor that is the major source of greenhouse warming, not CO2. Given the idea that the uptick in water vapor combined with the uptick in CO2 SHOULD be warming the planet by an X amount and the current warming does not nearly approach the X amount, Trenbreth thinks the warming may be hiding deep in the oceans where we can’t see it.

Too bad the organization’s bylaws apparently permit it to take a position without a vote of the membership.

Bill Wagstick

Isn’t Meteor ology the study of ^falling stars^?

JR

Speaking of coordinated posts. The Malthusians are at it again, now joining forces with Vegans…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism

stephen richards

KR says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:00 am
Your usual crap KR.