From the “trust us, it’s worse than we thought” department comes another climate report that looks about as predictable and exciting as the Academy Awards on TV. They had to make a press release telling us all it’s “being reviewed”, like that means something these days? Perhaps the only people that will get excited about it will be Al Gore, who might use it as an opportunity to make more money.
National Academies review of the draft Fourth National Climate Assessment and second state of the carbon cycle report
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the draft Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) – a congressionally mandated report that evaluates the state of climate science and the broad range of impacts of climate change in the United States every four years – and the draft Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2) – a report that feeds into the overall assessment process developed by the USGCRP. The final NCA4 and SOCCR2 reports are anticipated to be released by USGCRP later this year. The National Academies released today evaluations of these two draft reports.
Review of the Draft Fourth National Climate Assessment
The Academies committee that conducted the new review concluded that the draft NCA4 accurately describes the science of climate change and impacts occurring and likely to occur this century across the nation. With appropriate revisions, the draft NCA4 provides a strong foundation of science that can serve as a valuable resource for a wide range of audiences.
To strengthen the NCA4 and enhance its ability to reach broad audiences, the committee recommended improving the communication of key aspects of the draft report. This includes providing more examples that describe the actions taken by private sector, public-private partnerships, and government to illustrate the range of solution-oriented efforts to address climate change impacts and associated risks.
The committee also suggested improving linkages across chapters, to better capture the interconnected nature of many climate change impacts. The Academies’ report says that chapters in the draft NCA4 detailing climate change impacts in U.S. regions are particularly effective in conveying the complex nature of climate change, largely because of the discussion of these interconnected impacts. The chapters addressing the impacts of climate change on specific sectors – such as the built environment, energy, ecosystems, and coastal areas – would benefit from similar attention to these complexities.
The committee also recommended that the NCA4 report explicitly identify significant advancements made since the Third National Climate Assessment with emphasis on emerging science, impacts, and examples of new response actions.
Review of the Draft Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report
A separate committee appointed to review the SOCCR2 draft concluded that it is a very informative overview of current scientific understanding of carbon cycle dynamics across North America. Some recommendations to strengthen the draft include: providing consistency in how carbon sources and sinks are described across various chapters and figures; clarifying ambiguities in the geographic scope of the assessment; focusing key findings on describing specifically what has been learned from new research; and expanding discussion of opportunities for effective management of carbon sources and sinks.
The Academies’ studies were sponsored by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org.
###
UPDATE: You can read it here. https://www.nap.edu/read/25013/chapter/1
h/t to “Kurt in Switzerland”
Note the list of reviewers, Heidi Cullen, Jonathan Overpeck, and Mary Nichols – some of the worst alarmists on the planet.
Dear Climate Scientists,
Pkease give us our money back. It turns out we have real issues to deal with, and we cannot keep paying for your story telling time.
Thanks in advance,
Citizens of the world
“… to better capture the interconnected nature of many climate change impacts. The Academies’ report says that chapters in the draft NCA4 detailing climate change impacts in U.S. regions are particularly effective in conveying the complex nature of climate change, largely because of the discussion of these interconnected impacts. The chapters addressing the impacts of climate change on specific sectors – such as the built environment, energy, ecosystems, and coastal areas – would benefit from similar attention to these complexities”
Excellent stuff. And here is what should happen: Donald Trump, who is already frustrated with Scott Pruitt’s work at the EPA, should fire him and replace this corporate lobbying/expense account loving grifter with an individual with from an appropriate scientific background and with relevant scientific academic qualifications. This individual should then act on this report’s recommendations, with Trump giving him/her free rein to do so. Such steps will get the US back on track in combatting the effects of AGW in line with the rest of the global community.
“combatting the effects of AGW” – sorry, you’re once again assuming “facts not in evidence.” First, “scientists” need to show that they have actually identified all natural climate drivers and analyzed all of THEIR effects on the Earth’s climate. Once that is accomplished, there won’t be anything left to blame on CO2, if their science is honestly done.
Impossible and you know it. Get real.
If it’s impossible, then it’s also impossible to claim that you know what the affect of CO2 is going to be.
And you know it.
One of these days ivan will present an actual, logically valid argument.
Until then he will continue to assume that anyone who dares to disagree with him is evil and in the pay of big oil.,
Strange that you mention being in the pay of big Oil … why did you bring this up? Big Oil is certainly providing funding to push back against AGW research. Why should someone who disagrees with me be backed by big Oil? You have your viewpoint and I have mine.
What you wish to be true and reality have never, not even once, coincided.
The lie that Big Oil is paying for a disinformation campaign has been refuted many times, but since the lie is so useful to those who have no other arguments, it does get brought up again, repeatedly.
One of the reviewers, Jonathan Overpeck stated in one of the Climategate 2.0 emails:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#8845ec827ba6
If the main message is the guide for reporting & reviewing you will know the result before reading.
Good reason to disband and disestablish the National Academies of “Science”.
Ha ha
As long as the taxpayers keep paying taxes, the climate warriers keep publishing reports. What I see is that we, the critics, keep making the same mistake as we did before. We talk to ourselves. I read all the comments, and say: I agree, and write another comment. To people like ourselves. The people in power, who could swing votes, don’t care what we say. They make money, and power, as long as the public keep voting as they do, and keep paying taxes when forced to do so.
I have sent numerous notes and articles to newspapers and other news media, but the people working in the censor departments are the only ones reading what I write. The censorship in Norway is extremely strong and effective. Freedom of speach? This concept has been stricken from our educational system long ago.