The American Geophysical Union has just published its new Statement on Climate Change, here is the press release. Here is how they describe it:
“AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. “Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”
The AGU Statement: Here is the complete text of the statement as released, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.’s Response follows.
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.
Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”
Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.
###
==============================================================
Roger Pielke Sr response:
Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]
By Roger A. Pielke Sr.
I served on the AGU Panel to draft the updated Position Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate”. We were charged by the AGU to provide
“…..an up-to-date statement [that] will assure that AGU members, the public, and policy makers have a more current point of reference for discussion of climate change science that is intrinsically relevant to national and international policy.”
In my view, this means we were tasked to report on the most important aspects of climate change. This was incompletely done in the Statement, where they inaccurately, in my view, discuss a view of climate change that is dominated by the emission of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Committee, under the direction of Jerry North, with the report writing subgroup led by Susan Hassol, was clearly motivated to produce a Statement of this one particular view. Under his leadership, other views were never given an adequate opportunity to be discussed.
The Committee, instead of presenting the actual state of scientific understanding on the issue of climate change, used the following approach, as summarized in my son’s book “The Honest Broker”
Scientific activity is diverse enough to provide information that can be used to support different perspectives on any topic … [to] decide the course of action and then find information to back it up is a common practice across the political spectrum. “
The Committee leadership already had a course of action in mind even when we were appointed.
I presented to the Committee what I have concluded is a more scientifically robust Statement. I started from their Statement, and accepted what I could, as well as sought to remain close to their length.
I sought to answer the following questions, which the Statement accepted by the Committee incompletely does and/or does not address at all.
- What is the definition of climate and climate change?
- What are the societally and environmentally important climate metrics (e.g. a global average surface temperature trend; changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns over multi-year time periods; sea level rise, trends in extreme weather etc)?
- What are the main human and natural climate forcings?
- What is the observational evidence for climate change?
- What is the skill of the global and regional climate model projections
(predictions) of changes in these metrics on multi-decadal time scales?
- What are recommended pathways forward to reduce the risk from climate,
including changes in climate over time?
My proposed text of a more balanced Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate” is
Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The Scientific Community Has The Responsibility To Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain
Climate is defined here as the statistical description of all the elements in the climate system (including the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere), including both the mean state and any variations over time. Climate change is defined as a shift in the statistical description of climate. Climate change includes radiative, biophysical, biogeochemical and biogeographic effects. “Human-caused climate change” is a change resulting from one or more of the human climate forcings.
The natural Earth’s climate system, even in the absence of humans, is nonlinear in which forcings and response are not necessarily proportional; thus change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual. Climate has always changed over time. As Earth’s population has grown, however, human climate forcings have become significant on the local, regional and global scales. These human forcings include greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2, methane, CFCs), aerosol emissions and deposition [e.g., black carbon (soot), sulfates, and reactive nitrogen], and changes in land use and land cover. A number of these forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation. Most, if not all, of these human radiative, biophysical, biogeochemical and biogeographic influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades. Natural climate forcings and feedbacks will also continue to be major effects on this time period.
With respect to human climate forcings, among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system. While the greenhouse and aerosol emissions, in particular, have resulted in changes to the global average radiative forcings, the use of a global averaged radiative forcing or a global average surface temperature are grossly inadequate metrics to diagnose such effects as circulation changes on multi-decadal time scales. It is these regional scale atmospheric and ocean circulations that have the dominant effect on societally and environmentally important weather events such as droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, etc and any possible alteration by human climate forcings is a major concern.
It is also important to recognize that changes in the global radiative forcings (global warming or cooling) represent only a subset of climate change. The ocean is the component of the climate system that is best suited for quantifying climate system heat change. There are major unresolved issues concerning the ability of a global average surface temperature trend to accurately measure climate system heat changes. “Global Warming” can be much more accurately monitored in terms of an increase in the global annual average heat content measured in Joules.
Scientific confidence of the occurrence of climate change include, for example, that over at least the last 50 years there have been increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; increased nitrogen and soot (black carbon) deposition; changes in the surface heat and moisture fluxes over land; increases in lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures and ocean heat content; the elevation of sea level; and a large decrease in summer Arctic sea ice coverage and a modest increase in Antarctic sea ice coverage. Over the last ten years, lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures increases, however, have been less than in the preceding years, for reasons that are actively being debated.
These climate changes are a result of human and natural climate forcings and feedbacks – the relative role of each in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features, and even the global annual average radiative forcing, however, is still uncertain. We do know that added carbon dioxide is the largest human-caused, and black carbon the second largest positive annual, global-averaged radiative forcing, while sulfates are among the largest human-caused negative annual, global-averaged radiative forcing. The importance of decadal and longer variations in natural annual, global-averaged radiative forcing (e.g. due to solar, and from internal natural climate feedbacks, such as from cloudiness), however, remains uncertain.
Climate models, unfortunately, are still unable to provide skillful predictions of changes in regional climate statistics on multi-decadal time scales at the detail desired by the impacts communities. Even on the global scale, the annual, global-averaged radiative forcing predicted by the models is significantly greater than has been observed based on the accumulation of Joules in the climate system. The summer arctic sea ice extent, in contrast, has been significantly under predicted by the models, while the summer Antarctic sea ice extent increase has been missed by the models. Also attribution of specific extreme weather events to multi-decadal changes in climate has not yet been shown, and is likely not even possible.
We recommend a way forward that promotes effective policy decisions even with these uncertainties. The Statement on Climate Change that was adopted by the majority on the Committee, unfortunately, does not provide an accurate summary of our understanding of climate change issues, and, thus, is not an effective policy framework to reduce risks from the climate system.
The effective use of mitigation and adaption to reduce the risk to water resources, food, energy, human health and well-being, and ecosystem function from climate (including changes in the climate system) requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach. Attempts to significantly influence climate impacts based on just controlling CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases emissions is an inadequate and incomplete policy for this purpose.The goal should be to seek politically and technologically practical ways (with minimal cost and maximum benefit) to reduce the vulnerability of the environment and society to the entire spectrum of human-caused and natural risks including those from climate, but also from all other environmental and social threats.
###
It’s seems incredible that the last decade+ of fresh empirical data and new insight into this subject can be ignored………..by those who claim to be looking and also counted on as experts.
It’s mainly the result of 2 things:
1. Once human beings, including really smart ones think they have learned something, they process all new information differently. New information that is consistent with what they now assume they know, get’s stored as knowledge in their brains. If it contradicts what they assume they know, it get’s discarded.
It warmed in the 1980’s/90’s. We can all agree on that. During the warming, which was obvious to all, our climate scientists(experts in this field) analyzed the data available in order to explain why it warmed. Was there something going on with the sun? The oceans? The magnetic field changes? Any natural cycles? Certainly nothing that seemed likely based on data available.
However, CO2 went up every single year and it’s a greenhouse gas. Of course, how could it be anything else!!!! Once that assumption was made, all climate models were programmed with it. All new information about climate was processed in the brains of climate scientist based on this assumption and passed on to the world. If it supported this (even though it is just a theory) it was stored as knowledge and reinforced this notion. Information contradicting it was/is still rejected.
2. Once you begin to teach something or give an opinion on something or advise others to base decisions on something, your credibility and reputation are on the line. Who wants to be proven wrong, especially if they are outspoken or emphatic about a topic in an area of their expertise.
This applies to most people and unfortunately, this allows the ego to control thinking and actions, including scientists, very unfortunately. This has turned the field of climate science into one of using data and arguments to prove that assumptions made in the 80’s/90’s are correct vs adjusting the assumptions based on new data since then.
It’s not reasonable, based on the human ego, to expect outspoken AGW scientists to be capable of seeing the contradicting data. Those that were on the fence or just leaning to one side, yes they can go with the data without damaging their ego/reputation and of course if it corresponds to the prior assumption.
The question is, how long does it take and how powerful does the diverging data need to be for those not recognizing it to finally see it?
Part of the delayed response so far is the real belief(hope) that the warming will kick in again any time now as whatever force that stopped it goes away.
One would think that if this current decade looks like it will not be warmer than the previous decade would pretty much abolish any catastrophic warming zealots. Seriously, they should have long ago toned down the debunked rhetoric and started working on better mathematical equations to represent the physics of the atmosphere in the global climate models but the longer it takes, the sillier they look.
That’s what happens when ego and human emotion gets in the way.
What’s truly appalling about the revised statement from a supposed learned body, is that massive assumption that humanity is somehow destabilising some eternal balance in nature. Pielke nudges them away from it but I feel he should have been a bit more empathic. There is no such thing as a steady state environment.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/the-steady-state-environment-delusion/
Pointman
Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate
NO .. humanity has a significant effect on thermometers, … placed in dubius places. AND .. humanity definitely has an effect on the tabulation of those same said thermometers, with adjustments ad nauseum to torture the record into saying what they want it to say.
OK.
Here are some of the results just in of human caused change in climate.
* The biosphere has been greening over the last few decades.
* Arid areas are becoming greener over the last few decades.
* The Arctic is currently behaving like a denier.
* Polar bear numbers up 5 fold since the 1950s.
* Near record Arctic cold this summer north of the 80th northern parallel since 1958.
* Antarctic sea ice extent above ‘normal’.
* Penguin numbers in Antarctica ‘double’ than previously thought.
* The Neotropics thrived during past periods of rapid global warming.
and so on…………………….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/claim-recent-el-nino-behavior-is-largely-beyond-natural-variability/#comment-1351897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2
In the other words, we still don’t have a clue…
Just like many other things when it comes to history, nutrition, social, archaeology, etc in liberals’ view.
Just because you’re a liberal and have college degrees doesn’t mean you’re intelligent. Common sense and critical thinking don’t seem to work very well with them. Try pointing out to the dermatologists that sun scare is leading to widespread vitamin D deficiency… they’d go crazy. They actually think vitamin D from the food is all we need but data shows otherwise when you realize that you get so much more from the sun… They never taught that in the classrooms. I was shocked to learn that fact on my own outside of the classroom. There are plenty of other examples…
Mainstream academic at university level needs a major overhaul… Clearly it is not working…
On the Arctic, they do go on and on. I am sure they blame man for this.
When will the IPCC get its act straight? Does man have a discernible effect on climate warming after 1950 or before??? See also soot and natural climate oscillations that affect Arctic sea ice in the pas.
Until we can accurately model local to regional scale effects and then remove them from surface and troposphere measurements, leaving a global signal, we have no idea of either the size or even the sign of any global signal. And as Pielke snr points out we are very far from being able to do that.
A change in a global average is not evidence of a global cause.
Thanks for joining us tonight for ESPTVs coverage of the $100 billion dollar Climate Change Hold-em Poker Tournament. We’ve just begun play, and over at table 8, the AGU is already all-in. Let’s join the action. We can see by the card cam, they have CAGW, CO2, and climate models in the hole. I’m surprised, that’s a pretty weak hand with which to risk everything so soon in this tournament. The AGU has always an aggressive bluffer. They’re hoping their bluff will force out all the other players at the table. Oh-oh, Pielke Sr. has called the bet…
One thing about mainstream academic at university level, it goes way back to 1800s when graduate students went oversea to Europe for Masters and Doctorates. Clearly you can see why it is not working well in USA… They simply brought old ideas over to USA that never really worked in the real life.
“the impacts our science has”
Yeah, the impacts of fearmongering science on society can be quite devastating. Quit it.
Steven Goddard presents the results so far for the USA. It really is just as the Warmists have predicted. We are doomed!!!! Where is the theologian Al ‘Oil Check’ Tobacco Fund Recipient Gore?
2013
“Quietest Tornado Season On Record”
“Quietest Hurricane Season On Record To Date”
“Second Quietest Fire Season On Record Continues ”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/second-quietest-fire-season-on-record-continues/
Scientific .Really!! Anyone have more grant money ? The report is pure propoganda from a clique.
If you are a believer then Tulips ,as we all know their value, will continue to skyrocket. So now we have many who believe that temperatures will skyrocket. The prices of tulips came down and the temperatures are going down. Meanwhile the AGW promoters continue to promote mass hysteria while fleecing the population.
The climate has changed, but it’s slow and they are seeing it with utter with horror. Global mean temps standstill / slight cooling, Arctic unsure, Antarctica expanding, freezing NH winters, snow in Brazil, polar bear pests, and so on. It will take time and we need to have a program to allow them to save face. A climate rehab if you like. You must understand the utter shock of them realising that the ‘fossil fuel funded shills’ may have been right after all. Be merciful. LOL.
“Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.”
AGU simply proves many professional associations have been gangrened by political activists. I would immediatly quit an organization that would put up that trash.
As I read Pielke’s response, I interpret that he says he has no better way of quantitatively predicting the impact of increased CO2, soot or land changes on surface or ocean heat balance, and he proposes actions to mitigate our impacts. It is the rate of change in the warming that is at issue, and Pielke offers no suggestion that the rate of change will not be severe as the forcings cause change in the more regional patterns he discusses. Therefore, with even more uncertainty and a solid knowledge that these changes are expected to cause more rapid change, I anticipate Pielke would use a probabilistic model that includes significant impacts when trying to determine his “cost” of no action, along with a large variance on the possible outcomes.
As I read Pielke’s statement, I do not understand why the “anti” anthropogenic global warming crowd reads it so favorably. Ask your insurance agent what happens to your projected future costs if you quantify them with less certainty — you do not just assume that the future costs are less since you have less control over them.
Jimbo says:
August 5, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Be merciful. LOL.
====
no……LOL
I notice they mention the Arctic, but ignore Antarctica.
I read the “response” again…..not under the influence of caffeine this time
Total hogwash…….
“In my view, this means we were tasked to report on the most important aspects of climate change.”
…the most important aspect of climate change….is first figuring out which direction it’s going first
not a clue…………
My goodness, if AGU has been modifying their statement on several occasions, particularly during the continuing unexpected hiatus in warming for one sixth of a century and counting, what the heck was their position in earlier statements and how come they seem perfectly happy with staying the course? Even Roger Sr. should have mentioned that this hiatus presents a game changer as a pointer toward our ignorance of natural variability. Roger, we have more CO2, more soot, more methane, more NO2 and we’ve cleared more land and the earth stubbornly refuses to keep heating up.
I think those who have studied climate science in recent decades are more handicapped than laymen who don’t have the sharp but wrong tools of the trade to make headway in climate science. McIntyre a statistician and mining consultant and McKittrick an economist are examples of the few intrepid seekers of truth who have made incalculable contributions to science and untold service to mankind by reining in runaway, slipshod, self-interested, mediocre so-called scientific work that is being used by anti-humanists bent on destroying civilization. WUWT and a handful of other unsung, unfunded, dedicated bloggers have polarized a once spotty resistance to this dangerous activity and built it up to a standard to be reckoned with. The hockey team and its admirers have no wiggle room now – their once prolific output of drek has all but dried up. These guys don’t work too well in the daylight and the corrupted journals that don’t even require adherence to their own rules are irredeemable.
Roger Pielke – thank you for standing straight. It takes guts and confidence to stand up; you are a good role model for scientists who do not have you self confidence and self integrity
Weasel Wording Watch
These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures
Most people will read this as,
These observations show large increases in air and sea temperatures
When in fact it means,
These observations show increases in global average air and sea temperatures
From an outsider, just wondering: Is this statement the product of a committee purporting to speak for the AGU, or has it actually been approved by the membership?
These organizations and the policy makers they claim to advise fail to realize precisely where it is that their incomes come from. By failing to realize this, these ridiculous sooth saying, political, self serving, quasi scientific organizations and their minions will continue to advocate policies that, however unknown by them, will begin to cut into their own money stream. For instance, while the train of events for the Detroit bankruptcy were set in place for decades, the policies of the last 4+ years were the final nail in the coffin. Detroit’s a harbinger of things to come. And the Obama administration, fully in bed and wedded to these anti-human beliefs, despite the intractable nature of the jobless economy, clearly intends to double down on these crippling climate policies. As that further strangles the money stream, and – make no mistake – it will, it will be interesting to see if these self serving parasites begin to back away from the very same dogmas they lord over the rest of us. They may think the policies produced by those dogmas will only hit the lowly coal miner, factory worker, truck driver, small business owner, and the like, but it won’t because it is on those backs these organizations and Washington ultimately derive their money.
It’s said that the successful parasite doesn’t kill its host. I’m not certain these parasites can finesse that, however, since they’re not even aware that they are, ultimately parasites (non productive dead loads), nor who the host actually is (which is the economy they’ll destroy). So, if they don’t back away from their dogmas, not only are they just parasites, but they will not even prove to have been successful parasites. Quite a legacy, when you think about it.
Tom J says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm
It would be great if we could create a new nation without the parasites i.e. the doers move there.