By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
In its new report on the risks from human-caused climate change, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sets climate science back rather than “advancing” it. The report, counterfactuallytitled “What We Know,” is more an account of what the scientific community thought it knew about a decade ago than an up-to-date telling of current understanding.
Not surprisingly, the group ignores the fact that climate science is moving in a direction that increasingly suggests that the risk of extreme climate change is lower than has been previously assessed. Instead, the AAAS continues to play up the chance of extreme outcomes with the intent of scaring us into taking action — action that would have little impact on either future climate change or the risks therefrom.
The AAAS largely appeals to its own authority in trying to persuade us to believe its conclusions and yet informs its authority with old and obsolete science.
Nowhere is this more true than in its justification for highlighting the risks of “abrupt climate change” and in its faith in the ability of climate models to provide reliable and informed guidance regarding the probability of extreme climate changes’ occurring in the future.
The new report asserts:
Below are some of the high-side projections and tail risks we incur by following the current path for CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these projections derive from computer simulations of Earth and its climate system. These models apply the best understanding science has to offer about how our climate works and how it will change in the future. There are many such models and all of them have been validated, to varying degrees, by their ability to replicate past climate changes.
However, the best and most recent science shows the AAAS assessment to be outdated and badly misplaced. In fact, climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades, and high-end climate-change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.
For example, in January, researchers John Fyfe and Nathan Gillett published an article in the prominent journal Nature Climate Change that found that “global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models.” And last year, scientists Peter Stott and colleagues published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters that concluded that “the upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming.”
A host of other prominent papers that have examined the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse-gas emissions collectively suggest that not only is future global warming likely to be less than previously expected, but, and perhaps more important, the outside chance that it will be extremely large has shrunk dramatically. This position is further supported by new research that downplays the threat of abrupt climate change from Arctic methane release, a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, and rapid sea-level rise.
Instead of an informed report by the esteemed group focused on presenting what today’s best science tells us regarding the risks from extreme climate change and our ability to mitigate them, what we got from the AAAS was a textbook example of climate alarmism: link human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions to climate change, raise the possibility that climate change will be disastrous, and then tell us we have to act now to save ourselves.
The first part of the AAAS guide to climate alarm is certainly true: Human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions do put pressure on the climate to warm. But the most important details — to what degree and of what character — are still uncertain and are being intensely studied and debated.
The second part has been relegated to the realm of climate fantasy. Today’s leading science suggests that coming human-caused climate change is going to be less than expected, with a much-diminished associated risk of abrupt changes with catastrophic outcomes.
Which means that the third part — that immediate action is required to reduce the risk of extreme change — is largely inapplicable (and such action is likely to be ineffective to boot).
The new AAAS report runs up climate alarm but runs down climate science. The result is a misleading document that is aimed at influencing public policy. This is the situation that should be raising alarm.
This article appeared in National Review (Online) on March 27, 2014. Illustration by Anthony Watts.
Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger is assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
J wrote: …relentless media focus on weather extremes in the press.
The Weather Channel is in a struggle for viewership now after being dumped by DirecTV. SO they need weather “disasters” and big storms to drive remaining viewers. Same with CNN as we saw with Hurr Sandy in ’12. They all need alarmist rhetoric to drive viewership. The problem is alarmism fatigue and public apathy toward such rhetoric is rapidly growing not just in the US but in Europe and Australia as well. Cold winters don’t help the alarmists with public opinion of course, but from a skeptical science standpoint, we can’t do what we see happen all too often with the AGW alarmists, that is to trumpet individual weather events as evidence of climate change.
Climategate email 1225026120.txt
(written in 2008)
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1225026120.txt
“Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.”
the alarmists need to present 30 year snapshots decontextualised from the ice age cycles. Once you contextualise there is no problem. Temps are in a downtrend.
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/28figures/fig3.gif
“Greenhouse gases have supercharged the climate just as steroids supercharged hitting in
Major League Baseball.”
They surely must be referring to the plant world, as the proven law of photosynthesis and key role of increasing CO2, gives plants the ability to make more food and grow like they are “on steroids”……………..which numerous studies show is happening.
Interesting how this greenhouse gas=climate change connection has taken on a link where there is none. I have looked at tornadoes, drought, hurricanes, mid latitude cyclones and don’t see it, in fact, just the opposite on elements that have less energy from high latitude warming and a a weaker meridional temp gradient.
The real puzzler is how can climate change continue to accelerate over a decade after the global warming stopped?
Since the warming from CO2 stopped or at the very least has not been anything to worry about the last 15 years ago, how the heck is the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere communicating the message to our climate to cause all these extreme weather events without doing it thru significant warming?
Must be similar to how the hidden heat got into the deep oceans without first passing thru the upper levels.
Seriously, this is more powerful evidence of politics at play.
Science incorporates new information and adjusts accordingly to where the data leads the scientist.
Politics does the opposite. When the new information contradicts the message, the marketing strategy to win the battle must be ramped up to overcome the inconvenience of contradicting empirical data.
This is why just this year we’ve heard Dr. Holdren insist that global warming, now causes extreme cold and John Kerry telling us that climate change is the worst threat facing humanity and Obama ramping up his message and actions to fight carbon pollution……………..because it isn’t happening.
Everything is now caused by climate change. I will say one thing that for sure is caused by LACK of climate change…………………..lying.
dccowboy – nice one.
+++++++++
Next:
“Most of these projections derive from computer simulations of Earth and its climate system.”
Most? What are the others derived from? Cheerio boxes? Cheerios (much against expectation) are like alarming climate disaster predictions: they are lightweight, go round and round and are full of holes.
+++++++++
Next:
What does AAAAAAS mean?
A-a-a-a-a-a…Science?
+++++++++
Next:
There’s all the stuff we know.
There’s all the stuff we think we know.
There’s all the stuff we think we don’t know.
There’s all the stuff we are pretty sure we don’t know.
There’s all the stuff we are pretty darned sure we don’t know.
There’s all the stuff we really know we don’t know.
There’s all the stuff we will in future know that we don’t know.
There’s all the stuff we might never know that we don’t know.
There’s all the stuff we will never know whether or not we will ever know that we don’t know.
There’s some other stuff we will just never know about what we don’t know, let alone know it.
Now, lets build a model only using what we know…
This got me wondering. I have a lot of spirited debates with a good friend about this stuff. His big weapon is the belief that the Climate Alarmists are “true scientists” and that their version of reality is supported by 97 percent of the scientific community and the opposition is just a bunch of oil funded weathermen. OK…I know the arguments against this stuff. No need to regurgitate the old defenses. So here is my question…
What, exactly, have the Alarmist scientists done or predicted that has been proven out? In other words, other than having seized the position of the official voice of climate change in the eyes of a lot of people, what have they been right about? Objectively, what makes them deserve this elevated position of authority?
Let’s face it, progressives love to scream for urgent action. It’s their raison d’etre and their modus operandi and they are rather accomplished at the task.
We also know that they’re pretty much incapable of actually achieving anything constructive although, regrettably, they are inclined to spend a lot of taxpayer money in the process.of doing nothing.
We just need to use the science to deprive them of access to the public purse.
Here’s a blatant example of some of the most biased reporting ever by a reporter from TIme.
“January Hasn’t Been As Cold As You Think”
http://science.time.com/2014/01/22/average-temperatures-in-january-warm-despite-cold/
“The results make this winter look surprisingly average”
“And who knows, by 2100—when average temperatures in the U.S. might be as much as 11 F higher if nothing is done to slow greenhouse gas emissions—our descendants might even get a freak January in New York when average temperatures actually fall below 40 F. And they’ll call it a cold snap”
Proud Skeptic
In the late 80’s they predicted temperatures would keep rising and they were right, for 9 years. They have been wrong for the subsequent 17 but that has not dampened enthusiasm for the original prediction.
The prediction of ‘polar amplification’ (which is not based, as far as I can tell, on physics) was a knee-jerk response to the spectacular failure of the prediction of a tropical hotspot at 8-16 km altitude as per Al Gore’s mendacious movie. They are still fudging (even in AR5) the fact that it is missing by pretending the data is not clear enough to tell. So the polar thing is half right – it did warm in the Arctic but cooled in the Antarctic (on land anyway – hence the need to lie about it on the cover of Nature). Increase ice in the East of Antarctica and all time global record cold (during Fall, no less) is undermining the value of the ‘correct half’ of that thumb-suck.
In short, not much.
From what I have seen, climate models seem to have been tuned to replicate the rise in temperatures from 1970-1998 and pretty much assume that ALL of the warming is due to CO2. They call that validation???? They need to be able to completely model the CET thermometer data over the past 200 years. And the models should be able to replicate the MWP and LIA (and NOT the MANN version either).
Taphonomic says:
March 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm
From the report:
“Extreme weather is not just an abstract concept. It is a reality that affects people across the country. In 2013, two out of three Americans said weather in the U.S. has been worse over the past several years, up 12 percentage points since spring 2012. Many (51%) say weather in their local area has been worse over the past several years. Not surprisingly, then, the gap between what we know as scientists (that global warming impacts are here and now) and what Americans perceive is narrowing: about six in 10 Americans already say, “global warming is affecting weather in the U.S.””
So anecdotal evidence is now considered valid science? And 51% qualifies as many?
Yes, in “post-modern climate science,” anecdotes trump data.
If Arctic/Polar amplification from melted ice were a legit climate change pattern, responsible for this years extreme cold, we should have seen a couple of things.
1. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, when there was real global warming and it was much greater at the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, along with melting ice, there should have been some evidence of it. In contrast, the weather at mid latitudes in most Winters was also milder during those years.
2. The ice hit it’s low point in 2012, when it spiked much lower. If there ever was a year for this phenomena to be present, that was it.
3. The ice made substantial gains in 2013. Not recovered completely of course but made gains. This would seem to make the occurrence of this phenomena seem less likely but exactly the opposite happened, the Polar Vortex dropped south many times.
4. This is the same pattern that we saw numerous times in the 1970’s when the US was hit with several frigid Winters…….the Polar Vortex dropping far south.
5. The PDO was negative in the 1970’s, we saw global cooling and the Polar Vortex dropped extremely far south numerous times during several Winters. The PDO went positive until around a decade ago and we saw global warming and the Polar Vortex rarely displayed this type of behavior. Then the PDO went negative around a decade ago, the warming stopped, the snow increased and now we have the Polar Vortex dropping way south again.
Correlation is with PDO. When it’s negative, we have cold Winters and the Polar Vortex drops south. When it’s positive, just the opposite.
Correlation is inverse, the opposite of sign of ice in the Arctic and claimed effect by warmists…….when ice decreases, we see it less. When ice increases or is greater, we see it more.
There is no correlation with CO2, since CO2 has gone up every year and this effect comes and goes independent of CO2. It’s based on a natural cycle.that appears to match up nicely with the PDO.
They do fear an abrupt change of climate.
In this they are refreshingly correct.
Just for the wrong reasons.
That climate has already changed in Australia, it is in transition here in Canada and I expect an abrupt change in the USA late in 2014.
An abused and impoverished electorate can be very quick to change how it treats state funded parasites.
“Correlation is inverse, the opposite of sign of ice in the Arctic and claimed effect by warmists…….when ice decreases, we see it less. When ice increases or is greater, we see it more.”
Sorry, that wasn’t very clear.]
Correlation is the opposite of claimed correlation(claim is that less ice/warmer Arctic causes a weaker jet stream, resulting in the Polar Vortex being displaced south)
Reality is that when ice decreased and Arctic warmed the most we did not see any sign of this pattern. Reality is that the Polar Vortex dropped south much more frequently back in the 1970’s when there was MORE ice.
This pattern got so much coverage, only AFTER the Polar Vortex dropped south this year and it was then blamed on global warming, just as the increase of Winter snow in the Northern Hemisphere got blamed on global warming AFTER snow increased.
What We Know,” is more an account of what the scientific community thought it knew about a decade ago than an up-to-date telling of current understanding.
What the hell does this crap mean ???? ;>(
Speaking of “what we know,” do you people know that “A panel of 13 U.S. climate scientists, including oceanographers, ecologists and public health experts, worked with Climate Nexus, a communications nonprofit, to produce the succinct report and a website”?
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0319-climate-change-20140319,0,234455.story
And according to ClimateNexus, they are a Koch Brothers, opps I meant Rockefeller funded NGO:
“Sponsorship
We are a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with funding provided by a number of foundations and philanthropies.”
http://climatenexus.org
Wonder why the MSM didn’t report this little factoid to us? … /sarc
Hah hah! I love that alarm pic.
lorne50 says:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“What We Know,” is more an account of what the scientific community thought it knew about a decade ago than an up-to-date telling of current understanding.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“What the hell does this crap mean ???? ;>(”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This is how I parsed it:
“What We Know,” is more an account of what climate scientologists thought they knew about a decade ago, before they downgraded climate “sensitivity” and started churning out a plethora of elliptic explanations in a desperate effort to circumscribe the failure of their modeled warming predictions.
If that doesn’t work for you, try:
“What We Know,” is more an account of what climate scientologists thought they knew about a decade ago, when they stopped shrieking about declining snowfalls and thermageddon and changed their tune to “extreme weather.”
Arctic Bay Nunavut is -28C . That’s without windchill . Really heating things up in the North . If it gets any warmer I may start spending my winters there to escape the cold south. Sarc of course.
Taylor on Forbes once set out 4 requirements, all of which must be met, for AGW assertions to be accepted:
1. Warming must be occurring, and be serious
2. Mankind must be substantially to blame
3. Mitigation must be feasible
4. The cost of mitigation must be less than the probable cost of adaptation.
NONE are met or proven, much less all of them.
@ur momisugly Brian H,
That is an excellent list.The evidence suggests on each of those points:
1. Warming must be occurring, and be serious
Warming has been trivial, and the results have been in no trends that are historically unusual or dangerous.
2. Mankind must be substantially to blame
The real question is “blame for what?” Since the effects have been trivial, the concept of ‘blame’ is of little importance in any objective sense.
3. Mitigation must be feasible
Not one mitigation idea pushed by the AGW movement has worked. Political ideas, like treaties, are abject failures. Technical ideas, like wind power, do not work. The two ideas that could work are nuclear power and turning off the world’s economies to a subsistence level. Nuclear poser is not acceptable to most greens, and ending the age of technology is not acceptable to sane people.
4. The cost of mitigation must be less than the probable cost of adaptation.
The cost of mitigation, since it is does not exist is in effect infinite. Adaptation to a climate whose rate of change is trivially different, if at all, to pre-CO2 obsessed periods of history is the only way forward. If what we are after is a progressive society that creates opportunity and prosperity to grow.
AAAS “There are many such models and all of them have been validated, to varying degrees, by their ability to replicate past climate changes.”
No, No, No, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
This is one of the biggest climate change false statements.
More correctly, most model validation has been attempted on climate change assumptions as already modelled by climate change modellers.
example. If you are validating a model of a past temperature time series, you must validate against the raw data record. It is false and contra-logical to try to validate against an adjusted data record. If you try, you are not validating a past climate, you are validating the merits of a synthetic adjustment. The logic of course extends way beyond this simple example of temperature adjustments.
real life simple example. If you are modelling the grade of ore thought to exist between sparse drill hole assays, you do not ‘adjust’ your inconvenient or missing assays to produce a better starting set that is easier on the stats (although this is sometimes done with disclosure when nugget effects are severe). You do not ignore perturbing variables (like aerosols) such as an analytical chemistry interference of the abundance of one chemical on another (like too much iron and the copper can analyse high).
The thing is, there is no non-criminal upside to adjusting data when modelling an ore deposit. It is easier to forecast using the proper figures than it is to go to the trouble of working with synthetic figures known to be suspect. If you fiddle figures up you can go to jail, if you fiddle them down you can go broke.
It’s finally about accountability for being wrong, an outcome seldom admitted as possible in the climate business.. Did you hear the story of the climate change worker who was caught fiddling the books?