To AAAS: What we know? Earth hasn't warmed significantly in over a decade, climate models failed to predict this

One really has to laugh at the repackaging attempt by AAAS. Meanwhile:

models-vs-datasets

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Releases “What We Know” and Kicks Off Initiative to Recognize Climate Change Risks

March 17, 2014 – (Washington, DC) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is announcing the launch of a new initiative to expand the dialogue on the risks of climate change. At the heart of the initiative is the AAAS’s  “What We Know” report, an assessment of current climate science and impacts that emphasizes the need to understand and recognize possible high-risk scenarios.

“We’re the largest general scientific society in the world, and therefore we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one,” said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS. “As the voice of the scientific community, we need to share what we know and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue.”

Nobel laureate Dr. Mario Molina, distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography and co-chairs, Dr. Diana Wall, distinguished professor of biology and director at Colorado State University’s School of Global Environmental Sustainability and Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard, chaired the climate science panel that generated the report. They, along with the 10 panelists spanning climate science specialties, will engage in the initiative in various ways, from speaking engagements to testimonial on a forthcoming interactive web site to knowledge sharing with other professionals. The initiative encourages Americans to think of climate change as a risk management issue; the panel aims to clarify and contextualize the science so the public and decision-makers can be more adequately informed about those risks and possible ways to manage them.

“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Even among members of the broader public who already know about the evidence for climate change and what is causing it, some do not know the degree to which many climate scientists are concerned about the risks of possibly rapid and abrupt climate change — that’s something we are dedicated to discussing with multiple audiences, from business leaders and financial experts to decision makers in all walks of life.”

Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions with the panel on how to accurately measure climate-related risks and the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management.

“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts — especially potential economic damages. Economists understand how to create incentives to limit pollution production with maximum effect and minimum collateral damage, but crafting the appropriate response is a complex valuation process that requires quantifying those same uncertainties,” Litterman said. “To do so requires scientists and economists to work together, ask tough questions, and break the boundaries of their professional silos. That’s what’s this initiative aims to do.”

Litterman will join AAAS CEO Dr. Alan Leshner and panel co-chair Dr. James McCarthy on a phone conference tomorrow to discuss the report, the new initiative and why framing climate change as a risk management issue is critical. (that phone in is long past at 9AMEST today, sorry, Anthony)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kenny

“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts — especially potential economic damages”.
They recognize the considerable uncertainty? Then why bother?

bones

“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,”
————————————————
This is exceptionally strong evidence that AAAS is still under the control of zealots who have no real understanding that science should be based on real evidence.

Rud Istvan

So they are going to reiterate old tipping point arguments for mitigation. Their only problem is that there is no credible scientific evidence for any tipping points. Every single paper I have run down claiming same has been fatally flawed, whether on crop yields, sea level rise, Asian fresh water (Himalayan glaciers), Caribbean fresh water, species extinction and habitat change, ocean acidification and oysters…
Just more collateral damage to science generally by climate science charlatans increasingly desparate to keep a failed meme going.

Doug Proctor

In the Guardian’s response, they use the 8F/5C global temp rise to highlight the danger. One wonders whether many warmists see only the worst scenario, not the “reasonable” one pushed by the IPCC, and whether the average warmist belives in sudden, “tipping point” catastrophism as the nature of nature.
It is a belief that God can visit a Noahian deluge at any moment, without warning. Science and trends mean nothing in this mindset. And if things turn out badly, they will turn out as badly as they can because that is how God has organized His universe.

Keith A. Nonemaker

If you start with the assumption that climate MIGHT change, suddenly and extremely, you can justify almost any response, no matter how expensive or how unlikely to work.

Jim Bo

The disengenuity of the strawman language here is self-evident and shameful (emphasis mine)…

I. CLIMATE REALITY
A. Climate scientists agree: Humans are driving climate change
Many Americans believe scientists disagree. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are changing the climate.

I’ll not insult any informed reader here with rebutting the obvious.

eb99

It would be interesting to know how much Kepos Capital has invested in “green energy” companies.

David L. Hagen

Re: “ask tough questions”
How can AAAS “mitigate” (prevent) or “adapt to” probable expected massive unemployment among “climate scientists” due to irrelevant and inaccurate global climate models?

kenw

Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.

Wow, they are really getting desperate and pulling out all the stops, aren’t they? All because they’re terrified of a “Wave Election” coming this fall, and with it, the end of any government mandated climate action. This is all political, and tied to the US politician election season – that is the only thing that explains the desperate timing, because they look stupid coming out with this on the heels of this ridiculously cold winter we’ve had. But this is meant to dovetail with Kerry’s nonsensical climate ramblings lately. (Hey John, don’t you think you should be paying attention to your pal Putin a bit more???)
And then they have the nerve to talk about “the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management…” They don’t DARE talk about this through the “lens of risk management”, because that means a rational cost/benefit analysis, based upon most likely scenarios, and that means that the wisest course of action, given what the hard data says, is to not do much of anything now, and if necessary, pursue some mitigation efforts in the future.

David L. Hagen

Contrast The Right Climate Stuff who were able to bound predicted global warming to a maximum of 1.2 deg C – by realistic evaluation of transient climate sensitivity based on observations, and the limits of economically usable fossil fuels.

Chris B

Hahahaha

The leadership of AAAS appears to be in the grip of an application of the equivocation fallacy. By logical rule, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation, that is, an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. To draw an IMPROPER conclusion is the equivocation fallacy. In the midst of global warming arguments, terms that include “science,” “prediction” and “validation” change meaning with the result that the pseudo-scientific methodology of global warming research appears to be a scientific methodology.

mesoman

“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.” Yeah, sure, while they scramble to explain the hiatus that wasn’t predicted.

Kelvin vaughan

After playing with my IR thermometer for 3 months I suddenly realized I could not read the temperature of the air directly. I googled “can an IR thermometer measure air temperature” and got this site: http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/Infrared%20Thermometers.pdf.
There it told me the air does not emit IR. So I am now confused as to what back radiation is?

chuckarama

Of course it has to be about Risk. Humans are terrible at assessing risk and statistics. We are wired to by evolution to err on the side of caution, to avoid risk. It’s a survival mechanism! That’s why alarmism is so successful. Not knowing something that “may” carry risk is scary! Doom and global catastrophe is scary! It always has been. This is why the story of Armageddon STILL scares people to death and Hollywood continues to capitalize on it.
But I love the bait and switch of it all. “We are the world’s biggest group of science guys and we’re going to talk about the unknown possibilities of how you and our planet _might_ die.” Their language is even clear that they don’t know, but that it’s not going to stop them from talking about it – because this stuff “might” have really scary implications and if our scary imaginations are right, you _will_ die. So much for the requirement of proof from science…

Latitude

Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts
ROTFL…that one sentence was worth it all

Mumbles McGuirk

That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences) and I don’t remember being solicited for my opinions on this matter. Yet they presume to be the “voice” of their members in this matter. A bit of arrogant presumption on the part of our ‘betters.’ As Major Hoople used to say “Harumph!”

“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,”

What I don’t understand is how stating the obvious is considered to be “risk management?” Yes Earth’s climate is changing and yes future climate change can seriously impact us AS IT ALWAYS HAS. We adapt, as we always have. Will they be talking about the risk of less food as the world cools, less energy, keeping third world people’s in poverty? I don’t think so.
I am so discouraged by what passes as science today.

Larry Huldén

Interesting! They did not mention malaria any more but still refer to West Nile fever which is a disease of birds occasionally transmitted to humans.

pottereaton

\\” . . . we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one,” said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS.//
Do we actually KNOW that “climate is a particularly pressing one[?]”
It seems to me that they are starting off with an assumption that has not yet been verified.
Maybe they should deal with that question before they start making assumptions. And, assuming they come up with an answer to that question in the affirmative, the next question should be, “Compared to what?”

JM VanWinkle

Funny, the warmistas stay clear of one possible cause of the pause….the end of the Holocene.

Kelvin vaughan

Another thought. Does a normal thermometer actually measure air temperature or just radiation coming from nearby solid objects.

kenw

Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences)
….
Group W? (channeling Arlo here…)

Jim Davidson

“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.”
CO2 has increased from 0.0315% in 1959 to ( almost) 0.04% today, an increase of 0.0085%. The dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse effect, is water vapor. Radio sonde balloon observations have shown that levels of water vapor in our atmosphere have been decreasing since the start of observations in 1949. Ferenc Miskolczi developed a numerical assessment of the greenhouse effect. He calculated the number of times, on average, a photon of infra-red energy would be captured and re-emitted by a molecule of either CO2 or a molecule of water vapor on its journey from the surface of the earth to space. This number, 1.87, has remained constant since at least 1959. This is “our solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.”

JJ

March 17, 2014 – (Washington, DC) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is announcing the launch of a new initiative to expand the dialogue on the risks of climate change.

Several of these sort of “initiatives” are happening at once, at a time when the current and accumulated knowledge is trending strongly against the conclusion they are pushing. It would seem there is a coordinated effort occurring, to focus a last gasp attempt on 2014. Evidently, they have given up on the notion that it is going to get any warmer, and have decided to make the best of whatever they can gin up from current conditions. Get the fix in before it gets any cooler…

Well posted David:
David L. Hagen says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:25 am
Contrast The Right Climate Stuff who were able to bound predicted global warming to a maximum of 1.2 deg C – by realistic evaluation of transient climate sensitivity based on observations, and the limits of economically usable fossil fuels.
Keep in mind that the 1.2 deg C is an UPPER bound in the TRCS paper that will be reduced by (observed) increased albedo, both cloud and snow/ice, which reflects sunlight at wavelengths that pierce CO2 and DO NOT get re-radiated downwards!!!

Martin 457

Isn’t a discussion a debate? The science isn’t settled anymore? Bring on the debaters. 🙂

kenw

This is clearly an article written by committee.
http://www.despair.com/teamwork.html
(Note the reference to Phil and the gang at East Anglia)

JohnB

Is St Patrick’s Day the NEW April Fool Day? Or have we been drinking too much green beer – what I’m reading is green around the edges

Mumbles McGuirk

kenw says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences)
….
Group W? (channeling Arlo here…)
—————————————————————
Sorry, had to Google it. I was never much of an Arlo Guthrie fan (liked his Dad’s singing much better.) Maybe I could ask the AAAS to change our designation to Section 8. 😉

AAAS Project 2061 was first created during the 90s version of Radical Ed Reform, but it remains around to be of service in the implementation of the Common Core and the model-oriented Next Generation Science Standards. This initiative should be seen through this Science for All Americans goal http://www.aaas.org/report/science-all-americans .
IPCC and AAAS’s work have to be seen through the constantly announced belief in the social sciences that “there is nothing as valuable as a good theory.” It is not that a good theory reflects reality. It simply provides a means for transforming reality once taken up by education and the media and institutions with regulatory power.

kenw

@Mumbles: regardless of your preferences, do yourself a huge favor and devote the required ~15 minutes to hear his “Alice’s Restaurant”. (it’s really his only claim to self-fame) The appropriateness is boggling!

Jim Bo

JJ says: March 18, 2014 at 10:00 am

Get the fix in before it gets any cooler…

Little doubt we’re witnessing an orchestrated CAGW “Alamo” probably exacerbated by abject terror at the very plausible prospect of loss of both the Excecutive and Senate branches of government.
Even assuming that eventuality, the EPA CAGW still looms mightily, unelected and out of control.

Pathway

“Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions”
This is all we need to know about the validity of the group. Follow the money.

Fred

Anthony,
I’d love to purchase a few t-shirts featuring your chart, “Warming Predictions v. the Real World”.
It’s a slam dunk, and it needs exposure.

Jim Bo

Robin says: March 18, 2014 at 10:10 am

…but it remains around to be of service in the implementation of the Common Core and the model-oriented Next Generation Science Standards.

In that regard, the natives are, apparently, restless…
Wyoming rejects science education standards over climate change

chemman

“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,”
————————————————
Of course it can. We are in an interglacial period. If we slide back into an ice age it will have a serious impact on natural and societal systems. As to that strong evidence the Earth’s climate is always changing and has changed considerably for its 4.5 by history.

Rob Dawg

Page one of the text includes the 97% error.
Why read further?

MarkB

I’m curious how the figure at the top of the article was constructed. Looking at the referenced AMS “State of the Climate 2012” report I see Lower Troposphere temperatures plotted in figure 2.3 with trends , some qualitative discussion of the bulk troposphere with trends presented in table 2.2, and Stratosphere temperatures are plotted in figure 2.5. I don’t see anything that seems to correlate with your figure.

Dr. McCarthy writes:
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing…”
Aside from not understanding the definition of scientific evidence, McCarthy’s statement is the position of any scientific skeptic.
Skeptics have stated consistently that the planet’s climate is always changing. Only alarmists claim that the climate never changed until the industrial revolution [the long flat shaft of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick].
======================
kenw says:
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
To further educate Dr. McCarthy:
Models are NOT EVIDENCE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases…”
*snicker*. Explain that.

Old Hoya

Gentlemen:
We need a way to keep the gravy train going. I propose that we argue that the magnitude of our rather obvious error in predicting global temperature change henceforth be called “uncertainty” and that we are ceratin that this “uncertainty” actually increases the risk of harm and the greater the risk of harm the more funding we need to save the suckers world. All those in favor?

jayhd

What we do know is that the earth’s climate does change, sometimes very suddenly (geologically speaking). What we should know is that short of an all out nuclear war, man really does not have any control over any climate other than that within his buildings. And what I do know, if the AGW crowd wins in the political arena, we will not even be able to control the climate within our homes.

Pat Frank

Speaking as a career research scientist, the AAAS is not my voice.

Resourceguy

The re-branding of multi-decadal ocean temperature cycles is not science and not good public policy, period.

Pat Frank

Camille Parmesan is on the AAAS panel. The AAAS “What We Know” report cites three of her papers that purport impending ecological doom. Readers here will recall Jim Steele’s thorough exposure of the tendentious negligence of her work; here, for example, and here and here and here.

Bill Illis

“The largest general scientific society in the world” is supposed to be the most objective yet what we find in this report is that they are least objective.
It is time to end all climate change funding because the people controlling the money have shown that they cannot act responsibly with it. That is all the rationale one needs when dealing with public money.

JRM

Follow the money or How to make money with Climate Change.
Al Gore lead off the group, Bob Litterman (Kepos Capital) page 6. His thoughts on climate change investments.
http://www.rijpm.com/key_insight_files/Ten_Strategies_for_Pension_Funds_to_Better_Serve_Their_Beneficiaries_June_20_2013.pdf

Greg

“…and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue.”
So these guys think they now run the country or what?!
Perhaps they need to subpoena the president so they can tell him what to do about it.
Incredible.
Science, my AAAS.

Mohatdebos

How seriously should we take this press release when it does not use the correct name for Bob Litterman’s former company — Goldman Sachs not Goldman & Sachs Co.