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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree that it’s a good summary of the international scientific literature. It could also have been written by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. It does a good job of defusing some of the “skeptic points” such as pointing out that changes in the earlth’s atmospheric CO2 are entirely caused by humans even though carbon cycling in the biosphere is greater than human releases of CO2.
Alec Rawls says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
Full cover-up mode. Radical fraud.
Business as usual then.
Theo Goodwin says “…the outcome can only be a righteous and holy war to stop them. /sarc off”
Careful where you’re pointing that sarc, Theo … 8-|
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:30 am
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.”
I refer you back to your own chart to note that it does appear that the Group and Wolf sunspot numbers were higher in the 1900’s relative to the 1800’s and 1700’s in your chart. A visual comparison, only, as there are no x or y coordinate lines within the body of your chart. The three time periods are only similar when compared to the 1600’s, a poor comparison to consider, at best. If you are using totals for each, or some other measure, please give them as I could not find such in your paper. I saw no trend line nor r squared value for a trend on these values.
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs.pdf
KR could not answer my point above, so he changed the subject.
I posted a chart that was too short for KR, so here is one that goes back to the 1800’s. Notice that the long term trend has not changed between a time when CO2 was around 280 ppmv, and today’s 394 ppmv.
That indicates two things:
a) global warming is a natural event, and
b) CO2 is not the cause
CO2 may have some minor effect, but it is too small to measure. Thus, the rise in CO2 is the result of natural global warming, not the cause.
Steve C says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Theo Goodwin says “…the outcome can only be a righteous and holy war to stop them. /sarc off”
“Careful where you’re pointing that sarc, Theo … 8-|”
LOL: Really very funny. It is darn difficult to make a joke about political correctness within the framework of PC. My hat is off to you.
Declaration, the knew science.
Who knew ?
Jim G says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Alec Rawls says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
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.”
I saw no trend line nor r squared value for a trend on these values.
Nor could you find any in Alec’s comment.
Perhaps, one way of comparing is to list the maximum sunspot number for the two highest cycles in each century:
1778 185
1788 157
1837 166
1848 150
1957 190
1989 158
Smokey – August 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm
You’re posting that distorted graph again? As per our previous conversation:
– The upper/lower boundary lines ( scaled by 10^-5 to be flat) only appear to be there to distort the graph.
– You’ve _detrended_ (ie, modified!!!) the GISTEMP data.
– The above/below lines appear to be drawn by “eyecrometer”; you’ve certainly presented no statistical basis for them.
Without the stretch lines, or the eye-crometer bounds to visually reduce apparent trends, or the spurious detrending of GISTEMP, starting from 1880 which is the common period between HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP, you see this. Both with trends of ~0.06 C/decade over that span, about 1/3 the trend of the last 30 years.
Smokey says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm
KR could not answer my point above, so he changed the subject.
I posted a chart that was too short for KR, so here is one that goes back to the 1800′s.
——————–
Typical Smokey! The graph does not say what you claim. The data touches the top of the envelope at both ends. It touches the bottom in the middle. That is because the trend is increasing. A parabolic fit would be better. But you knew that, Smokey, as it has been pointed out to you many times before..
“Seems almost a planned effort this week, Sea Ice, Iasaac, and now the AMS statement.”
– If you believe the AMS (or any other organisation) is responsible for more than one out of those three, you might need to be examined by a head doctor! Also, be careful about deciding which one WAS a planned effort. Hint: not the first two 😉
Are Sea Ice and Tropical Storm Isaac somehow conspiring against you? What a bizarre statement.
Solar activity has risen a bit since the 1750’s, but since 1950 (when temperatures have risen) solar activity has been decreasing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Perhaps, one way of comparing is to list the maximum sunspot number for the two highest cycles in each century
I forgot the cycle with max in 1870. The correct list should be:
1778 185
1788 157
1837 166
1870 167
1957 190
1989 158
Smokey says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm
“KR could not answer my point above, so he changed the subject.
I posted a chart that was too short for KR, so here is one that goes back to the 1800′s. Notice that the long term trend has not changed between a time when CO2 was around 280 ppmv, and today’s 394 ppmv.
That indicates two things:
a) global warming is a natural event, and
b) CO2 is not the cause
CO2 may have some minor effect, but it is too small to measure. Thus, the rise in CO2 is the result of natural global warming, not the cause.”
We have had 12000 years of interglacial warming, makes sense that CO2 would be on the rise, perhaps precipitously, at this point in the interglacial warming. Ice core charts show the lag between temperature and corresponding CO2 increase which the AGW crowd attempts to explain away. Present day temps are not showing corresponding increases relative to the present day CO2 increases. At least 10 years of lack of temp increase in the face of CO2’s major increases. Data on surface temps is suspect given poor siting and UHI phenomina (data buggering?). So, why are you so skeptical/(humor)? (Bob told me last corrspondence with him to start puting in the humor/sarc labels as apparently my humor is not always apparent. God rest his soul.)
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:07 pm
==============
Was it variablity, or forcing ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm
“Perhaps, one way of comparing is to list the maximum sunspot number for the two highest cycles in each century
I forgot the cycle with max in 1870. The correct list should be:
1778 185
1788 157
1837 166
1870 167
1957 190
1989 158”
Thank you, is there total by century? The total of the above two highest cycles would put the 20th century higher than the 18th or 19th, but not by much.
u.k.(us) says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Was it variablity, or forcing ?
don’t know what you mean. The numbers were the maximum sunspot number in those years, so i guess ‘forcing’.
Jim G says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
Thank you, is there total by century? The total of the above two highest cycles would put the 20th century higher than the 18th or 19th, but not by much.
Total by century is difficult because the data before 1749 are very uncertain. If you compute R-squared for the trend using each year from 1749 to 2012, it comes to 0.0046, thus no significant trend.
KR says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Solar activity has risen a bit since the 1750′s
Your graph is skewed by suing the SIDC numbers which after ~1945 are too high by some 20%
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction%20of%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf
but you are correct in stating that solar activity has been decreasing for some time.
KR,
You would win the Joel D. Shore Award for 2012, but Entropic beat you by a nose. ☹
I can post plenty of charts like this one, but will they have any effect on your true belief? Probably not.
The wild-eyed alarmist arm-waving over this is ridiculous. Global temperatures have risen and fallen by tens of degrees within a decade or two during the geologic past. Now that is scary! But the very *mild* [and natural] global warming since the LIA? Not so much.
Here’s an offer for all the true-believers that maintain that GISSTEMP and the other so-called global temperature data sets are valid.
Let’s use the identical statistical and data adjustment techniques to design and build nuclear power plants, chlorine manufacturing plants, and oil refineries. You true believers will of course agree to live next to these, and downwind.
No problem, right?
Let me know…
I hate being a conspiracy theorists but recently I have noticed that the geoengineering projects started around 97-98. These projects are from the same folks that are telling me that the sky is falling. With trillions in carbon trading (ENRON), tax base for every NATO/UN country, and the shift of power that could take place, why wouldnt they force it in their favor. Much like Hanson does. What if the aluminum and barium in the atmosphere were actually heating up causing the lower atmosphere to heat up? They started the geoengineering projects in 97-98. Heating started in 98 (according to the climatologists). Has anyone ever mapped the hot spots to the geoengineering locations? Why doesnt the AMS comment on that? There are several youtube videos about the hot chicago while the weather woman stands in front of the green screen of the city with stripes in the sky. Just sayin.
@ur momisugly Dr. Leif Svalgaard on August 27, 2012 at 11:16 am
“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.”
——————
Dr. Svalgaard
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm
u.k.(us) says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Was it variablity, or forcing ?
don’t know what you mean. The numbers were the maximum sunspot number in those years, so i guess ‘forcing’.
=================
Just checking for intelligent life, thanks, as always.
I’ll try harder in the future 🙂
The AMS Information Statements do not represent the opinions of the members of the AMS.
There are 14,000 members of the AMS, but the AMS Information Statements are drafted and approved by only 27 to 31 individuals. There is no procedure of approving the statement by all the members of the AMS.
According to “Guidelines for Statements of the American Meteorological Society” (http://ametsoc.org/policy/statementpolicy.pdf) it goes like that:
“AMS has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals (in government, the private sector and academia), students and weather enthusiasts.
…The basic steps leading to completion of a statement of the AMS are as follows: initiation, appointment of a drafting committee, drafting of the statement by the drafting committee, review, revision, and AMS Council approval.
…In all cases, the membership of the drafting committee includes at least one member of the AMS Council.
Information Statements are initiated by the Executive Committee or Council, possibly as a result of suggestions from other AMS officials, AMS members or external requests. A drafting committee of six to ten individuals is appointed by the Council and includes:
– At least one chair (or chair’s designee) of an AMS Board or Committee. The Board or Committee is selected by the relevant AMS Commissioner for its disciplinary expertise;
– At least one Council member;
– Three to eight other subject-matter experts, at least three of whom are AMS members.
Before the membership of the drafting committee is finalized, MS members are notified that the statement is being undertaken so that individuals may volunteer to participate.”
The Council consists of 21 individuals, they appoint the drafting committee and approve the draft.
The 14,000 members of the AMS have nothing to do with the statement.
Dr Svalgaard, it seems to me more than a bit premature to announce the failure of a prediction that lies 2 or 3 years in the future.
Why not wait until his prediction time arrives, and see how the sunspot cycle happened, see how the sun’s magnetic field has changed, see if more GCRs impact Earth, see if cloudiness has increased measurably, and most importantly, see if ambient temperatures are warmer, the same, or much colder.
I’m hoping the catastrophic cooling prediction is completely wrong. But, to me, it makes far more sense than arbitrary and capricious atmospheric CO2 that cools some locations, ignores others, and warms yet others.