Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The media has been abuzz with claims that the January 2015 New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. One of the outspoken activist members of the climate science community who has been quoted often on the storm is NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. An example of Trenberth’s interviews can be found in the ClimateNexus post Blizzard of 2015: Normal Winter Weather, Amplified by Climate Change. The subtitle is actually quite funny, bringing back the old “consistent with climate models” nonsense: “Above average sea surface temperatures increase snowfall, consistent with model projections.”
Kevin Trenberth is reported to have claimed the following about the January 2015 New England blizzard:
The number 1 cause of this is that it is winter. In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing. At present sea surface temperatures are more than 2F above normal over huge expanses (1000 miles) off the east coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10% higher as a result. About half of this can be attributed to climate change.
Interesting. Trenberth noted that only “about half” of the warming of the surface of the North Atlantic off of the east coast of the United States and only “about half” of the additional water vapor in the atmosphere there “can be attributed to climate change”. One has to assume Trenberth is referring to the human-induced type of climate change with that statement and that the other half was caused naturally—in response to the coupled ocean-atmosphere process of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
I don’t think anyone will disagree with Trenberth’s opening sentence, which associates New England blizzards with winter. But let’s look at the number of ways the rest of Kevin Trenberth’s statement is incorrect. And we’ll also show the obvious flaws in the ClimateNexus author’s declaration “consistent with model projections”.
NOTE: For more information on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, refer to the NOAA Frequently Asked Questions About the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) webpage and my blog posts:
- An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 2
- Multidecadal Variations and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstructions
That NOAA FAQ webpage confirms that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can contribute to global warming and suppress it. [End note.]
OVER THE PAST 27 YEARS, BOREAL WINTER WATER VAPOR HAS DECREASED OVER THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC OCEAN
Dr. Roy Spencer addressed the water vapor portion of Trenberth’s statement in his post Northeast Snowstorms & Atlantic Water Vapor: No Connection in Last 27 Years. Roy Spencer found no correlation between the boreal winter (DJF) snowstorm index for Northeast United States and satellite-based water vapor data for the Northwest Atlantic (30N-50N, 80W-50W) since 1988. The data also indicate that, while water vapor in December has increased in 27 years based on the linear trend, it decreased in January and in February, so, overall, there has been a decrease in boreal winter (DJF) water vapor over the Northwest Atlantic.
Dr. Spencer was very clear that water vapor annually in that region has increased in that time, but during the boreal winter months since 1988, atmospheric water vapor has decreased. Kevin Trenberth’s speculations about water vapor must refer to annual, not winter data associated with blizzards.
BASED ON THE LINEAR TREND OF THE BOREAL WINTER DATA, NORTHWEST ATLANTIC SEA SURFACES SHOW NO WARMING IN 95 YEARS
Figure 1 illustrates the boreal winter (DJF) sea surface temperatures of the western extratropical North Atlantic, based on NOAA’s ERSST.v3b data. I’ve used the same coordinates as Dr. Spencer (30N-50N, 80W-50W). If you’re wondering about the size and location of that region, I’ve highlighted those coordinates on the map here, which was linked to the ClimateNexus post. (You’ll note on that map that the region with warmer-than-normal water actually stretches farther east than the 1000 miles noted by Trenberth, before we run into cooler-than-normal water. As a reference, at 40N, the longitudes of 80W-50W reach almost 1600 miles.) The first data point in Figure 1 is for the 3-month season of December 1880 through February 1881 and the last data point is for December 2013 through February 2014. As shown, the sea surfaces for the western extratropical North Atlantic were warmer for boreal winters (DJF) in the 1930s and 1950s than they have been in recent years. That, of course, is a response to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
Figure 1
NOTE: There may be an uptick in 2014/15, but we’ll have to wait until early March to see how this winter compares. Adding one year of data, though, is not going to impact the following trend comparison to any great extent. [End note.]
So, working back in time in 5-year increments, I determined the longest time period where the boreal winter data for the western extratropical North Atlantic showed no surface warming, based on the linear trend. Turns out it was 95 years…since the boreal winter of 1919/20. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
I’ve also illustrated in Figure 2 the average of the sea surface temperatures for that region as simulated by the dozens of climate models included in the CMIP5 archive. Those are the models the IPCC used for their 5th Assessment Report. We present the model mean because it best represents the groupthink (the consensus) about how the sea surfaces of that region should have warmed if manmade greenhouse gases and other contributors (that drive the models) caused the warming. In other words, the average (the multi-model ensemble member mean) represents how the sea surfaces in that region should have warmed if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases. (Basically, the model mean represents the forced component, not the “noise”, of the models. See the post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean for more information.) According to the climate models used by the IPCC, the boreal winter sea surfaces of the western extratropical North Atlantic should have warmed almost 0.6 deg C in those 95 years, but the data show no long-term warming in that time based on the linear trend. Note also that the modeled sea surfaces are too warm over the entire period, on average by more than 1.0 deg C.
The models are in no way “consistent with” reality.
MULTIDECADAL VARIATIONS IN SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES THERE ARE NOT A FORCED COMPONENT OF THE MODELS
True-blue believers in the hypothesis of human-induced global warming say we need to look at 30-year trends, so let’s do that. See Figure 3. It shows the 30-year trends (in deg C/decade) for the boreal winter sea surface temperatures of the western extratropical North Atlantic. The first data point at 1910 illustrates the slight negative trend (cooling rate) of the boreal winter (DJF) sea surface temperatures for the 30-year period of 1880/81 to 1909/10, and the last data point in 2014 shows the boreal winter warming rate for the 30-year period of 1984/85 to 2013/14. Between the first and last data points, the sea surfaces of the western extratropical North Atlantic show a wide range of multidecadal variations in 30-year trends. Note how the (boreal winter) warming rate of the 30-year period ending in 1938/39 was more than 1.5 times faster than the warming rate of the most recent 30-year period ending in 2013/14.
Figure 3
But the vast majority of the warming during the 30-year period ending in 1938/39 was not forced by manmade greenhouse gases. We can show this by adding the modeled trends in sea surface temperatures for the western extratropical North Atlantic to the graph. See Figure 4. The observed warming rate of 0.37 deg C/decade for the 30-year period ending in 1938/39 was more than 5-times faster than the modeled rate of 0.07 deg C/decade. Obviously, the naturally occurring multidecadal variations in the warming and cooling rates of the surface of the western extratropical North Atlantic are not a response to the forcings used by the climate models. And that suggests that it is very likely that most of the warming there in recent decades was also a response to natural variability.
Figure 4
Once again, the models show they are in no way “consistent with” reality.
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE COOL LAND SURFACES AND WARM OCEANS IS DECREASING, NOT INCREASING
Many of you noticed the likely flaw in Trenberth’s early claim:
In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing.
Everyone knows that annual, decadal and multidecadal variations in land surface air temperatures are, in part, simply exaggerations of the variations in local sea surface temperatures. If the sea surfaces for the western extratropical North Atlantic warmed in recent decades, and they have, then the air over land should have warmed a little more. So Trenberth’s statement seems to contradict the instrument temperature record. But maybe he was correct for the boreal winter. Let’s look.
The big-3 global surface temperature data suppliers (GISS, NCDC and UKMO) only provide their data in anomaly form, but NOAA’s sea surface temperature data (used by GISS and NCDC) are available in absolute form. So for the land air temperatures in absolute form, we have to refer to a reanalysis to get an idea of the temperature difference between land and ocean during the boreal winter. The reanalysis is called GHCN-CAMS. It has to be kept in mind that a reanalysis is the output of a computer model that uses data as inputs, so, in other words, it’s not data. The authors of the paper that supports the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis also caution against using it for evaluating climate models. That’s fine. We’re not using it for that purpose. We’re simply using the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis outputs to get an idea of the magnitude of the temperature difference between the sea surfaces of western extratropical North Atlantic and the land surface air temperatures for the eastern U.S. and Canada, using the coordinates of 30N-50N, 80W-50W for ocean and land surface temperatures. See the top cell of Figure 5.
Figure 5
The GHCN-CAMS reanalysis starts in 1948, and since that time, there has been about a 20 deg C difference between boreal winter (DJF) land and sea surface temperatures (ocean minus land) for those coordinates. We know, however, that the sea surfaces of the western extratropical Atlantic were warmer in the 1950s than at present times, so the start date of the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis skews the trend results. Thus, the bottom cell shows the temperature difference between the sea and land surfaces (ocean minus land) for the coordinates of 30N-50N, 80W-50W, starting in 1975, which has been determined through breakpoint analysis to be the start year for the recent global warming period. The temperature difference between land and oceans in that part of the world is decreasing, not increasing as claimed by Kevin Trenberth.
Some readers may not feel confident with the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis. That trend difference does look a little steep. In Figure 6, for the same regions, we’re using the sea surface temperature anomalies and land surface air temperature anomalies based on the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). It includes the same ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used in this post, but they’re in anomaly form in the GISS LOTI. The differences (ocean minus land) also show land surface temperatures rising much faster than ocean surface temperatures in those regions since 1975, but not as fast as the with the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis.
Figure 6
And even climate models contradict Trenberth’s claim. They too show a decrease in the temperature difference for those ocean and land regions since 1975. See Figure 7.
Figure 7
Looks like the climate models got that relationship right since 1975. Too bad they can’t simulate sea surface temperatures over any time frame. Now recall that the oceans cover about 70% of this planet. For more insight into how poorly climate models simulate sea surface temperatures, see the posts:
- Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014
- IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide
CLOSING
Apparently, alarmist climate-change advocates are still willing to furnish misinformation to the public about the contribution of human-induced global warming to weather events. Somehow, I don’t think many readers will find that surprising. It’s been the norm for many years.
SOURCE
The data, reanalysis and climate model outputs are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.
I see Kevin Trenberth still pretends to be a Nobel Prize winner!
Where, I did not see that anywhere?
From his CV
“Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC) Oct 2007”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/cv.html
Missed it, huh. The problem is that you have to want to find the real information and not the data you want to find.
Trenberth is an activist and therefore prone to misinforming the public.
When you lie has a normal pratice its sometimes hard to tell the deference between the truth and lies, especially when lies are so much more profitable .
Well a 2 deg F increase in ocean Temperature and a +10% in atmospheric water, is about in line with The Wentz et al finding that a 1 deg. C increase causes a 7% increase in atmospheric water vapor.
Of course that leads to an increase in clouds. Isn’t it logical to believe that to get a whole lot of rain or snow, you need a whole lot of clouds ?
And isn’t a whole lot of clouds, going to intercept and scatter / absorb increased amounts of incoming solar radiation; which therefore will never reach the oceans as solar spectrum radiation that penetrates to the depths ?
So it is just le Chatalier’s principle at work. Any change in a system at equilibrium will cause a change in such a direction as to nullify the effect of the original change. It’s a sort of ersatz negative feedback; and LC’s principle says it is “always” negative feedback; never positive which would enhance the perturbation.
That is why earth’s climate is so stable. Nothing much ever changes (by much).
G
This is such a straightforward explanation that it would be instantly deleted on many alarmist blogs [or be attacked viciously by their clueless lemmings].
All first- and second-order feedbacks are negative. That’s why Prof. Richard Lindzen wrote that measured at the equator, global T has varied by less than 1ºC over the past billion years. Negative feedbacks like clouds keep temperatures steady.
Brilliant. The SST history bears that out. From what I’ve been looking at, I would add only this: changes in solar flux are the dominant driver of upward SST trends, and downtrends in solar flux are followed by downtrends in SSTs, except for El Ninos, which I think are a special case.
You spoiled the work of the microsecond troll. Shame on you.
Anyway, has Trenberth prophesied his amplified blizzard to happen before or after his food riots?
He’s also apparently a Dennis Weaver wannabe.
It would be nice to think that some of the outfits that have published Kevin’s claim will now publish this post to show the other side of the argument, but what world am I living in?
Not the real one, that’s for sure :)))
Fix the formatting. Too hard to read.
rokshox. Could it possibly be your browser which is causing the problems? I’m not experiencing any format problems with this piece, using Firefox 35.0.1.
FWIW
Bob,
You are correct. I don’t think anyone is surprised by Trenberth’s antics. He pulled the same stunt at a press conference back in October of 2004 where he “furnished misinformation” to the public regarding the link between hurricanes and global warming, when he was warned by hurricane expert Chris Landsea prior to the event that there was very little, to no link.
It’s always good to review history lest we forget. Here are some of Landsea’s remarks of the incident from Climategate emails:
Prior to the news conference:
“However, i am concerned that this news conference may stray from science into the realm of hyperbole. Please don’t let that happen.”
After the news conference:
”I did try to caution both Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Linda Mearns before the media event (email included below) and provided a summary of the consensus within the hurricane research community. Dr. Mearns decided not to participate in the panel perhaps as a result of my email correspondence. I sincerely wish Dr. Tenberth had made the same decision. Dr. Trenberth wrote back to me that he hoped that this press conference would not “go out of control”. I would suggest that it was out of control the minute that he and his fellow panel members decided to forego the peer review scientific process and abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda. Sincerely, Chris Landsea”
So he continues to “abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda”. Shock!
Thanks, Bob, for your excellent report.
‘So he continues to “abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda”. Shock!’
So he continues to “abuse science in pursuit of a paycheck”. Shock!
Fixed
My bad!
Re (after Fig.7): “Too bad they can’t simulate sea surface temperatures over any time frame.”
—-REPLY: even less the lower ocean levels. While the sea surface is about 16°C, ocean mean temperature is about 4°C (70°F). All modeling is mere guessing.
Re: “Now recall that the oceans cover about 70% of this planet.”
—-REPLY : and hold 1000 times more water as the atmosphere.
When Kevin Trenberth said (NATURE 2007 – http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/09/some_climate_change_fallacies.html );
“Climate models are not perfect, but they are useful tools for quantifying the effects of various climate processes and drivers of climate change.”
—–It shows that he does not understands global natural common; at least less than Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who knew that: “Water is the driver of nature”
Just a few US NE-January2015 blizzard images indicate from where the snow came: http://climate-ocean.com/2015/L.html ; title: “Satellite images and Juno-January-2015 Blizzard demonstrate ocean supremacy”.
Since when is 4 degrees C = 70 degrees F ?????
39.2° F
Indeed! 16,1°C is 60,9°F! Ocean average is about 12°C lower than SST. Right?
Trenberth well that name made the BS meters jump right of the scale , now I wonder why that is ?
Still given that any and all weather conditions can and have been claimed has related to ‘global warming ‘ , has long gone are the days of saying weather is not climate , its hardly a surprise to see the recent snow added to this long , long list of events that ‘most be in some way down to AGW’
Sea surface temperatures must have hit boiling point in the past.
Let’s not forget….snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. One good Dr. tells us that children won’t know what snow is, and now another Dr. tells us children will get too much snow. Which is it?
“Let’s not forget….snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. One good Dr. tells us that children won’t know what snow is, and now another Dr. tells us children will get too much snow. Which is it?”
==========================================================
Well Jimbo, now what is wrong with both, if you are the magic molecule? And in those rare years where the snow amount is average, it will be of course extremely average.
Dr. Trenberth, like his fellow Warmist scientists, will do or say almost anything to keep the global warming scare alive and the research funds flowing. If he were to tell the truth — that human-induced runaway global warming does not exist — he’d be ostracized, perhaps fired, booted from the IPCC hiearchy, and disinvited from future speaking engagements, missing out on lucrative honorariums.
For most of the warmist scientists, it’s simply too risky to tell the truth. There are reputations to preserve, cocktail parties to attend, and publicity coverage to be had. Why ruin a good thing? They’ll defend their junk science until the bitter end.
Trenberth and his fellow AGW believers are working on new bamboo headsets and discussing their runway layouts in anticipation of the airplanes landing.
They more than likely have made so much by now they can go and live on a tropical island without communication devices.
It is always global warming this and global warming that. However, it seems that this global warming is very selective – it warms some places but does not warm other places. Also, the amount of warming is orders of magnitude higher than the theoretical 1.4C per century. The short term fluctuation over a few years or even year to year is larger than the theoretical 1.4C per century. It is said in the US that all politics is local. It would appear since global warming has been politicized that all global warming is local as well.
I have some minor internal natl growth on my right big toe.
I am certain it is due to man made global warming.
It would not be as painful if it was due to natural global warming.
The only solution to your problem is to amputate at just above your left knee. If that doesn’t get rid of the pain, then do the same to the right leg.
Thank you.
I have just done the left leg. I’ll see how that goes.
I’m surprised that nobody has considered “the Bermuda Triangle” as an explanation – a vast area of the Atlantic Ocean where the laws of physics and even time do do apply. This could be a catch all for the Global Warming Establishment. OK it is not mainstream science, but is not any more preposterous than the other 60 explanations trying to explain the pause. Plus many people actually believe that the Bermuda Triangle is a real phenomenon.
Brilliant!
And many people actually believe Global Warming.
No wonder people are sick and tired of this. How about some positive benefits from ManBearPig?
So, Trenberth’s missing heat, apparently in the deap ocean, bypassing the shallow ocean, is causing more snow? I am sad to say this guy in a New Zealander, and apparently not too bright compared to Ernest Rutherford (Of Scottish heritage).
The remarkable thing is that when it is convenient this hidden heat reappears at the surface to cause extra snow. Amazing, intelligent heat.
The problem with Kevin Trenberth isn’t that he misleads the public in press conferences. There’s always a rent-a-clown who’s willing to do that. It’s a travesty but it’s true.
In my controversial opinion the problem is that, if he has no interest in the truth (as he obviously doesn’t) why would anyone expect him to not fabricate his scientific data as well.
There is no evidence he has committed fraud. No-one is looking for any. Climate science isn’t known for policing itself; remember Climategate.
But there’s no reason to doubt he is willing to.
So anyone who works with him should be questioned as to their integrity.
No point questioning the fake Nobel laureate, Kevin Trenberth. He’s a lost cause, in my opinion.
Totally agree…………….
Well, about half of what Trenberth is saying may be correct.
Uh, the other half: not so much.
It’s interesting that Trenberth was one of the scientists involved in the latest Royal Society and National Academy of Science report. Here is part of point 20. of that report.
“20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?
No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
fig9-small
Figure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 (larger version)
If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits. ”
And here is a link to point 20 of that joint report, showing the graph. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/
Here is a list of the contributing scientists for that report. See Trenberth listed. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/contributors/
So how many thousands of trillions of dollars would it take over thousands of years to mitigate their CAGW? This is what these people believe isn’t it? Unbelievable.
This garbage about ‘thousands of years’ is amazing. We know for a fact that CO2 levels rise and fall dramatically and during Ice Ages is at starvation level for plants. They suck it all down fast when it is cold.
I followed your links and I would defy anyone to read the report and not run screaming into the street., convinced that the end was nigh.
However after the initial panic caused by the graph showing how CO2 induced temperature rise would continue inexorably for the next 200 years at least I looked at the one reference , Zickfield et al (2013 ) (over 30 authors on this paper) for the graph . That leads one to the RCP database , and a series of models, of which one, RCP2.6 is the least extreme, predicting a max temperature of 1C and then a decline to a plateau level for 200 years of 0.6C . RCP8.5 was the most extreme . However the source of the RCP reports states at one point :
“The RCPs are not forecasts or boundaries for potential emissions, land-use, or climate change. They are also not policy prescriptive in that they were chosen for scientific purposes to represent the span of the radiative forcing literature at the time of their selection and thus facilitate the mapping of a broad climate space. They therefore do not represent specific futures with respect to climate policy action (or no action) or technological, economic, or political viability of specific future pathways or climates.”
So , should the Royal society have used this chart in their, rather intimidating , report .
I have respect for the Royal Society and in other reports , such as a report to the Govt on the risks and precautions of fracking for example they show a sober and professional approach to which neither opponents or supporters of fracking could find objection.
Over climate change however they sometimes give the impression of having succumbed to a media led hysteria.
But I could be wrong .
These people that twist every weather event into proof of global warming are truly amazing. They have created a hypothesis that is impossible to falsify. If there were no blizzards it would be proof of global warming. But there are blizzards. No problem, that too is proof of global waiting.
Only Goldilocks can disprove global warming: all weather has to be neither too frequent nor too infrequent but “just right”, neither too hot nor too cold but “just right”, neither too dry nor too wet but “just right” and so forth.
Sometimes global warmclimchange causes more snow, sometimes less. Sometimes it causes more droughts, sometimes more floods. Sometimes it causes more heat, sometimes more cold. It’s very tricksy, this globalwarmclimchange.
A quote from Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–95) may prove useful
“Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed”
Good quotation.
Trenberth is as credible on this as the UK’s Met was in predicting no more snow for Britain.
I believe that was Dr. David Viner.
Travesty Trenberth. Like a cat, he names himself.
===============
Trenberth was speaking of himself and all his warmist colleagues when he said it was a “travesty” that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.” That ‘moment’ has now stretched on for another five years, yet Trenberth continues to flog the dead AGW horse. I’d hoped that in fifty years he would be remembered kindly in historical footnotes as Travesty Trenberth for his perspicacious remark in the Climategate Papers, and not as an unrelenting horse’s ass flogger. Ah, well.
Why is it that the real travesty in that email is never mentioned? Trenberth goes beyond the “travesty” issue. He BLAMES THE DATA for the problem. In short, he is saying the model is (must) be correct so the thermometer is too blame. That friends is a real “travesty”.
Just been reading a book by Richard Morris, an archaeologist by trade, called “Time’s Anvil ” a real good look at our past.
Centered in England, that is a very studied land about our past history and climate. The outstanding was his facts about climate and the record of climate changes. He states as a fact that in our not to distant past the temp in England dropped 15C in a decade, may have been a few thousand years ago but it could happen any time.
He tends to say that temperatures drop rapidly sometimes even in interglacials according to the archaeological record, that is a worry. Global warming causes 300ft rises in sea level, rapidly as the ice age melts and warmists are worried about a few inches over a century or three. That we are due for the next ice age does not seem to concern these warmanistas.
That England and Europe flourished in a warmer climate some time ago seems to be lost on people that call themselves scientists, in days of yore, real thinking scientists had a broad knowledge over many fields and could think outside the square. Thus they found new knowledge, these people blaming all things on mans evil carbon habits, are charlatans and certainly not scientists.
In the great days of science, there wasn’t an oversupply of “scientists,” all trying to sweep together something to publish, no matter how venal or trivial or ridiculous. There wasn’t excessive taxation on the scale needed to pay scientists to publish politically motivated drivel. Science is dead. It has been replaced with a gigantic, Marxist, academic zombie.
How does he know that the (human-induced) climate change is only half responsible? Where are the calculations and data on which that statement is based? Surely a storm of such terrible magnitude must be entirely due to us miserable sinners?
/sarc, just in case 🙂
I actually feel sorry for Kevin Trenberth. He knows the observations don’t support his vision. He knows he has to make stuff up. He’s trapped.
======================
No, he doesn’t.
No, he isn’t.
He just needs courage.
“A fool without courage will never face public ridicule.”
Quoted from the collected wisdom of the old Roman philosopher Ludicrous.
Eugene WR Gallun
His made a very good career out of of his vision , like many of ‘the Team’ a third rate at best academic that has won the lottery through throwing out good scientific pratice in the favour off political whoring. No one needs to feel sorry for him , for he knows full well what he is doing .
New claim: Global warming is causing a precipitous fall in cerebral cortex and frontal lobe activity.
Was the storm worsened by man? I do understand that there was quite a bit of snow in this storm, but I used to live in Maine, so quite a bit of snow isn’t all that unusual. I recall in 1964, when I first went to college at the University of Maine in Orono, leaving school Friday afternoon to come home for the weekend in a moderate snowstorm that lasted until about Sunday morning. Having cleared about 40 inches of snow out of the driveway by the time I was picked up to go back to school, we drove into the parking lot and could clearly see the top floor of the 4 floor dormitory I lived in at school – the banks of snow from the parking lot hid the bottom 3 floors, and when I walked down the path between the two dorms, the walkway had six foot banks of snow along each side.
In about 1976, a storm came in again on a Friday. It started in the morning, and by 3 o’clock we closed the store I worked at and a friend gave me a ride home. There was about 12 inches of snow in the drive at the time I got home but his Volkswagen bus plowed through it amazingly well. I later blew the drive way out, and in the morning, since the storm was ongoing, blew another 18 inches or so out, followed by another wasted effort of moving about 16 inches that afternoon. Sunday morning saw another run through the driveway with about 12 inches more. Big storms are not uncommon, never have been, never will be, and there is nothing unusual about the storms now, either.