One really has to laugh at the repackaging attempt by AAAS. Meanwhile:
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No, on a 10F to 30F day they read from -40F to below -60F. Mine has some sort of temp source it measures against. On the 10F night, it sucked the heat out of it, I got a measurement as low as -95F, until I realized it had lost it’s calibration, I pointed at a ~70F floor and it read ~40F, once it warmed up, Tsky was about -65F.
I believe this is the temp of the collective sky above me is. What the surface radiates to. Now this was done on cold days to eliminate most of the water vapor, and clear skies. When I measure the bottom of cumulus clouds they have all about the same temp as surface air temp.
It has been pointed out to me that since my thermometer is sensitive from 8u to 14u it doesn’t detect any Co2 IR at 15u, but I also think that it does tell me the temp of the Co2 molecule, since it should be the same temp as the air around it.
The hubris of Man, to assume that this temperature right now is the optimum temperature. Mankind doesn’t do well in cold climates, but thrives in warm climates. So If you believe in mmgw , which I do not, then warmer would be better.
Anthony,
I notice that your chart doesn’t include any of the surface temp series.
I believe the underlying reason they are closer to the model outputs, as compared to the balloon and satellite series is that they are really a model, any the model they use falsely exaggerates surface warming. When you generate an average of day over day difference of station max temp for all stations you get this:
1940 0.004331323
1941 -0.011655915
1942 -0.016940516
1943 -0.024012908
1944 -0.005357664
1945 0.018503339
1946 -0.034857292
1947 0.009708909
1948 -0.020150262
1949 -0.012726653
1950 0.03034803
1951 0.05755246
1952 -0.015272131
1953 0.006870959
1954 0.018453817
1955 0.009325575
1956 0.004762409
1957 -0.008324643
1958 0.004638993
1959 -0.003763035
1960 0.000983612
1961 0.00311021
1962 0.003607934
1963 0.0166358
1964 0.003948814
1965 0.00551315
1966 -0.011938048
1967 -0.001872804
1968 -0.008008863
1969 -0.023206702
1970 0.012995327
1971 0.190409151
1972 -0.000615915
1973 -0.00072777
1974 -0.003604015
1975 0.008011016
1976 -0.023109636
1977 0.018130595
1978 -0.015232785
1979 0.012711224
1980 0.013986159
1981 -0.008344426
1982 -0.002339482
1983 -0.004265825
1984 -0.001722371
1985 -0.000295631
1986 -0.000173234
1987 0.005988259
1988 -0.005457181
1989 -0.004167501
1990 0.003957955
1991 0.000310341
1992 -0.018612187
1993 0.007652686
1994 0.003309613
1995 -0.004348344
1996 -0.003283686
1997 0.013476559
1998 -0.01135585
1999 0.005386765
2000 -0.010564991
2001 -0.010123728
2002 0.003673971
2003 0.0032195
2004 -0.000818579
2005 -0.004934727
2006 0.000639261
2007 -0.012907412
2008 -0.005272268
2009 -0.004396158
2010 0.002714458
2011 0.008314256
2012 -0.016896311
2013 0.001419746
On a station by station basis the change in max temperature is almost nothing, overall for ~120 million records the average increase is about 2 thousandth of a degree F (0.001931686). This is based on the actual measurements, not some model of GAT.
BTW, you do the same thing with Tmin, and you get this:
YEAR MNDIFF
1940 0.018876587
1941 -0.260422134
1942 -0.272887205
1943 -0.126290299
1944 -0.001354336
1945 0.024318356
1946 -0.027319502
1947 0.012547223
1948 -1.090221574
1949 -0.767862499
1950 -0.493794843
1951 -0.368527577
1952 -0.680398861
1953 -0.73146435
1954 -0.601905698
1955 -0.632690016
1956 -0.926756482
1957 -0.712618275
1958 -0.927621377
1959 -0.589037254
1960 -0.500414853
1961 -0.374688179
1962 -0.602018195
1963 -0.326155938
1964 -0.232831284
1965 -0.48154827
1966 -0.256069754
1967 -0.268822613
1968 -0.147531235
1969 -0.517321159
1970 -0.657344257
1971 -0.060231813
1972 0.00966412
1973 -1.073087172
1974 -1.11750032
1975 -0.756531644
1976 -0.658946978
1977 -0.638925116
1978 -0.686302039
1979 -0.782480242
1980 -0.82923742
1981 -0.697966335
1982 -0.313701976
1983 -0.196908997
1984 -0.16069457
1985 -0.184352998
1986 -0.281318287
1987 -0.224702919
1988 -0.144182243
1989 -0.195710472
1990 -0.169639773
1991 -0.260396059
1992 -0.322857142
1993 -0.396123248
1994 -0.294547041
1995 -0.237736931
1996 -0.160827433
1997 -0.089127921
1998 -0.104966199
1999 -0.126595068
2000 -0.119775911
2001 -0.101484547
2002 -0.078612393
2003 -0.055263775
2004 -0.030561067
2005 -0.052164782
2006 -0.056235853
2007 -0.054828589
2008 -0.03509169
2009 -0.031285506
2010 -0.042815354
2011 -0.025996964
2012 -0.061257231
2013 -0.032589153
Average of all years -0.343973958
This is all in degrees F
1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.
2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.
3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.
How sad.
With regard to 1, climate change has been “happening” as long as the earth has had a climate; unless, of course, you have some special meaning for that term–oh, yeah, you do.
With regard to 2, notice the multiple fudge factors here such as:
“at risk of” (doesn’t mean we actually are experiencing anything)
“pushing” (no way of quantifying that or even describing the actual means by which it could be done, other than in political wish-mode)
“our climate system” (a system that is so complex, so incompletely defined since what is actually known now about major drivers of temperature and cloud formation were not even guessed at 50 years ago, and so chaotic that any attempt to predict by computer modeling at present wouldn’t even reach the level of accuracy in attempting to build the Willis Tower with Legos–better to look throughout geological history and real temperature proxies to see how known cycles and processes interact to produce what effect in order to predict what we could expect given similar conditions now)
“abrupt” (again, no way at all of demonstrating this, except to point at abrupt changes in the past, such as the onset of the current interglacial period with temperature fluctuations and resulting climate change that are orders of magnitude higher than anything we have experienced over the past 150 years),
“unpredictable” (if unpredictable, then this is a declaration that there are great gaps in knowledge about the natural processes that lead to climate change, the players involved, and their relative impact, and, therefore, an admission that “what you know” is defective to the degree that you claim we need to do anything at all)
“potentially” (again, another ‘it hasn’t happened but it could happen to some degree or other which we haven’t been able to figure out by some means we haven’t demonstrated over a certain period of time we haven’t been able to define except as being critical enough for everyone to put all their economic eggs into the one basket’ you claim will be the best way of protecting them)
“irreversible” (again, no way of demonstrating the mechanism of this, only a spinning of scenarios based on outcomes of models that depend entirely on both the input variables that are defined by a preexisting belief about how things should be or are feared to be along with an unhealthy amount of major tweaking all along the way that, even then, can’t get the models’ outputs to conform with observation.
With regard to 3, given the near complete ignorance of all relevant factors in 2 that are needed to demonstrate, rather than merely stir fear about, the supposed danger, the sooner you act with incomplete knowledge based on a political agenda aimed at maximizing public hysteria to deliver ever greater areas of economic activity into the control of the agitators for climate change mitigation, the sooner you will waste untold amounts of money while destroying the very economic activities that generate that money.
Yes, there is much you can do. It’s always been known that for every single positive, effective thing that can be done to generate order or to create something of value, there are a multitude of ways to destroy it.
How can such credentialed montebanks remain this clueless? Of course Earth’s temperatures are a-changin’, as they always have and always will. But the question is AGW Catastrophism, not our Pleistocene Era’s periodic fluctuations.
Pigs whistle as AAAS grant-mongers determinedly Advance to the Rear. If it’s “science” you’re after, best look decisively elsewhere.
After suffering blow after blow to the credibility of their IPCC mantra, I sense that the global warming alarmists are making a fresh assault on the public minds with a new wave of misleading propaganda on the climate science. And seeing that they have the ear of government, and have little difficulty attracting government support to push their politically correct climate agenda, I fear this major assault will work in their favour and result in a permanent corruption within the field of climate science, and in academia.
I worry for the science of climate change. Sadly, it has got to the point where I have little faith in this field as it has become so corrupted. There is no point for a genuine scientist to produce any research that is in conflict with the IPCC mantra because, as soon as the paper is published, the alarmists publish two or three in no time at all claiming showing significantly different conclusions.
Are the people on this site real? Or is it just a few senseless conspiracy theorists cackling loud enough for their voices to echo around in this cavern of stupidity!
[we don’t know Mr. Huxley, are you real? -mod]