Trenberth still hyping extreme weather events and climate change

Despite the recent editorial in Nature saying that there’s no current connection between the two, NCAR’s Dr. Kenneth Trenberth is going to pitch connections between extreme weather and climate change anyway at an upcoming seminar at the University of New South Wales in Australia. From their website:

Kevin Trenberth public lecture: Extreme weather and its links to climate change

The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is sponsoring a free public lecture at UNSW from 6:30pm, Tuesday, October 16, by internationally recognised climate scientist Dr Kevin Trenberth.

The lecture explores the links between extreme weather events and climate change by one of sciences leading voices who is actively exploring that connection.

With the summer Arctic ice reaching it’s lowest extent during the period of the satellite record in September of this year and a rash of extreme weather events causing billions of dollars damage throughout 2012, the links Dr Trenberth describes in this lecture are of growing importance.

In this public lecture, Dr Trenberth will explain why global warming is occurring and reveal how heating the planet has generated many different kinds of extreme weather events around the world.

As a climate scientist of 40 years, since receiving his degree in meteorology in 1972, Dr Trenberth brings a wealth of experience to the topic.

He is currently a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado and was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr Trenberth also served from 1999 to 2006 on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and chaired the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panel from 2004 to 2010.  He now chairs the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) scientific steering group.

During his extensive career, he has published over 480 scientific articles or papers, including 47 books or book chapters and over 213 refereed journal articles and is widely regarded as one of the world leaders in his field.

There is only limited seating for this one-off Sydney lecture, so it is important to RSVP early to COECSS@unsw.edu.au if you want to be a part of the audience.

 

DETAILS:

Time: 6:30pm sharp

Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2012.

Venue: Leighton Hall, The Scientia Building, University of NSW

RSVP:  COECSS@unsw.edu.au

h/t to WUWT reader AndyG55

About these ads
This entry was posted in extreme weather, Presentations and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Trenberth still hyping extreme weather events and climate change

  1. Gary says:

    First sentence already contains two errors. Kevin not Kenneth, and did you even read the Nature editorial? It does not say what you claim.

  2. David Cooke says:

    He just thinks that if he says it often enough it will become true.

  3. ilma630 says:

    Let’s hope someone attending stands up and asks “Can you provide empirical evidence for that BS?”

  4. D. Patterson says:

    “Extreme weather and its links to climate change” should instead read as:
    Extreme political climatologists and their links to Climate Change.

  5. Eyal Porat says:

    Oh, Anthony, you missed it:
    The title of the lecture is “Extreme weather and its MISSING links to climate change”…
    what, no?
    /SARC

  6. Mike Jonas says:

    University of NSW provided this newspaper article in 2009:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-noisy-naysayers-led-fielding-on-to-false-path-20090616-cghf.html

    It’s all there – tobacco, fossil fuel funding, ‘consistency with’ climate models, and cherry-picking (by sceptics, of course).

  7. Shevva says:

    ‘As a climate scientist of 40 years’ – and Ed Wood made films for decades as well didn’t mean he was any good, although Depp was brilliant.

    (OT) Oh and if your having a boring day at work try: http://www.edwood.org/

  8. Bob Ryan says:

    Gary: I am not sure what your agenda is here. I have read the article and it says exactly what is claimed: ‘there’s no current connection between the two’. Note the word ‘current’ – it may be that future research may establish a link between global warming, whatever its cause, and extreme weather events but then it might not. The evidence is not yet in. Fly-by shooting from the lip is not the way to commence a sensible discussion. But then, that may not be your intention.

  9. Mike Jonas says:

    … and while we’re on the subject of Senator Fielding and smoking (as addressed by the SMH article linked in my last comment):

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/161303.php

    “AMA President, Dr Andrew Pesce, urged all Senators to back the Plain Labelling of Tobacco Packaging Bill, which was introduced into Parliament by Senator Steve Fielding. “.

  10. Rick Bradford says:

    I don’t think we should be too hard on Trenberth.

    After all, if he hadn’t forged a career as a climate Jeremiah, what would he be doing? It’s not as if he has any skills which would enable him to get hired in the private sector, where bad performance and bad decisions cost companies real money.

    He has a mindset which says that if you can’t join capitalism, then beat it, and an excellent position from which he can pursue that goal, funded by the taxpayer.

    What would you do in his place?

  11. Kev-in-Uk says:

    All that hype about his credentials? I must say.it cuts no ice with me – many good scientists have made genuine mistakes and backed the wrong horse in the past. KT may be no different, but what is different is his lack of an open mind.. Even the likes of Einstein would always add a caveat to the effect of ‘I think this, or show me otherwise’ and would always be challenging his own thoughts/theories.
    Basically, KT may well be a good scientist under all that hype – but his method and obvious confirmation bias would suggest otherwise and hence he is a science fail.

  12. I’ll just use 8:22 in Genesis(Bereshith): While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. Two points, I’ll believe the Hebrew, on even Greek, inspired Scriptures. Especially knowing that both Environmentalist & Marxists admittentingly use “LYING” as a tennet to advance their agenda. Yeah, I know, women make up the single largest majority voter & have a biological need to lie to themselves and be lied to by others and are a natural prey for sociopaths. Just saying..

  13. Frank K. says:

    Gary says:
    October 9, 2012 at 4:10 am

    No Gary – you are wrong. Here’s the key paragraph:

    “At a workshop last week in Oxford, UK, convened by the Attribution of Climate-related Events group — a loose coalition of scientists from both sides of the Atlantic — some speakers questioned whether event attribution was possible at all. It currently rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming. One critic argued that, given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically far-from-perfect climate models used to generate attribution claims, they are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all. And even if event attribution were reliable, another speaker added, the notion that it is useful for any section of society is unproven.

    Perhaps Gary knows something about the coupled differential equations and boundary/initial conditions which purportedly model “climate” that permits them to be used to attribute extreme weather events (or ANY weather event for that matter) to climate. I’m sure Gary can explain all. By the way Gary, please include a discussion of the appropriate numerical methods and their stability and consistency properties (which are both essential for obtaining valid “solutions”).

    By the way, if you read the editorial, you can see that the intention is to set up government-run “climate services” so that anyone can sue anyone else (e.g. “big oil”) over weather losses that some “climate model” can “prove” was due to climate change – climate change which is supposedly caused by oil drilling, manufacturing, breathing…If these extremists have their way, it will change our society dramatically for the worse.

  14. lurker passing through, laughing says:

    Extreme weather is extremely lucrative for Trenberth and pals.

  15. Gamecock says:

    It has been scientifically proven that lecturing on “Extreme weather and its links to climate change” pays a lot more than lecturing on “No link between extreme weather and climate change.”

  16. gator69 says:

    I’m beginning to think that it is not Trenberth’s heat, that is missing…

  17. Bob Tisdale says:

    One could assume Trenberth will refer to his recent paper “Climate extremes and climate change: The Russian Heat Wave and other Climate Extremes of 2010″. Hopefully there will be a Q&A portion with his presentation and someone in attendance can ask him about the fact that the Indian and Pacific Oceans haven’t warmed in 20 years, according to the sea surface temperature dataset HADISST he referenced in the paper, while climate models showed that it should have warmed over 0.3 deg C:

    That was the basis for this post, which was cross posted here at WUWT:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/a-blog-memo-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

    And it’s also the basis for the YouTube video “We Now Control Weather – Extreme Heat Events, Dirty Weather, Climate Disasters”…

    …which was attached to this post, which was also cross posted here at WUWT:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/we-now-control-weather-extreme-heat-events-dirty-weather-climate-disasters/

  18. DirkH says:

    Kev-in-Uk says:
    October 9, 2012 at 5:19 am
    “Basically, KT may well be a good scientist under all that hype – but his method and obvious confirmation bias would suggest otherwise and hence he is a science fail.”

    The theory that KT is a good scientist is contradicted by his “travesty” e-mail.

  19. gallopingcamel says:

    One should not need an “Editorial in Nature” to realize that providing “Attributions” that will stand up in court is not likely to be available within anyone’s lifetime.

  20. Neil says:

    Frank K.

    Did you not pass reading comprehension 101? If I state that Frank K made a claim that Gary was wrong, that does not actually mean that I said that Gary was wrong. The nature editorial quotes two critics but does not conclude that they are correct. In any case, why would you or Anthony suddenly start claiming that nature editorials are the ultimate authority on this (or anything)?

    only when you think they agree with you? Even when they don’t? Funny that.

  21. John Brookes says:

    I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.

    Of course if you think that Leprechauns are causing the warming, don’t let me influence you…

  22. John Brookes says:

    GallopingCamel says: “One should not need an “Editorial in Nature” to realize that providing “Attributions” that will stand up in court is not likely to be available within anyone’s lifetime.”

    Yes, we’ve all seen too many cases where blind Freddy and everyone else knew someone was guilty as sin, but the courts let them walk. Let the legal system stick to what its good at, and stay away from science.

  23. Last fall KT announced he’d found the “missing heat” in hundreds of down-hole, long term temperature records and that deep underground temperature changes PRECEDED surface changes by six months. This “variable” fission produced energy could not be added to the “CO1 is Evil” climate equation and the proposed October 2011 article release date quietly slipped away. The KT co-authored K-T radiative budget is the biggest fiction since the world was flat. After falling for the Carbon tax, with stiff fines for opposition, it is possible that propaganda is “value enhanced’ down under.

  24. Sun Spot says:

    @ Neil says: October 9, 2012 at 6:28 am, try being civil, your sophistry is transparent.

    As a warmist Neil I thought nature was your bible thus infallible therefore you must believe “models used to generate attribution claims, they are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all” as per the Nature editorial.

  25. David Ball says:

    John Brookes says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:30 am
    “I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.”

    You realize that you need to substantiate this statement. You will have no credibility and look the fool if you don’t. Of course, you have been shown over and over that you are incorrect on this and many other points, yet still spew the same garbage. One has to wonder at your motivation and/or sanity.

  26. garymount says:

    @John Brooks
    Yes it is harder to have these extreme heat events in earlier times when black top hadn’t been invented yet. Or do you mean even earlier times such as 12,000 years ago during the last ice age?

  27. eric1skeptic says:

    John Brookes, impossible only by ignoring the 1930’s. In theory CO2 warming may add slightly to the extreme heat, but global warming doesn’t start the heat wave, nor end it. U.S. extreme heat will typically come from La Nina, although a strong El Nino can bring heat as well.

  28. stephen richards says:

    John Brookes says:

    October 9, 2012 at 6:30 am

    I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.

    Of course if you think that Leprechauns are causing the warming, don’t let me influence you…

    The only thing you achieve at each of your visits here is to ably demostrate what a gold plated pillock you are. In american, that is [trimmed].

    [Recommend you re-submit this to clarify what quotes you are (apparently) to ascribe to John Brooks, and which you are assigning to yourself. Mod]

  29. Ian W says:

    gallopingcamel says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:20 am

    One should not need an “Editorial in Nature” to realize that providing “Attributions” that will stand up in court is not likely to be available within anyone’s lifetime.

    Oh I don’t know – legal affairs tend to bite back sometimes. I would imagine in the dark of night KT, Flannery and others might awake sweating about the idea that _they_ could be sued for causing the loss of industries due to their totally incorrect advice. Lawyers will be able to point at the papers from ‘deniers’ that show how the climate models were hopelessly wrong, yet KT, Flannery et al continued to advise governments otherwise despite no empirical evidence in support of their claims and significant evidence falsifying their claims. What is the cost of the coal mines in the eastern US being closed to ‘reduce carbon emissions’? What is the cost to airlines worldwide of carbon taxes, what is the impact on Australian mining and heavy industry? What is the cost of desalination plants that aren’t needed and recovery from flood damage due to lack of flood defenses?

    Climate ‘scientists’ should be extremely cautious about involving litigation once the genie is out of the bottle it may prove very unfriendly to them.

  30. Frank K. says:

    Neil says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:28 am

    OK Neil. You are correct that Nature editorials are NOT “the ultimate authority on this (or anything).” But please show us all how the climate models can be used to reliably and conclusively demonstrate the connection between extreme weather events and climate. You can start with the differential equations for any of the climate models. I know you won’t take me up on this – most CAGW apologists go running for the hills when mention is made of differential equations, boundary conditions, and numerical methods…

  31. Pamela Gray says:

    Victor, your beliefs aren’t any better than those of who you rail against. Stick to facts related to the topic.

  32. Peter Miller says:

    The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

    Presumably, ‘excellence’ here is defined as: manipulated data, ability to tell/write scary stories and extreme grant addiction.

  33. tonyb says:

    I have read through some 1000 years of Climate observations for England from such diverse sources as The Met Office Archives, Exeter Cathedral, Devon records office, Hubert Lamb and Woods.

    My cautious observation would be that;

    1) Catastrophic climate events were much more common in the past than today and indeed it appears we live in a relatively benign age.

    2) Most of the (non volcanic) catastrophic events that can be traced happened durng the LIA, not the warmest periods. This is likely because the energy created during intense cold/intense heat (as ocurred frequently through the LIA) creates more energy-and hence opportunity for notable climate events-than occurs during warm periods which do not have the same fluctuation of warm/cold and do not create high levels of energy.

    tonyb

  34. Gamecock says:

    John Brookes says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:30 am

    I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.

    ==============================================================

    Then you haven’t examined temperature records.

  35. Michael Lewis in Sydney Australia says:

    I’m disgusted that my tax dollars are funding both the visit of this charlatan and the permanent group at the Uni of NSW who, and Gary must check this, are CORRECTLY quoted by Anthony as promoting the vist of “Kevin”. You obviosly did not make the link, Gary!

  36. I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.

    Summer heat doesn’t tell you anything about the heat gain of the climate system on an annual basis. It doesn’t matter how hot summers get, or how much Arctic ice melts, if that heat is lost in winter. Ignoring the fact temperatures don’t measure heat gain/loss.

    And winters have been getting colder.

    Welcome to the Little Ice Age mark II.

  37. Bob Ryan says:

    John Brookes: not a bet you would win. Try a little history like, for example, the great famine of 1315-1317 in Britain and Northern Europe brought on by continuous summer rainfalls which destroyed crops. Try also the droughts of the 1930’s which created the dust bowls of the US. The evidence suggests that during earlier warming periods (the Roman and MWP) climate variability in Northern Europe was somewhat muted compared with the centuries that followed. Pray hard that the current upswing in climate is not short-lived – the alternative, history teaches us – could be extremely nasty.

  38. Kev-in-Uk says:

    DirkH says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:16 am

    I agree – My point was that KT MAY well be a good scientist but his actions are not those of a good scientist……….and whilst I have no desire to defend him per se, he may well have been suckered like the rest of the sheeple – of course, the main difference being that he forgot the scientific method when he should have known better – so yeah, no defence!

  39. cRR Kampen says:

    Yes Gary, the Editorial simply continues: “As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming.”
    Start here :)

  40. highflight56433 says:

    Those of you who may own a business or work around a lot of cash have read a statistic that over 90% of those who handle cash or have access to it will steal if given the opportunity. With that in mind, we turn to television, particularly the news hour. The weather report is the most important to viewers interest, that is why it is the last event of the news show. Now then, move to climate scare. It is the easiest of sciences to grab public attention, since we see the weather report everywhere. And with the funneling of billions of dollars into weather (not climate) change, then it is easy for those 90% to dip into the trough to make the best dollar they can out of the weather (not climate) change hoax. CAGW has become less a concern to the public because the claimed predictions do not match the everyday weather we see. Every little odd bit of out of normal weather has been blamed on AGW to the point people now laugh with sarcasm regarding those current acclamations; to the point we blame our flat tire on CAGW, or my milk soured, or my dog died.

    Point here is some careers have wondered off the path of ethics in the wash of money surrounding the research which was duped out of our governments by a few scare mongers how relied on their deception over the ignorant. Maybe we can apply the 80 – 20 rule, which has a way of flipping.

  41. Dan B says:

    gallopingcamel says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:20 am

    One should not need an “Editorial in Nature” to realize that providing “Attributions” that will stand up in court is not likely to be available within anyone’s lifetime.

    I wish. How did the EPA get a court to allow an endangerment finding for CO2?

  42. D. Patterson says:

    Imagine the cartoon where the Trenberth Ostrich visits Australia and is pictured with its head in a hole in the ground while the tail high in the air is being covered with falling snow. The caption says Trenbeerth is looking for the missing heat in Australia.

  43. David Ball says:

    cRR Kampen says:
    October 9, 2012 at 8:00 am
    Typical of Kampen to ignore every other post except the one that supports his D-nile.

  44. David Ball says:

    John Brookes says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:33 am
    “Let the legal system stick to what its good at, and stay away from science.”

    I find this statement particularly funny.

  45. KnR says:

    To be fair its a log way to swim as I sure he will not be flying given that is killing the planet .
    But I wonder if someone will ask him why if is his case is so strong he needs to reverse the widely held and long established view on what is the scientific approach of the null hypotheses?

  46. Wait, wait, I think another travesty is approaching:
    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of increased extreme weather events at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.

  47. AndyG55 says:

    Even despite our relatively short climate record, there have been no unprecedented climate events in Australia for a quite a while.

    Everything is still ticking along , in line with NATURAL high climate variablity.

    Nothing unusual is happening to the climate.

  48. rogerknights says:

    D. Patterson says:
    October 9, 2012 at 10:44 am
    Imagine the cartoon where the Trenberth Ostrich visits Australia and is pictured with its head in a hole in the ground while the tail high in the air is being covered with falling snow. The caption says Trenbeerth is looking for the missing heat in Australia.

    Attn. Josh!

  49. John McCabe says:

    It’s probably a good time to remember Chris Landsea, the IPCC climate researcher who resigned from his role due to Trenberth making public announcements on the outcome of Landsea’s report, despite Landsea not having produced it yet!

    http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

  50. Frank K. says:

    cRR Kampen says:
    October 9, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Yes Gary, the Editorial simply continues: “As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming.

    The prospect of lawsuits by the utterly insane CAGW “science” community is very frightening.

  51. Sean says:

    Minor correction to the article Anthony:

    “He is currently a Distinguished Senior Lunatic in the Climate Counter Intelligence Section of the UN’s Climate Rapid Response Force in Stalingrad, Colorado”

  52. AndyG55 says:

    The REAL problem is that the ARC unit at UNSW will accept everything he says as gospel, without even thinking to question any part of his propaganda.
    I actually went to one of their meetings a few years ago, and it was their unquestioning attitude that made me research further. (I still get there junk mail !!)
    They were obviously well on the way to advocacy rather than science, even at that stage.
    They are truly a worry, because they have the ear of governments.

  53. Owen in Ga says:

    Extreme weather events are driven by the dynamics of temperature variation. If as the warmists say the warming is mostly seen at the poles, that would tend to decrease the heat gradient and decrease the incidence of extreme weather. They really can’t have it both ways.either heat is building in the arctic due to AGW and decreasing extreme weather or it isn’t.

    Personally I think they are wrong on both counts. No arctic warming due to readings being from 1000km extrapolations to sites right at the arctic circle, and no increase in storms due to the cooling oceans not providing the moisture content to really absorb sunlight and cause convection. Of course that is just my opinion…I still haven’t received any dirty oil checks though.(/sarc)

  54. Jim Clarke says:

    It is a shame that someone’s status as a scientist is not measure by his contributions to the advancement of science, but by his contributions to journals.

  55. He may not be able to find that warming but he sure can find that global warming funding.

  56. Brian H says:

    Victor Barney says:
    October 9, 2012 at 5:24 am

    admittentingly use “LYING” as a tennet

    If you want to impress us with your quotes and big generalizations, you’ll look a lot less doofus-y if you don’t throw in fancy foolish non-words.
    admittedly
    tenet

  57. Brian H says:

    Frank K. says:
    October 9, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    cRR Kampen says:
    October 9, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Yes Gary, the Editorial simply continues: “As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming.”

    The prospect of lawsuits by the utterly insane CAGW “science” community is very frightening.

    Nay. Welcome their overweening overreach. They’ll have one flying flatus of a time demonstrating either general warming beyond benign longterm trends or harm therefrom. Opening of the NW Passage, e.g., could easily be shown to have immense economic benefits.

  58. Frank K. says:

    Brian H says:
    October 10, 2012 at 2:45 am

    “Nay. Welcome their overweening overreach. They’ll have one flying flatus of a time demonstrating either general warming beyond benign longterm trends or harm therefrom.”

    Brian – I wish I could share your optimism, but with $4/gallon gas (soon to be $5), the coal industry being destroyed, and even conventional oil and gas production being stymied, climate “science” based lawsuits will only make things much worse. Look at what the EPA is doing.

  59. Aidan Donnelly says:

    D. Patterson says:
    October 9, 2012 at 10:44 am
    Imagine the cartoon where the Trenberth Ostrich visits Australia and is pictured with its head in a hole in the ground while the tail high in the air is being covered with falling snow. The caption says Trenbeerth is looking for the missing heat in Australia.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/snow-falls-as-sydney-braces-for-more-cold-weather-20110512-1ejhp.html

    Heh :)

Comments are closed.