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.
###
The fact that Pielke Sr (hardly a screaming radical) is an outlier in the AGU’s committee says it all.
Their statement is so Noughties. They don’t seem to realise that the caravan has moved on.
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
Proof please !!! significant ? I think not but that’s not important because climate scientist know not. Everything they say is counter-factual.
Actually, we outsiders (some of us) CAN see it; it’s those caught up in the fad who are blind to their subjectivity.
well, at least we know now that the 97% was a tad exagerated …
14/15 = only 93% …
🙂
PS
from time to time, I read optimistic comments … e.g. that since more than a decade temperature does not increase, and therefore the AGW scam has had its best days … unfortunately, I cannot join that optimism … politicians – who want our money and our minds – and climate “scientists” – who want our money – will not give up on this easily … they will go on untill either all the money is gone, or a real new ice age has come upon us, whichever comes first … but that means we will be visiting CA, or WUWT, BH, or the others, for a very long time to come …
The AGU Statement says:
Think about that. It shows a remarkable lack of imagination. It almost seems as though they have excluded the option before considering the evidence.
If you don’t know the particular impacts, or their location, how can you tell if they are inconsequential or not?
You can’t – either way.
This one sentence invalidates the process by which the entire statement has been developed.
Back to the drawing board, AGU.
Roger A. Pielke Sr.: “My proposed text of a more balanced Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate” is…”
Politics trumps science again.
More clap-trap from the Lost in Space crowd.
Who has carried out rigorous scientific analysis of the following:
1. What is the effect on topsoil erosion of cutting down forests either at heads of rivers or at the limit of tree growth in higher altitude regions?
2. What is the effect of such deforestation on the absorption and subsequent release of rainwater by the ecosystem around the heads of major rivers?
3. What is the effect on soil fertility within river courses of damming such rivers, particularly those with a high silt content??
4. Has a rigorous study of trace element depletion of agricultural lands been carried out and if so, what policies are being put in place to replenish key minerals within intensively farmed lands??
5. Why have policy makers consistently sought to create permanent settlements in the flood plains of rivers?? Would they agree that river flooding is one of the major methods that nature uses to replenish soil and restore fertility??
6. Would they also agree that many of the most fertile lands are to be found where volcanic eruptions have created substrata rich in key minerals and, therefore, volcanoes are an integral part of sustainable fertility systems on planet earth??
On the basis of these, and other related questions, what is the evidence that one of the most cost-effective, long-term solutions to the restoration of sustainable fertility in our major river basins is the replanting of upland forests, to be kept in perpetuity as key sinks which smooth out water release into rivers, purify water sources and ensure greater fertility prognoses further downstream???
Would climate alarmists agree that such forests are likely to contribute to the abatement of carbon dioxide release, provide habitats to retain biodiversity and help to restore a more healthy water cycle between the oceans, atmosphere and rivers????
Would policy makers like to consider whether dams represent the optimal means of water control or whether other, less centralised mechanisms of retaining water on a seasonal basis have a role to play as well?
This is preaching to the converted, but Dr DMW Evans approach is so solid. Gotta love it. Spread this far and wide, people. Thanks.
IMO: The responses of the AGU and Dr. Pielke compare environmental advocacy to a measured, verifiable explanation of the current state of climate science. You don’t have to agree with everything Dr. Pielke says but his statement is useful to decision makers compared to the AGU’s hyperbole and arrogance. Unfortunately the decision makers are politicians and will use the AGU’s statement to further their ideology and the ideology of their constituents who drink the grape flavored green kool-aid.
“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”.
This is all 100% Agenda 21 hubris and so WUWT provides a platform for a “light green artist” who obviously is serving the same agenda as the Dark Green Scam Artists that led to climate skepticism in the first place.
It doesn’t fly with me thank you very much.
limogerry:
The short video you provide at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-response-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/#comment-1382167
is an excellent summary of the science of AGW for interested lay people.
As the video says, its data is impeccable, and its argument is a summary of the main-stream AGW-skeptic view.
I write to commend it to all onlookers of the debate.
The video is easier to grasp than Pielke’s excellent statement quoted above but – in essence – it makes the same argument as Pielke although the video uses different words and data. However, Pielke and the video provide very different emphasis. Pielke stresses uncertainty while the video clearly asserts that empirical data refutes the AGW narrative.
Richard
Dr Roy Spencer said recently ”
“The belief that global warming and associated climate change involve more severe
weather cannot be supported observationally. And even if we were to observe a trend in
severe weather, it would not be possible to determine with any level of confidence the
extent to which the change was due to human activities versus natural variability.
Thus, the evidence that humans are mostly responsible for either recent warmth or
severe weather changes (if such changes exist at all) is equivocal, at best.”
The complete paper can be found here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated.pd
@richardscourtney
I would second that. It is truly an excellent video. It is calmly presented and I would be confident the data it quotes is of the highest quality. Despite the calm presentation its content is explosive. Thanks to limogerry for the link. For anyone who watches this video (link is a couple of posts above) it will be ten minutes very well spent.
Chris
The end of the world rant by the AGU is a disgrace. I would expect something like this from Greenpeace, not from an organization that is supposed to do real science.
Per Roger Pielke Sr., “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.” i.e. a chaotic system.
Then RPS goes on to say, “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.”
So, in a nutshell, how can one measure, understand and predict a choatic system via terming that the “natural system”? If one does not fully understand the “natural system” (and no one presently does understand this) how are unnatural forces (human climate forcings) given any consideration prior to fully understanding the “natural system”?
@chainsaw
Good one!
barryjo says:August 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Evidently I have missed something. In Dr. Pielke’s response,He says “We do KNOW that added CO2 is the largest human-caused, and black carbon the second largest positive annual, global-averaged radiative forcing——- . (emphasis mine).
It was my understanding that we do NOT know, empirically, that this is true.
Could someone please point me to the source of this knowledge.
Much obliged.
These are Pielke Sr.’s views and have been consistent for a few years at least, that I know of. I did think he previously thought the #1 and #2 mentioned above for human impact were the reverse of what is stated, but may have changed his mind over the past few years, or I misremember. Regardless, it is the order of magnitude that matters. If CO2 is a major driver of the ~.8°C we have seen, but that number is inflated by adjustments and siting issues, one must ask, is there anything of significance occurring? Doesn’t this all come down to the number of angels on the head of a pin?
“Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate”
The implicit arrogance in this statement and gross over-estimation of human capacity is simply mind boggling. These people have completely lost the plot.
“Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate”
Please define “significant” in this context. 10%? 25%? 50% or greater? Or is 5% significant? A range of values, such as 20%-30% of observed climate change is due to human activity, for example.
Thank you
Oh the humanity! There is no mention of multi-decadal cycles and Antarctica. Without the use of cycles, the Dust Bowl should be the Sahara by now as a result of unidirectional climate change.
Quite a few people seem to read Pielke as not quite being a skeptic. I beg to disagree. Consider the following quotation from Pielke’s article:
“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.”
What he says is that either “a global averaged radiative forcing or a global average surface temperature are grossly inadequate metrics” for the purposes that Alarmists make of them in their efforts to promote climate alarm. Pielke’s position is as skeptical as any position he has ever expressed and just as skeptical as my position.
Please read Pielke’s article carefully. If necessary, I will set forth each of Pielke’s points in detail. But the bottom line is that he denies that there is scientific support for Alarmist claims. What more can you want?
Nice that the AGU High Command rammed their Advocacy statement for U.S. Funding (and IRS Taxation, i.e. non-profite tax status pandering to Federal Agency Directors [the hopeful appointees in many cases]) without the full membership of the AGU society voting on it.
It’s time to call the AGU Executives frauds given the evidence of Fraud they produce by their own hands.
By-Laws? What by-laws the Executives would retort.
So long AGU and I hope the class-action suit leaves the Executives penniless.
Everyone should read Judith Curry’s take on the AGU statement. She is not pleased.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/05/agu-statement-on-climate-change/#more-12466
Judith Curry is out with a second pummeling of the AGU statement, though it is couched within the larger topic of advocacy by scientists. Dr. Curry’s statements on this matter are extraordinarily important. http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/06/irresponsible-advocacy-by-scientists/
To Pointman:
You chose the wrong word. You wrote: “…I feel he should have been a bit
more empathic.” I think you meant emphatic.