The American Meteorological Society is soliciting input on their draft statement (h/t to Joe Daleo)

“Communicating Science” An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

They have sent out the following

The following draft statement is currently under review by the AMS Council:”Communicating Science”

If you have comment on this draft AMS Statement currently under consideration, you may transmit those comments to the AMS Council by sending a message to the following e-mail address: statement_comments@ametsoc.org before 2 February 2011.

Thanks!
Melissa S. Weston, Executive Officer
American Meteorological Society
45 Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-3693 USA
Phone: 617.226.3904
Web: http://www.ametsoc.org/

I urge readers of my weblog to send in comments. I have excepted a few statements from the draft text for my comments.

The first excerpt that I am commenting on is

“What Is Science?

Science is an enterprise that systematically acquires and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and verifiable predictions about the natural world.”

This is an excellent succinct summary statement of what science is. This is clearly a requirement that multi-decadal climate predictions for the remainder of the 21st century cannot satisfy.

The second excerpt is

“A model is a physical, mathematical, or conceptual framework for describing reality. Most weather and climate models, for example, are sets of equations that represent the principles and conditions that govern the behavior of energy, mass, momentum, and moisture in the atmosphere.”

The statement needs to have added that only the dynamic core of these models (i.e. the pressure gradient force, advection, and gravity) represent basic physics. All other components of these models are parameterizations, which means they are not fundamental physics but engineering code with tunable parameters.

“Modeling will continue to be an essential tool used by scientists for investigation and prediction. Because models are solidly grounded in mathematics and physical observations, and represent a logical description of the system that they are designed to predict, they offer the best and most effective means for testing the consequence of a full range of inputs to a system, from subtle changes to shocks.”

This statement has an important error. Modeling DO NOT “offer the best and most effective means for testing the consequence of a full range of inputs to a system, from subtle changes to shocks”.  Models are themselves hypotheses.  They cannot be used as a “test” without comparing their predictions with actual observed data. 

Real world observations, not models, therefore, are the appropriate means for testing the consequence of a full range of inputs to a system, from subtle changes to shocks!  Models can assist in the interpretation of the behavior of the studied system, as well as to make forecasts ONCE the accuracy of their predictions are verified against observed data.

This is clearly a requirement that multi-decadal climate predictions decades from now cannot pass until those decades have occurred.

I discuss this issue in a number of my posts; e.g.

When Is A Model a Good Model?

Recommended Reading - ”What Can We Learn From Climate Models?” By Judy Curry

What Are Climate Models? What Do They Do?

Real Climate Misunderstanding Of Climate Models
The bottom line message is the weather and climate models are not basic physics, but are engineering codes with a core of fundamental physics but with much of the atmospheric, ocean, cryosphere and land represented by tunable engineering code (i.e. their parameterizations).

I urge the AMS statement be modified to correct this misunderstanding concerning models.

See more here.

Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall (below, enlarged here).

Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs [see Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics; 151, 177 (1994)]). Prior to that time the predictions are less reliable but nonetheless equally as important. Planning for satellite orbits and space missions often require knowledge of solar activity levels years in advance.

A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle.

Among the most reliable techniques are those that use the measurements of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field at, and before, sunspot minimum. These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms but the precise connections between them and future solar activity levels is still uncertain.

Of these “geomagnetic precursor” techniques three stand out. The earliest is from Ohl and Ohl [Solar-Terrestrial Predictions Proceedings, Vol. II. 258 (1979)] They found that the value of the geomagnetic aa index at its minimum was related to the sunspot number during the ensuing maximum. The primary disadvantage of this technique is that the minimum in the geomagnetic aa index often occurs slightly after sunspot minimum so the prediction isn’t available until the sunspot cycle has started.

An alternative method is due to a process suggested by Joan Feynman. She separates the geomagnetic aa index into two components: one in phase with and proportional to the sunspot number, the other component is then the remaining signal. This remaining signal has, in the past, given good estimates of the sunspot numbers several years in advance. The maximum in this signal occurs near sunspot minimum and is proportional to the sunspot number during the following maximum. This method does allow for a prediction of the next sunspot maximum at the time of sunspot minimum.

A third method is due to Richard Thompson [Solar Physics 148, 383 (1993)]. He found a relationship between the number of days during a sunspot cycle in which the geomagnetic field was “disturbed” and the amplitude of the next sunspot maximum. His method has the advantage of giving a prediction for the size of the next sunspot maximum well before sunspot minimum.

We have suggested using the average of the predictions given by the Feynman-based method and by Thompson’s method. [See Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann J. Geophys. Res. 104, 22,375 (1999)] However, both of these methods were impacted by the “Halloween Events” of October/November 2003 which were not reflected in the sunspot numbers. Both methods give larger than average amplitude to Cycle 24 while its delayed start and low minimum strongly suggest a much smaller cycle.

The smoothed aa index reached its minimum (a record low) of 8.4 in September of 2009. Using Ohl’s method now indicates a maximum sunspot number of 70 plus/minus 18 for cycle 24. We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a starting time of May 2008 with minimum occurring in December 2008 and maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. The predicted numbers are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. As the cycle progresses, the prediction process switches over to giving more weight to the fitting of the monthly values to the cycle shape function. At this phase of cycle 24 we now give 40% weight to the curve-fitting technique of Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994). That technique currently gives highly uncertain (but smaller) values.

Note: These predictions are for “smoothed” International Sunspot Numbers. The smoothing is usually over time periods of about a year or more so both the daily and the monthly values for the International Sunspot Number should fluctuate about our predicted numbers. The dotted lines on the prediction plots indicate the expected range of the monthly sunspot numbers. Also note that the “Boulder” numbers reported daily at www.spaceweather.com are typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number.

Anthony Watts posted on this new forecast and shows how in this remarkable animation, NASA foreecasts have declined and the next peak moved further into the future as the solar minimum lingered.

Previous NASA predictions below:
2010 October: Predicted peak 60-70
2009 May 29: predicted peak: 80-90 range
2009 Jan 5: predicted peak: 100-110 range
2008 Mar 28: predicted peak: 130-140 range

See the very detailed flood coverage and commentary on how the media there too claims that the Brazil and Queensland floods and the cold and snow in the Northern Hemisphere are all a product of climate change/disruption from greenhouse gases on the METSUL blog here. Scroll down to see a long story with images and newspaper stories with English commentary.

These days have been complete madness for us. Brazil is facing the worst natural disaster in its history and here in our state we are under a severe drought in some parts and under nearly daily t-storms and flash flooding in the capital city Porto Alegre, where MetSul is based. We manage the city official weather warning system, so these summer heavy downpours became a source of daily concern.

Regarding the catastrophic events in Rio de Janeiro, first of all, this part of Brazil is subject to heavy or extreme rainfall every year, but this time the amount of precipitation was very heavy and in a short period of time, creating an inland tsunami-like torrent.  The tragedy happened in the Sierras of Rio de Janeiro and there was a major topographical forcing to the extreme rainfall. As you know so well, topography can induce extreme precipitation under moisture flow from the ocean. The most affected cities are located between mountains as high as 5 to 6 thousand feet and rivers cross these towns, so the only way the water can take is the valley and the rivers.

The major problem is landslide. For many decades Brazilian authorities allowed construction of homes and buildings in the slopes, so every single year landslides with deaths are recorded in the states of Rio, Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais. In the state of Rio de Janeiro, there is massive occupation of the slopes and the hills, so landslides tend to be much more tragic and tragedies much more frequent.

There are anecdotal and historic accounts of extreme rainfall in the state of Rio de Janeiro since Brazil was a Portuguese colony in the 1600’s and 1700’s, but meteorological records are not available for that period. Great tragedies caused by rain and landslides in Rio de Janeiro began mainly in the second half of the 20th century coinciding with the demographical explosion and the massive and unorganized occupation of the hills. The risky areas of today, where the tragedies of the modern times use to happen almost every year, were not occupied 100 years ago, and for that reason the vast majority of the tragic events concentrate in the last 50 years.

DISASTERS IN RIO DE JANEIRO

April 1756 - Three days of heavy rainfall caused flooding, home collapses and “lots of victims” all over the town - still small - of Rio de Janeiro.

February 1811 - Between February 10th and 17th heavy rains caused a “catastrophe” in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Hills collapsed, the city was flooded and landslides were widespread with a torrent of water and mud invading town. Historical accounts tell of many victims, but there is no official number. The regent prince - designated by Portugal - ordered the churches to be open to serve as shelters.

April 1924 - Heavy flooding and landslided with fatalities.

January 1940 - Flooding and landslides in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Santo Cristo district was the most affected.

January 1942 - Flooding and landslides in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The Salgueiro Hill was the the main disaster area.

January 1962 - Heavy flooding and several landslides in the city of Rio de Janeiro after 242 mm of precipitation during a storm.

January 1966 - The storm of January 2nd, 1966, brought record rainfall to the city of Rio de Janeiro. Flooding and massive landslides caused 250 deaths. Other 70 people died after the storm due to diseases.

January 1967 - Heavy rain and landslides provoked the collapses of buildings in the city of Rio. 200 people died and 300 were injured. 300 people died in the states of Rio de Janeiro and Guanabara (today Guanabara and Rio form the state of Rio de Janeiro).

November 1981 - Landslides in the Sierras of Rio kill 20 people in the city of Teresopolis.

February 1987 - Flooding and landslides kill 292 people. The city of Rio de Janeiro and the Sierras of the state concentrate the damages and the victims.

February 1988 - 277 people died in flooding and landslides in the Baixada Fluminense region and in the city of Petropolis in the Sierras. In the rest of the month hundreds more died in new landslides and flooding. A hospital collapsed, killing 18 people. Damages topped 1 billion dollars.

Summer of 1996 - Dozens of deaths in floding and landslides.

Satellite pictures of the most affected areas by the disaster in Brazil taken in 1975 and 2006 show how land occupation changed in 30 years. This disaster would NEVER have this magnitude in the recent past as valleys and slopes were not occupied in the landslides regions 35 years ago. GO HERE. Roll the bar over the photo and click in thumbs below the main picture to see other comparisons.  Read and see more on the METSUL blog here.

UPDATE: See SPPI compilation from Eschenbach, Motl & McIntyre here. See Donna Laframboise’s excellent post on IPCC Nobel Laureates Lack Scientific Credibility here.

Donna concludes: “To sum up, therefore, a significant number of IPPC insiders believe many of their colleagues possess inferior scientific credentials. They believe these people’s participation in the IPCC is a result of concerns that have nothing to do with science. Instead, they were chosen because they are of the right gender or the right nationality. They were chosen because they are pals with the person who makes such decisions in a particular country. They were chosen because they are considered politically “safe” by their own governments. All of these people - no matter how little they actually contributed to the IPCC process - are now Nobel laureates.

----------

On January 14, 2011, I reported here that Trenberth’s AMS presentation had lifted text verbatim or near-verbatim from Hasselmann 2010 with no citation in most cases and, in the one case where Hasselmann 2010 was cited, the citation was insufficient under standard academic practices given the lengthy near-quotation. Trenberth’s original presentation is here.

This post has obviously been brought to Trenberth and/or AMS’s attention, as they have deleted the original version of Trenberth’s presentation and replaced it with an amended version, without a change notice.

The amended version picks up most of the problems raised in the previous CA post. Here are the points raised in the CA post and Trenberth’s changes:

Trenberth originally stated:

Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.

The amended version:

Hasselmann (2010) further notes that scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.

Trenberth’s original statement about tactics to use against “deniers”:

It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.

The amended version:

It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010). Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.

Trenberth originally stated:

The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments.

The amended version:

The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments (Hasselmann 2010).

Trenberth did not feel obligated to restate everything that Hasselmann had stated. For example, Trenberth did not repeat Hasselmann’s observation that:

Individually, most climate scientists have the goal of establishing a scientific reputation and, if possible, attaining more public funding for climate research.

Trenberth originally stated:

They [climate scientists] have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions.

The amended version:

As Hasselmann (2010) further notes, they have faith in the scientific method and the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions.

As to the lengthy introductory paragraph which was lifted near-verbatim from Hasselmann, but with no indication that large sections were verbatim: the original Trenberth version was:

Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell - have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010)

The amended version is:

As noted by Hasselmann (2010), three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and by the Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell reviews - have confirmed that established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010).

Note here that Trenberth removed the absurd Hasselmann characterization of the Oxburgh inquiry that had passed muster with the editors of Nature Geoscience - that it was the “Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society”. A point also raised in comments in the CA post.

Trenberth did not submit a comment to Climate Audit thanking us for enabling him to mitigate the problem prior to the actual formal presentation of his speech or otherwise thank us at the AMS webpage at which the changes were made.

Even as amended, Trenberth’s use of extended near-quotations without quotation marks must surely still be at the edge of acceptable practice, if not over it.

In appraising whether inadequate citation rises to being academic misconduct, it seems to me that one needs to consider whether there is a claim or implied claim of originality and how such incidents are handled in the field. Trenberth’s speech was not the same thing as a master’s thesis. Trenberth had lifted text, but AMS appears to have decided that the situation could be more or less coopered up by providing more citations to Hasselmann; that the inadequacy of the citations did not entail that the entire speech be withdrawn; or that AMS was obliged to file a complaint against Trenberth for academic misconduct.

It’s also interesting what Trenberth chose to change and not to change. Plagiarism is an issue that is uniquely central to the academic world and Trenberth moved quickly to erase any evidence of plagiarism. The non-academic world would be less concerned about plagiarism and more concerned about Trenberth’s use of the offensive term “denier” and whether Trenberth’s Empire Strikes Back attitudes are a useful contribution to the post-Climategate debate. Although Trenberth was also criticized on these counts, Trenberth made no concessions or changes to this aspect of his speech.

In closing, I note that copying of text has been subject to considerable recent attention following the USA Today about Raymond Bradley’s academic misconduct complaint that “text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the Wegman Report”. See CA discussion e.g. here and here - posts which included criticism of the Wegman Report in respect to its citation of Bradley, while, at the same time, observing that the section in question was “boilerplate” description of tree rings and did not affect the statistical report and that Bradley himself had lifted text verbatim from Fritts’ 1976 text on tree rings.

See the firestorm of other posts about Trenberth who has become an embarrassment to NCAR and the AMS here.

See how Trenberth may be the UN’s Gatekeeper to keep peer review publications out of the literature that could harm the UN scientist’s reputation or what is left of that, and much more on Trenberth here.

See also this insightful post on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, “Unequivocal Equivocation - an open letter to Dr. Trenberth”.

The AMS also gave an award to Hansen who has gone unhinged in his alarmism as reported here.

The AGU is just as corrupted and the National Academy of Sciences under Cicerone has entirely lost its way. The once august group founded by President Lincoln is now a joke. See the Climategate Reloaded emails here from the group as they like the AMS and AGU rent seeking ‘scientists’ talk about winning the communications battle to convince the public that cold is really warm, wet is really dry.

UPDATE: See Pat Michaels discussion of Hansen’s efforts in this new Washington Post article.

The NASA scientist at the heart of the global warming fiasco seems set to stir more controversy after declaring in an op ed piece for The South China Morning Post and a personally published follow-up that American democracy is not competent to deal with global warming, and communist China now represents the world’s “best hope”.

In the op ed piece for the Chinese newspaper, which he entitled Chinese Leadership Needed to Save Humanity (published as The Price of Change) Hansen placed the blame for the vast majority of Co2 emissions supposedly causing global warming on his home country of America, and appealed to China not to follow the same path. Hansen said that China was the world’s “best hope” and called for them to “lead the world through the most dangerous crisis that humanity and nature have ever faced”.

In a follow-up article published on his website Hansen calls Americans “barbarians” and slams American democracy, calling for China to raise tariffs on American-made products until such time as America falls into line.

He recalls with some bitterness how the findings on fuel efficiency that he and his “A-Team” (as he calls it) of crack scientists came up with were held up for years by the democratic and judicial process in the United States:

We “won” the court case, yet appeals stretched the time of action for years. I came away feeling that not only is it nearly impossible to get effective legislation through Congress, but that the special interests can prevent implementation almost interminably. Democracy of the sort intended in 1776 probably could have dealt with climate change, but not the fossil-money - ‘democracy’ that now rules the roost in Washington.

James Hansen, China and the Barbarians.

The declaration that American ‘democracy’ (as he sarcastically refers to it as) cannot cope with climate change, and that the world must look to the Chinese communist dictatorship to “lead” is bound to be controversial.

What is potentially even more controversial is that Hansen goes on to condemn the current democratic system in America as “dysfunctional” as it will not enact the carbon taxes he has been calling for. All is not lost, though, as he advises the Chinese government what to do about Congress in a truly incredible passage in his letter:

However, there is a way around that, which becomes obvious with the realization that an initially modest carbon fee is in China’s own interest. After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal carbon fee or tax.

The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil fuel addiction with a rising carbon fee and supportive national investment policies or it could accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being.

My reading of this is that Hansen is advising a foreign, communist dictatorship how to circumvent American democracy and “force” (his word) America into either kow-towing over carbon taxes, or “accepting continual descent”. It is truly breath-taking that a federal employee seems able to get away with such seemingly unpatriotic activity without any reprimand or disciplinary action.

Hansen concludes his remarkable personal advice by expressing his hope that China will be able to find “good barbarians” (i.e. compliant Westerners) to help it “participate in effective policy”. As he observes, the great thing about China is that they are not bound by the inconveniences of democracy, such as elections and accountability and can simply impose decisions by diktat:

I have the impression that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly.

Hansen also claimed that if no action was taken, and all fossil fuels were burnt, then sea levels would rise by 75 metres (246 feet).

Read more here.

See the excellent critique of the Hansen and IPCC model forecasts here in ALARMING WARMING? Reality Trumps Dire Predictions here