From the “FAFO” department comes this act of desperation. Somebody’s gotta save those super-duper important and scary National Climate Assessment reports. I’m so glad I’m not a member of these organizations anymore. – Anthony
AGU and AMS join forces on special collection to maintain momentum of research supporting the U.S. National Climate assessment
Science societies take action after NCA authors’ dismissal this week
2 May 2025
Joint Release
AGU contact:
Josh Weinberg, news@agu.org
AMS contact:
Katie Pflaumer, kpflaumer@ametsoc.org
WASHINGTON — The American Geophysical Union (AGU), the world’s largest association of Earth and space scientists, and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the professional society for atmospheric and related sciences and services, invite manuscripts for a new, first-of-its-kind special collection focused on climate change in the United States. This catalog of over 29 peer-reviewed journals covers all aspects of climate, including observations, projections, impacts, risks, and solutions.
This effort aims to sustain the momentum of the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA), the authors and staff of which were dismissed earlier this week by the Trump Administration, almost a year into the process. Congressionally mandated, the NCA draws on the latest scientific research to evaluate how climate change is affecting the United States. The new special collection does not replace the NCA but instead creates a mechanism for this important work to continue.
“It’s incumbent on us to ensure our communities, our neighbors, our children are all protected and prepared for the mounting risks of climate change,” said AGU President Brandon Jones. “This collaboration provides a critical pathway for a wide range of researchers to come together and provide the science needed to support the global enterprise pursuing solutions to climate change.”
This special collection is a unique and open opportunity for the scientific community to share their work in support of any U.S.-based scientific assessment. AGU and AMS invite other organizations that are publishing scholarly journals to join and help build the scope of this inclusive collaboration.
“The National Climate Assessment is a comprehensive, rigorous integration and evaluation of the latest climate science knowledge that decision makers — from government at all levels to private enterprise — need in order to understand the world in which we live,” said AMS President David J. Stensrud. “Our economy, our health, our society are all climate-dependent. While we cannot replace the NCA, we at AMS see it as vital to support and help expand this collaborative scientific effort for the benefit of the U.S. public and the world at large.”
NOTE: Submission details are forthcoming and will be posted and shared across all AGU and AMS platforms.
The American Geophysical Union (www.agu.org) is a global community supporting more than half a million scientists, advocates, and professionals in Earth and space sciences. Through broad and inclusive partnerships, AGU aims to advance discovery and solution science that accelerate knowledge and create solutions that are ethical, unbiased and respectful of communities and their values. Our programs include serving as a scholarly publisher, convening virtual and in-person events and providing career support. We live our values in everything we do, such as our net zero energy renovated building in Washington, D.C. and our Ethics and Equity Center, which fosters a diverse and inclusive geoscience community to ensure responsible conduct.
The American Meteorological Society (www.ametsoc.org) advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society. Founded in 1919, AMS has a membership of around 12,000 professionals, students, and weather enthusiasts. AMS publishes 12 atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic science journals; sponsors more than 12 conferences annually; and offers numerous programs and services.
What is different from an IPCC Assessment Report, which collects and assesses “all” the relevant science on climate change?
Who was it that said that all organizations, unless explicitly on the right, will tend to drift leftward over time. These two are good examples.
Regardless, AMS is too big, AGU, way, way, way, etc. too big. Lots of value in both but probably doesn’t have much stroke. Need to innoculate them from value judgements (politics).
All organizations that are not actually right wing will, over time, become left wing.
-John O’Sullivan
All bureaucracies tend to more bureaucratic behavior by nature. The last thing they want to do is solve the problems that created them, and one way to stave off that bad luck is to expand and find new problems.
I can’t think of a better definition of government growth, and the defining difference between left and right is how much they want government to meddle.
Election analyses of heavily bureaucracies-headquartered cities and districts in the US, Canada, Australia etc all show distinct left-majority voting habits at all levels, over long timeframes.
“Ya hafta dance with who brung ya” as the old adage goes.
“Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” – Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics
Look at the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts.
The leadership was infiltrated
Pretend females looking after young girls…… What could possibly go wrong !!
So now the girl scouts and the boy guides?
Another fun sex variation?
Geoff S
After several decades of private sector efficiency enhancements, private sector employees are not bubbling over with sympathy for collateral damage inflicted upon federal employment funded with debt spending.
The news channels are trying _so_hard_ to promote a recession that started _this_ quarter and has nothing to do with 2020 lockdown policies.
I am an Australian onlooker, so can I ask if a factor in the US troubles withe the climate assessment reports was overuse of cancel culture? Readers of such reports expect objections to findings to be discussed in neutral manner, not ignored or cancelled as if they did not exist.
For a general example of non-addressing, why are there still so many statements that “renewables” cost less than “fossil fuel” electricity generation when this is not true?
Geoff S
I’m not a climate expert and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (American joke) and have never read a climate assessment, but as an American I would suggest that the overuse of cancel culture is a factor in a lot of US troubles, not just the climate assessment.
Geoff, all religions cling to their mantras, no matter how removed from reality they are.
“Renewables cheaper” has been a core tenet of the AGW religion since it started in the 1970s.
They’re not going to give it up
any time soonever.The climate assessment report required by Congress can be summarized in a single paragraph:
At present the average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is near 2.5 parts per million (ppm) per year. This produces an increase in the emission downward longwave IR (LWIR) radiation from the lower troposphere to the surface of approximately 40 milliwatts per square meter per year (40 mW m-2 yr-1). It is impossible for this small increase LWIR energy to produce a measurable increase in surface temperature. Nor can it cause any change in the frequency or intensity of ‘extreme weather events’.
The US Global Change Program, USGCRP is the US deep state version of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When it was established by congress in 1990 it was told to assess both natural and human caused climate change. Instead, it has copied the IPCC and only considered human caused climate change.
The 5th US Climate Assessment Report, NCA5 is a pack of lies. The climate fraud is contained in NCA5 Figures 1.5, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. It is time to take the next steps: hold the climate modelers liable for the damages that they have caused and start to clawback the money that has been wasted.
The figure 1shows the conclusions from Tom Nelson podcast # 271 that summarizes the fraud in NCA5.
Most people do not know whether 2.5 ppm is a lot or a little. Expressing the number as a percentage, .00025% , helps the general public understand how tiny the increase is.
Similarly, expressing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as 400 ppm is equally misleading. The number 400 by itself seems like a big number, mentally on the scale of a $400 car payment. Expressing the percentage of CO2 as .04% puts the concentration in the proper context that we are concerned about a trace increase in a trace gas, as Professor Lindzen states.
I’ve found this analogy to be useful in understanding the proportions involved.
If the distance from Los Angeles to New York city (2445 miles) is represented as the atmospheric composition, the distance equivalent to each atmospheric gas (excluding water vapor) would be: Nitrogen – 1907 miles, Oxygen – 512 miles, Argon – 24.45 miles, Carbon Dioxide – 5104 feet. So if you were flying from LA to NY you’d reach the end of the CO2 at the end of the runway. Further, since the beginning of the industrial revolution the anthropogenic contribution to increased CO2 would have added only about 1100 feet to the CO2 portion. You’d taxi farther than that just to get to the runway.
+2.5 ppmv is a 0.59% annual increase.
The effect is modest and benign, but it is not zero. It adds about 25 mW of annual TOA forcing, before feedbacks.
Arguably, the best way to estimate the effect on temperature (“climate sensitivity”) is by comparing measured temperature change to the GHG level changes we’ve already seen.
Step 1. Note that globally averaged temperature has risen about 1.2 ±0.2°C since the (“pre-industrial”) Little Ice Age.
Step 2. Note that even if we assume it was ALL caused by human activity (which I doubt), at most 80% of it was due to the rise in CO2 (280 → 425 ppmv).
Step 3. Calculate that we’ve had log2(425/280) = 60% of the “radiative forcing” that we’d get from a doubling of CO2.
Step 4. Calculate that the “practical climate sensitivity” = 1.2°C × 80% / 0.60 = about 1.6°C/doubling. (If a portion of the warming since the “preindustrial” late Little Ice Age was natural, as I suspect, then sensitivity was even less.)
Step 5. Calculate that ECS (“Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”) is about 1.2× that, which makes it about 1.92°C/doubling, and TCR (“Transient Climate Response”) is about 0.8× that, which makes it about 1.28°C/doubling.
(You can also do calculations like these using shorter time periods, and you’ll get similar results, but be sure to use endpoints during ENSO-neutral conditions.)
Note: Aerosol & particulate air pollution were reducing / masking the warming effect until about 1980. Since then, air pollution abatement has been reducing the masking/cooling effects of aerosol & particulate pollution, and that accounts for part of the rise in temperatures over the last 45 years.
The IMO 2020 low-sulfur shipping rules just reduced aerosol pollution again, quite suddenly. This paper says that air pollution abatement in China has also contributed to the warming trend, though more gradually:
Bjørn Samset, et al (2025). China’s aerosol cleanup has contributed strongly to the recent acceleration in global warming. Research Square preprint. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6005409/v1
‘the recent acceleration in global warming’ Huh?
Bill S,
Another example of unit confusion is the increasingly fast jumps from million to billion to trillion.
We see it in descriptions of very wealthy people.
Mental images seem to regard the jumps as linear, when actually each of those terminology jumps expresses a change of 1,000 times.
I remember my employer company in 1992 with 5,000 employees being proud that it reached its first million dollar annual budget. That is chicken feed these days, the illusion shows.
Geoff S
Even this is overstated. The “40 mW m-2 yr-1” of energy is mostly conducted back into the atmosphere due to the unique physics of the turbulent boundary layer.
Some of it induces increased evaporation since water is the primary surface of the planet. The actual effect would be a slight cooling except for the slight increase in CO2 energy absorption from pressure broadening.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 0.839 g of CO2 and a mass of 1.29 kg.
There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wave IR and cause heating of surface air. Convection of heat from the surface is the main process that warms the air.
How do we inform the people that this small amount of CO2 does not endanger human heath and welfare as claimed by the EPA?
Roy Clark emits his usual drive-by nonsense, as follows: “This produces an increase in the emission downward longwave IR (LWIR) radiation from the lower troposphere to the surface of approximately 40 milliwatts per square meter per year”
No it doesn’t. Where did you get that from? You certainly didn’t measure it. No one has.
It takes a trainload of chutzpah to call that garbage “science”.
“It takes a trainload of chutzpah to call that garbage “science”.”
*************
Agreed Bob.
Also,
“The new special collection does not replace the NCA but instead creates a mechanism for this important work to continue.”
Junk pseudoscience intended to keep the climate alarmist narrative going is not “important work”. It is a propaganda campaign of lies and fraud driven by the greed for money, power and control over the economy and the live of the masses. The sooner it dies out, the better.
Change masses to deplorables.
“It’s incumbent on us to ensure our communities, our neighbors, our children are all protected and prepared for the mounting risks of climate change,” said AGU President Brandon Jones.
I’m done reading.
A little overestimation of their own self-importance.
I agree that planning for climate changes is important. When the ice sheets return and Canada and much of the US and Europe become glacial again, and sea levels drop over 100m rendering all current ports useless, those will be major engineering challenges. But it doesn’t look like any of the erstwhile science and engineering societies (including governing bodies) want to do their jobs and consider more than one possible future.
Like Marxists, they are certain that they know the future and are willing to change the past (aka historic data) to prevent any questioning of their faith.
It is a highly sensible idea to get this schist off the taxpaying citizen’s account. It thus becomes Non-Governmental Organizational (NGO) propaganda and not Official Govt. doctrine.
The blurb of the AGU had me retching.
Let’s go, Brandon.
It has been over 50 years now since W. W. Kellogg began his 70’s crusade to impose his climate change view on humanity. His Technical Note No. 156, was delivered at the WMO in 1977, part of a continuing theme presented over nearly two decades to promote Kellogg’s assertion – “ALL that CO2 must be BAD”.
With his manifesto, he launched his vendetta against CO2, fossil fuels, and in fact, against humanity, seeking ever greater money and power. His famous acolyte, Schneider, wrote that the data and models must be presented in an urgent manner that produces political action, even as we downplay aspects which do not support the narrative.
The fervor was aimed at the creation of a mountain of funding from a molehill of science and it has worked for half a century. But, all good things come to an end when predictions fail consistently for half a century. Kellogg and Schneider could not fool Mother Nature.
Thanks for the alert about W. W. Kellogg. I didn’t know of him and his early alarmism. Researching his name produced a trove of early scare articles about CO₂ emissions. One can see from where Jim Hansen got his inspiration.
From the article: ““It’s incumbent on us to ensure our communities, our neighbors, our children are all protected and prepared for the mounting risks of climate change,” said AGU President Brandon Jones.”
There’s the problem: The leadership of the AGU is delusional.
What “mounting risks” of climate change? Brandon is seeing things that are not really there.
Somebody should teach Brandon the difference between an assumption and an established fact. Obviously, he has them confused in his mind.
Brandon, you, and people like you, are the problem. You are not living in the Real World and are misleading people with your CO2-Phobia.
Here we have scientists who don’t know how to think scientifically. What a pathetic situation.
Professional Society. Don’t make me laugh.
Mounting risks to their government funding and sinecures.
The AMS publishes a “State of the Climate” every year. The National Climate Assessment is published about every five years. WHY??? Climate changes very slowly. The atmosphere is warming at about 1C per century. PER CENTURY!! Why don’t we demands hourly updates on the state of continental drift? It’s is obvious that these publications are so frequent so as to churn up the dollars. There’s no need for any climate assessment at any greater rate than decadal. If that.
Right now climate is changing very slowly. We should not take that to mean that it always does. Just like the AGU and AMS should not presume that climate can only change in one direction.
I think more conferences in far-away places would alleviate their fears….
Current explanations of sea level change are non-scientific because of common assumptions that the shape and size of the basins hosting the water are constant. However, we know from sea floor spreading, emergence of new islands, delta sedimentation from land, etc that the basin does change.
Nobody has invoked basin change because of its potential to challenge pet theories. It has been given the cancel culture silence treatment.
It follows that the expansion of oceans from alleged more heat is not measured accurately. This is just as well because sea level measurements are not showing thermometer-like change in response to alleged hockey stick type temperature change with a blade since 1950 or so commonly depicted.
This is all related to warming and cooling of ocean masses. There are various theories about causes. One “silenced” theory is about changes in submarine volcanism. There are submarine hot spots like the west Pacific warm pool around parts of Indonesia. If these change enough in intensity over time, we might have a mechanism for El Nino effects. The possibly seems understudied, in favour of easier to measure pop science like CO2 radiative forcing.
We really need to curb the ever so easy, ever so common anti-science human technique of refusing to consider potential mechanisms in case they damage current wisdom.
Many past science achievements demolished conventional wisdoms. It is one way that science advances. Geoff S
Yes, but doing science is hard gritty private work, Geoff, bringing neither publicity nor much in the way of honors. Very much easier and more rewarding to sit and manipulate models.
Josh Willis, from JPL, is currently waving his hands about accelerating sea level rise. He is probably afraid of being handed his walking papers.
NASA issues warning after sudden change in the ocean surprises scientists: ‘Getting faster and faster’
To me, declaring it “peer reviewed” is like the kiss of death. It literally drives a stake through the heart of its credibility.
One of Trump’s better decisions.