CBS evening news finally, after over two weeks, gets around to covering Climategate. Most interestingly, they have a short clip of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth, as many recall said this in one of the CRU emails:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Look at what Dr. Trenberth adds now:
h/t to WUWT reader LiamIam
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice article on why the bias in the media…
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=5347
Mike Dubrasich (10:44:56):
[Trenberth] is distraught that Thermageddon hasn’t happened, and in fact temps are going the other way.
Actually, no. If he’s ‘distraught’ about anything it is about the fact that climate monitoring systems are not yet capable of tracking all the energy in the climate system as it flows between reservoirs such as oceans and atmosphere. Here’s what he says:
“The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Figure 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Figure 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why is the temperature not continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role [1] and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space? Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, do we not?
Well, it seems that the answer is no, we do not. But we should! Given that global warming is unequivocally happening [2•] and there has so far been a failure to outline, let alone implement, global plans to mitigate the warming, then adapting to the climate change is an imperative. We will of course adapt to climate change. The question is the extent to which the adaptation is planned and orderly with minimal disruption and loss of life, or whether it is unplanned? To plan for and cope with effects of climate change requires information on what is happening and why, whether observed changes are likely to continue or are a transient, how they affect regional climates and the possible impacts. Further, to the extent that the global community is able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate change, then information is required on how effective it is. This article addresses vital information needs to help understand climate change.
It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability. Similarly, common arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other natural origins are inadequate, as they do not provide the physical mechanisms involved. There must be a physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic. If surface warming occurs while the deep ocean becomes cooler, then we should be able to see the evidence. It may be that there are insufficient data to prove one way or the other, as is often the case in the deep past. However, since 1979 there have been instruments in space tracking the total solar irradiance (TSI) [[3] and [4]], and so we know it is not the sun that has brought about warming in the past 30 years [5 P. Duffy, B. Santer and T. Wigley, Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming, Phys Today (January) (2009) 48-49, S-0031-9228-0901-230-7.5]. Hence a key issue is the extent to which we can track energy in the climate system.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B985C-4WXB58T-1&_user=4845034&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=6&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%2359095%232009%23999989998%231488174%23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=59095&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=18&_acct=C000000593&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4845034&md5=7865599530a7520fc983d9fcc874cd86
Mr. Anon (13:30:22) “He seems to be saying that there is no warming, but there must be warming, so the measurements must be wrong.”
I think a lot of people are commenting about Trenberth’s e-mails without knowing Trenberth’s research. Trenberth has (in the past at least) produced important insights on natural climate variations.
Again I will point out, if Trenbarf and his ilk were really worried about our planet, and really worried about global warming (aka. climate change), then why are they not ecstatic and overflowing with gleefulness that the world is in fact not warming?
A: Because it was never about global warming but rather all about control and opportunity!
End of story….
I don’t get your point at (12:44:22), Paul Vaughan: the language of politics — “extremism” vs “moderation” — is inappropriate here. All the questions before us are binary. True or false.
Is warming happening? Yes/no. If yes, is that bad? Yes/no. If it is and that is bad, can we do anything to stop it? Yes/no.
It’s not a sliding scale of truth, it’s a one or a zero.
Icarus (13:45:31) :
Why not just say that climate science has insufficient explanation for the whole kit & Kaboodle?
The answer is that climate science was doing just fine before the cabal came along and drove it into a brick wall.
Now they are being arrested for ‘hit & run’.
Why should anyone defend that?
Mathew Weaver (and others), re your remarks wondering about the IQ of reporters, there are a couple of observations that might be useful. First, the vast majority of msm reporters (jeditors, etc.) are seldom, if ever, able to decide truth of any issue by themselves. Our society recognizes two powerful sources of truth (a) science which has tools, training, and time to discover truth, and (b) the justice system which has the power to punish those who do not tell the truth. Journalists lack both of these powers (time being their biggest enemy) and therefore must depend upon self interested sources from both the establishment and the counter-establishment for their versions of truth. Keep in mind that the Green Save the Funds types are masters of public relations in getting their version of truth to the media. The first principle of PR is to understand that laziness, not curiosity or passion for truth is the driving force of a great many professional news workers. Any story (press release) prepared for them is one less they have to do themselves. In any struggle it is crucial to know your enemy, so making an effort to find the specific levers and wheels of any particular media related issue beyond the general principles implied by the above would be useful, e.g. think of ways to become “sources” for any journalists in your locations. Also useful, but much slower, would be a concerted effort to work within the political process to make it illegal for any government agency, or NGO’s (government supported agency–in particular those that give tax deductable receipts) to advocate for anything. These outfits buy one heck of a lot of air- time and news paper/mag space—which certainly don’t make them appear threatening to the press—and we tax payers subsidize it. Oh, and don’t forget the power of a few high profile defamation actions to make serious breeches of truth counter productive. Cheers. Ron
I stand firmly with Icarus (13:45:31) on this one.
mkurbo (13:41:24),
That was an excellent article. From one of its links, here are a few of the emails between Michael Mann and Andy Revkin: click [Read from bottom to top].
Mann [who threatened to boycott peer review journals that don’t toe his AGW line, or if they allow skeptical scientists on their board] tells Revkin:
Michael Mann is being mendacious in his description of skepticism via peer review. He is fabricating new rules, which assert that only those in his clique have a right to practice the Scientific Method. And since Mann’s clique controls the climate peer review process, skeptics are kept out: [clique]
Icarus:
“Actually, no. If he’s ‘distraught’ about anything it is about the fact that climate monitoring systems are not yet capable of tracking all the energy in the climate system”
I hate to see Kevin distraught. Let’s see how I can help.
” Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Figure 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why is the temperature not continuing to go up?” (K. Trenbeth)
Could it be the that the mythical forcing does not actually exist?
Kevin mentions natural variability, but then realises this is not a sufficient explanation – “what are the physical processes?” he asks, quite rightly.
He then enumerates the possibilities of “where the forcing has gone.” He muses over “Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space?”
No Kevin, you were right first time, the forcing has gone. Ah, but what about the oceans he wonders – “Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface?”
No Kevin, the Argo network has shown no accumulation of ocean heat content since 2003.
Oh wait, it must have been used up melting the ice – “Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?”
No again. As much ice has been gained in Antarctica as has been lost elsewhere. I hate to see Kevin so distraught so here’s my suggestion: remove the mythical CO2 forcing from your mind, and everything will become copesetic.
Icarus (13:45:31) :
Still amused today Icarus? Here is your first comment the day ClimateGate broke :
————————————————
Icarus (16:46:28) :
I think it’s pretty amusing that anyone here would be taken in by this stuff. In fact it’s comical. Like breathing on an ant nest – someone has you all running around and falling over each other in your eagerness to trumpet evidence of ‘the Great Global Warming Fraud’.
Wise up folks. You’re doing yourselves a disservice. You can do better than this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
————————————————–
Now that you fully know it is real why are you still a manmade global warming clone? ‘You’re doing yourselves a disservice. You can do better than this.’
It’s interesting how skeptics are apparently slandering climate scientists by publishing what they, the scientists, have written.
NPR just aired an interview with Judith Curry on Climategate. Pretty soft stuff but at least it was mentioned. Curry mentions the refusal to comply with FOI requests and Peer Review bullying (my words). With out saying his name Curry compliments McIntyre.
“Mike Dubrasich (10:44:56):
[Trenberth] is distraught that Thermageddon hasn’t happened, and in fact temps are going the other way.
Actually, no. If he’s ‘distraught’ about anything it is about the fact that climate monitoring systems are not yet capable of tracking all the energy in the climate system as it flows between reservoirs such as oceans and atmosphere. Here’s what he says:”
The fact remains that the climate models did not predict the current stagnation in warming, either due to the models themselves or due to their inputs. Do the modelers have any idea why this is so? And why then should these models be trusted?
Icarus (13:45:31),
We’ve been through all this before here. You should really follow the conversation for a while, and review the WUWT archives, before making assumptions or quoting people like Trenberth, who states in a lot of words that he simply doesn’t have a clue about what’s happening. That’s because his mindset is that heat from CO2 must be stacking up somewhere.
May I deconstruct? Thank you:
[Trenberth in italics]
From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space?
Trenberth appears to be endorsing Prof Lindzen’s iris theory.
Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?
Like the rest of the alarmist contingent, Trenberth cites the Arctic, without mentioning that total global ice cover is increasing. Since the question concerns global warming/cooling, his conjecture fails.
Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface?
As the 3,300 ARGO deep sea buoys show, the ocean is cooling.
Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat?
Global cooling has been going on a lot longer than La Niña.
Trenberth’s speculation is just more of the same old “there’s hidden heat in the pipeline” conjecture. His problem, like that of all true runaway global warming believers, is that he’s trying to fit the facts into his hypothesis, instead of accepting that the facts falsify the CO2=CAGW hypothesis. Thus, Trenberth flounders around trying to make a case, based on speculation, that what we observe is something other than natural climate variability.
Re: rbateman (13:40:58)
I do not agree with your analysis, but I can acknowledge that there are regional optical variations/complexities. (For example, the USA has a vocal 2 party political system.)
Clarification: My interest is in natural climate variations. I have noticed that this is an interest which I share with both alarmists & nonalarmists (even though some of the alarmists are “in the closet” about it, for fear of media misinterpretation). My definition of “the enemy” is those opposed to truth (regardless of what labels are pinned to them).
One effect of the fallout of CRUgate seems to have been the shattering of weak alliances. For this reason (as well as others) I have my doubts about the accuracy of speculation regarding who was behind the leaking/hacking.
Btw: For a good laugh, take a look at the hopeless attempts at spin being conducted over at RC.
I was quite startled by this string of emails
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25&kw=hansen
ok not much to do with Hansen, as he’s the Talleyrand of Climatology. What is interesting is the picture that emerges of how the closed group really find it necessary to rebut at any cost anything that they diasagree with in advance.
“It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong.” (Phil jones)
elsewhere they argue that Lindzen, de Freitas etc are wrong because Trenberth is right, on the basis that Trenberth, Jones, Mann et al are more diligent in what they do, since Lindzen and de Freitas don’t agree with them
It seems that they are a myopic bunch who are convinced so much of the dogma of global warming that they need to erase anything that doesn’t conform to it.
What Jones is doing is saying that Christy’s analysis and the satellite data is flawed because it doesn’t conform to CRU data. They then find ways of justifying why its flawed before questioning its veracity.
Re: S. Weasel (14:00:20)
Simplicity is often beautiful & powerful, but I do not share your desire for unhelpful & inaccurate simplicity.
The issue is not “whether or not” there is warming, but rather the degree to which natural climate variations are as well-understood as the tides — everything else in the “climate discussion” is just noise (…noise that concerns people a great deal, I’ll acknowledge).
Cheers.
… so when data produces a warming trend it is to be seized on regardless of the flaws in the technique: When it doesn’t show a warming trend, then obviously the apparatus is at fault.
However, it seems that the reason for “adjusting” data sets whether derived from satellite or surface thermometer is not their relation to recorded temperatures at all, but their divergence from computer models used by the IPCC. In other words, models are more important than data.
Icarus (13:45:31) :
Icarus
You make no mention of UHI. Do you think there is no such thing as UHI?
S. Weasel (14:00:20) “moderation”
For the record: I have made no mention of “moderation”. Common ground exists without need for moderation.
The (unmoderated) common ground is a need to better-understand natural climate variations. This is exactly why I expect allied-extremists to keep targeting it from their respective “sides”.
(Remember the story of the orange peel – it’s not a zero-sum game.)
Icarus (13:45:31) :
From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone….Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?
The earth is in a cooling trend. And in 2008 Arctic ice was in a rapid growing trend.
Global warming is not happening Icarus.
Icarus (13:45:31) :
Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?
Arctic ice is not in a shrinking trend.
Antarctic ice is not in a shrinking trend.
Which Glaciers are being referred to? All glaciers are shrinking?
Is Greenland ice in a shrinking trend?
Is there any data to verify your quote?
Smokey (14:05:54) :
A little more detail on that last “clique” of yours
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/peer-review-roflmao/
Smokey (14:39:12)
Trenberth:
From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space?
reply:
No, as clouds prevent convectional heat loss, not radiative heat loss
Trenberth: Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?
reply:
No, because if the arctic melts, a large amount of energy is being lost during the process (although its true that c02 is more active at subzero regions than non subzero regions – but its still negligible an effect).
This demonstrates a failure on Trenberth’s part to understand exactly what c02 is capable of, which isn’t very much. He’s really saying that the mascot is more potent than the baseball team here.
Trenberth: Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface?
Reply:
no, as LW outgoing radiation (from the surface) doesn’t do much to the atmosphere as it is, let alone something with such a great heat capacity as oceans.
as you observe:
As the 3,300 ARGO deep sea buoys show, the ocean is cooling.
Trenberth: Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat?
reply:
Unlikely. Heat isn’t a “solid” with a fixed/constant magnitude. Thermalisation takes place at normal temperatures very quickly.
He’s basically asking why there’s a divergence between addition and multiplication