AMS : US Supreme Court Destroying The Planet

“The AMS is deeply concerned by the United States’ inadequate response to climate change and the dangers it poses to the nation and all life. . This inadequacy is illustrated most recently–but by no means only–through the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA

Climate change is a highly solvable problem”

AMS_Statement-EPA-2(1).pdf

The death rate from natural disasters including “all geophysical, meteorological and climate events including earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, drought,
wildfires, storms, and flooding” is down 95% over the past century.

Natural Disasters Data Explorer – Our World in Data

Life expectancy has doubled

Life expectancy, 1543 to 2019

In 2013, Barack Obama said “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

11:48 AM · May 16, 2013

The American Meteorological Society did a survey of their professional members later that year, and found that only 52% believed global warming was mostly man-made, and they weren’t even asked if it was dangerous.

Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members in: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 95 Issue 7 (2014)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to AMS : US Supreme Court Destroying The Planet

  1. Roger Caiazza says:

    And that is why I stopped being a member 10 years ago

  2. Joao Martins says:

    I am shocked. Literally, shocked as “shocked” means.

    I would NEVER, even in my dreams, imagine that the Americam Meteorological Society (or any other learned society in the field of meteorology) would state something like this:

    “Climate change is a highly solvable problem and the available solutions … ”

    Realy. Take no offense, Tony Heller, but I had to see the very original. Incredible!

  3. GreyGeek says:

    README.txt from the FOIA 2011 dump. The numbers refer to the email text numbers.

    /// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

    “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

    “Poverty is a death sentence.”

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

    This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
    remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
    to publicly release the passphrase.

    We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
    as…

    /// The IPCC Process ///

    Thorne/MetO:

    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
    troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
    wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
    uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
    further if necessary […]

    Thorne:

    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
    which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    Carter:

    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
    talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
    a select core group.

    Wigley:

    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
    dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

    Overpeck:

    The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
    included and what is left out.

    Overpeck:

    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
    “Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
    an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

    Wanner/NCCR:

    In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […]
    My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
    internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
    early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
    Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
    SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

    Coe:

    Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
    instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
    in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
    the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
    reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
    the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
    for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
    methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

    Briffa:

    I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
    all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

    Jones:

    I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
    certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

    Trenberth:

    […] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
    stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
    Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
    saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. […] I am leaning
    toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
    Japanese.

    Jones:

    We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
    or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.

    Jones:

    Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
    say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.

    Jones:

    Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
    the tornadoes group.

    Jones:

    Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
    issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
    have to involve him ?)

    Stott/MetO:

    My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement [“probably the
    warmest of the last millennium”] in or whether I should remove it in the
    anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
    this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

    /// Communicating Climate Change ///

    Humphrey/DEFRA:

    I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
    message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
    story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
    to look foolish.

    Fox/Environment Agency:

    if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
    regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

    Adams:

    Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
    complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
    that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

    Lorenzoni:

    I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
    governmental opinion […] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
    daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
    evolving phenomenon

    Jones:

    We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
    […] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.

    Mann:

    the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
    the site [Real Climate] is about.

    Ashton/co2.org:

    Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
    this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
    one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most
    valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
    possible

    Kelly:

    the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
    from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
    […] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
    taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable

    Singer/WWF:

    we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
    public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
    b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
    extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
    energy

    Torok/CSIRO:

    […] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
    “global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
    It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
    destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
    “unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
    loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
    systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
    project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
    change

    Minns/Tyndall Centre:

    In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
    relations problem with the media

    Kjellen:

    I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
    warming

    Pierrehumbert:

    What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
    like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

    /// The Medieval Warm Period ///

    Pollack:

    But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

    Rahmstorf:

    You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
    in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
    solar forcing

    Cook:

    A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
    during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
    “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
    in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
    seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
    MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

    /// The Settled Science ///

    Warren:

    The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases […] As it stands
    we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.

    Wils:

    [2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
    fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]

    Wilson:

    Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
    since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
    surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
    […] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
    models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
    the sun alone.

    Hoskins:

    If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
    up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
    warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.

    Jenkins/MetO:

    would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
    melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

    Jones:

    [tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
    have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
    that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.

    Jones:

    There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent
    extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.

    Crowley:

    I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
    cost of damaged personal relationships

    Briffa:

    Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
    increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
    be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
    with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
    decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
    real?

    Crowley:

    Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
    the open.

    Steig:

    He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
    thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
    supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

    Jones:

    This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
    sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.

    Haimberger:

    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
    in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
    remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

    Klein/LLNL:

    Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
    negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
    warming do this

    Osborn:

    This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
    it raises some interesting results […] the analysis will not likely lie near to
    the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
    this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

    Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

    In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
    the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
    cannot be explained in this way.

    /// The Urban Heat Effect ///

    Jenkins/MetO:

    By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI
    has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.

    Jones:

    I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
    think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
    data that makes by their Figure 3.

    Rean:

    […] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
    This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
    […] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
    when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

    Wigley:

    there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets —
    we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

    Jones:

    The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
    all Californian sites.

    Jones:

    I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
    paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
    20th century.

    Jones:

    […] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
    the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
    means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
    GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
    […] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
    There is no urban effect there.

    /// Temperature Reconstructions ///

    Wilson:

    any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
    undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
    have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
    comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

    Jones:

    what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
    I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

    Mitchell/MetO

    Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
    to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

    Wilson:

    I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
    could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
    […] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
    precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

    Bradley:

    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
    never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.

    Osborn:

    Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
    middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
    MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
    ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

    Esper:

    Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
    is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
    missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
    dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
    don’t you want to let the result into science?

    Cook:

    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
    defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
    science move ahead.

    Cook:

    One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
    better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
    know where his estimates are coming from.

    /// Science and Religion ///

    Wigley:

    I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
    skeptics have extreme religious views.

    Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

    […] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
    Earth […] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
    must pray that they pick up that message.

    Hulme:

    My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
    job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
    God’s planet into research and action.

    Hulme:

    He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
    the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.

    /// Climate Models ///

    Watson/UEA:

    I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
    scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
    scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
    decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
    not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
    question of how the climate will change in many decades time.

    Shukla/IGES:

    [“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
    willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
    projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
    simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

    Lanzante/NOAA:

    While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
    lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
    or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
    that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
    breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.

    Santer:

    there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
    tests we’ve applied.

    Barnett:

    [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
    modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

    Hegerl:

    [IPCC AR5 models]
    So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
    suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
    correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.

    Jones:

    Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
    level clouds.

    Jones:

    GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
    correct.

    /// The Cause ///

    Mann:

    By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
    reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
    reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    Mann:

    They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
    example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
    upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
    bit.

    Mann:

    I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
    doing, but its not helping the cause

    Berger:

    Phil,
    Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.

    Jones:

    [on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase

    Jones:

    [to Hansen] Keep up the good work! […] Even though it’s been a mild winter in
    the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
    La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!

    Schneider:

    Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
    forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy

    /// Freedom of Information ///

    Jones:

    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
    and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
    process

    Briffa:

    UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
    anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
    task.

    Osborn:

    Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
    “David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
    you’ll already have.

    McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

    As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
    communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
    that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
    we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)

    Jones:

    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
    get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
    Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
    station data.

  4. Conrad Ziefle says:

    Climate change is a highly solvable problem”
    Yeah, you simply admit that you got it wrong, all wrong. Secondly, meteorologists have no clue what is a viable solution unless they also have a degree in engineering.

  5. BenV says:

    Helps explain why my favorite local station meteorologist quit and got a different job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.