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.
Vincent (14:19:29) :
” 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.
Then what was the forcing, and why has it ‘gone’?
Mr. Anon (14:33:21) :
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?
There is no evidence of a ‘stagnation’ in warming – the planet is still warming at around 0.2C per decade, with the ‘noise’ of interannual variability superimposed on that trend, and that is what the models successfully reproduce.
“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)”
Take it from the perspective of the radiative properties of c02. It doesn’t interact with heat leaving the earth – the molecular structure of a carbon dioxide molecule doesn’t change, and it still absorbs outward radiation at a peak of 15 microns, with 13-16 at the shoulders. This matters in chemistry, as it corresponds not to ordinary temperatures such that are found between the surface and up to 100 metres above . With altitude temperatures cool, so the greenhouse effect takes place close to the earth’s surface (this was proven by heinz Hug and Jack barrett) So that leaves c02 at its most active where temperatures are in the subzero range of the centigrade scale, between -27 and -50C which are typically found in the mid-upper troposhere. What is the thermal mechanism by which temperatures in that region send heatwaves back to earth?
It was established long ago – before global warming became an issue – that of the total heat leaving earth, only less than 8% of it is absorbed by c02 at these subzero temperatures, and that this doesn’t change according to quantity, but constant according to its bandwidth – in other words, an increase in 50ppm of c02 would absorb the same amount of heat as the first 100ppm – which still remains a miniscule effect, and that the same amount of radiation leaves from the lower stratosphere whether there were 100ppm of 600ppm of c02.
Here are the figures which, when plotted, even show a warming trend in the stratosphere in the last decade.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
Judging from the tone of the emails in the leaked series, it strikes me that they are quite aware of these facts, but are trying to salvage the Anthropogenic warming hypothesis by contorting it to scientific extremes. They are aware that more c02 does not produce more heat
Icarus (16:49:41)
“There is no evidence of a ’stagnation’ in warming – the planet is still warming at around 0.2C per decade, with the ‘noise’ of interannual variability superimposed on that trend, and that is what the models successfully reproduce”
The models reproduce this but the models have failed, which is why Trenberth finds it a travesty that it can’t be explained. Theres obviously something wrong with the climate, and not the models thus.. Phil Jones also finds that “it isn’t very nice” that his AGW colleagues predict that the world will cool until at least 2030, much as would be expected. This is an odd subjective comment for 2 reasons. Firstly, Jones is *nominally* against warming becausehe contrives to tell us it brings on catastrophe. Secondly, it explains a lot about the AGW perception: That c02 is the cause therefore the world ought to warm, when clearly it isn’t. The only method it was made to warm was by adjusting data, though that was artificial – the nature of climate-gate – proves what was known all along – that temperature data was quite fake in the first place.
“Kevin mentions natural variability, but then realises this is not a sufficient explanation – “what are the physical processes?” he asks, quite rightly.”
The physical process is Ocean Heat Content, SST’s solar forcing, and clouds. Some radiation from teh sun stores up in oceans, which then heat up the atmosphere. This is proven by precipitation increasing everywhere. If the atmosphere heated oceans, there would be little precipitation, though if oceans heat the atmosphere then there will be an increase in precipitation. When precipitation increases, a lot of heat is lost from the system, so the atmosphere cools, which is has been happening for the last 10 years. Heat loss and cooling.
Icarus, I think you missed this post – Smokey (18:42:14)
P Wilson (17:12:21) :
Icarus (16:49:41)
“There is no evidence of a ’stagnation’ in warming – the planet is still warming at around 0.2C per decade, with the ‘noise’ of interannual variability superimposed on that trend, and that is what the models successfully reproduce”
It’s entertaining to say how faulty such logic is. It can be used in many ways
I am 5’8, but my neighbour is 6’2. The difference between us is 6 inches, so we are both 5’11 therefore, which makes me 3 inches taller than I am.
ok here’s a link for Icarus: Don’t pay much attention to the title – its quite a scientific video (using ice cores and proxies) . since the LIA prior to 1850 was the coldest part of the last 10,000 years, it isn’t an adequate starting point in an experiment to verify today’s consensus. Its sometimes forgotten-even here on WUWT that there were longer periods warmer and longer in duration than the MWP within this 10,000 years
“Icarus (16:49:41) :
There is no evidence of a ’stagnation’ in warming – the planet is still warming at around 0.2C per decade, with the ‘noise’ of interannual variability superimposed on that trend, and that is what the models successfully reproduce.”
So what was Trenberth referring to as being a “travesty”? Please explain.
Mr. Anon (22:50:27) :
“Icarus (16:49:41) :
There is no evidence of a ’stagnation’ in warming – the planet is still warming at around 0.2C per decade, with the ‘noise’ of interannual variability superimposed on that trend, and that is what the models successfully reproduce.”
So what was Trenberth referring to as being a “travesty”? Please explain.
He explained it himself, in the passage I quoted earlier –
““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!”
The ‘travesty’ he’s referring to is the fact that, despite the radiative imbalance due to anthropogenic influences (greenhouse gases, black carbon on snow etc.), which results in extra heating of the planet, in any particular year we cannot yet adequately identify all the flows of energy in the climate system. So, for example, we can look at the last 40 years of data and see a warming trend that is undeniable –
https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/yvtayto200
… but we cannot fully explain all the wiggles on that line – all the natural interannual variability. We know that a very strong El Niño was responsible for the warmth of 1998 but perhaps we can’t explain exactly why 1989 was 0.1C cooler than 1988, etc. You can see that Trenberth is perfectly happy to acknowledge the possibility that in 2008 the additional greenhouse warming wasn’t just hiding somewhere that we aren’t yet capable of measuring it, but could have been temporarily offset by “changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space”.
None of this changes the fact that the anthropogenic radiative imbalance exists, and that it is causing additional warming. Trenberth could have been saying exactly the same thing in 1988, and no-one is going to argue that the world wasn’t warming then and hasn’t continued to warm since. Just look at the data. Trenberth isn’t saying “global warming has stopped and we can’t explain why”, he’s saying “global warming is continuing but we can’t fully explain all the natural variability around that warming trend”. There is no contradiction between what he says being true, and the fact that there is a long-term warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. And he’s right of course – given the huge importance of understanding the climate, it *is* a travesty that we can’t yet adequately monitor it.
Incidentally, do you see anything at the end of the graph I linked to above that looks any different at all from the ‘wiggles’ of the last 30 – 40 years in which long-term warming was undeniable? I don’t.
Icarus. The same old nonsense. Its obvious that Trenberth is looking hard for something that isn’t there. ie: That doesn’t exist. This is typical of the sort of gall that thrown out of the sausage factory A radiative imbalance doesn’t exist – as if it were the atmosphere would not be cooling. Its been cooling for 10 years. Althouh Trenberth doesn’t understand radiative physics or chemistry, it is to his credit that he can’t explain the lack of warming of the last decade when his colleagues are trying to cynically hide the actual data. This is the same Trenberth who preached hurricane panic associated with the human forcing ideology.
Otherwise, It is purely theoretical projection that explains nothing, which is presumably what they receive funding for. “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.”
The simple answer is that there has been none, otherwise it would show with temperature measurements.
But take one thing at a time. Carbon dioxide being a forcing that keeps additional heat in the atmosphere. Not happening, as its physically impossible (unless c02 changes its molecular structure, which it doesn’t)
40 years of unprecedented warming. Certainly not. Of course, the data is purely adjusted.
Here’s a project for you. Go to
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
select two, three, even four data sets from each geographical area, then merge then in to a global plot, and then say that there has been any significant warming of the globe, either since the last 40 years or since 1900.
Don’t worry – all the data comes from NASA
What Trenberth is doing is akin to the speedlimt. Since the speedlimit is 70mph, then its physically impossible for a car to go faster than 70mph. These are rather silly conclusions.
ps. We’ve already gone through why Trenberth is in error.
Smokey (14:39:12) :
Icarus,
Trenbeth says “the fact is we can’t explain the lack of warming and it’s a travesty that we can’t”.
You say (paraphrase) “Ah he doesn’t really mean there is a lack of warming, he means there is a lack of visible warming.” You provided further Trenbeth quotes where he puzzles over the reasons why we can’t detect this warming that is occuring even though we can’t see it.
Despite billions of dollars invested by the world in Argo submersible networks, satellite altimetry and microwave sounding units to measure the climate to “unprecedent levels of accuracy”, the warming that Trenbeth apparently says is occuring, still escapes detection.
Can there really be no possibility, none whatsoever, that there is NO warming?
Smokey (14:39:12) :
May I deconstruct? Thank you:
[Trenberth in quotes]
“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.
No, he’s saying that we ought to be able to find out whether changes in clouds or aerosols temporarily offset the anthropogenic warming in the short term. That doesn’t constitute ‘endorsing Lindzen’s 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.
If you can prove what the net change in global ice mass was for 2008 (the period Trenberth is discussing), then by all means do so – otherwise you can’t claim that ‘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.
“Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.” (my emphasis).
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
It seems we can’t rule out sequestration in the deep ocean after all.
“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.
Don’t forget that there is no such thing as ‘global cooling’ at the moment – the world is warming at around 0.2C per decade – but anyway, Trenberth was talking about identifying short-term natural variability, not long term trends.
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.
We know that there is a net anthropogenic forcing of around 1.6W/m² and we can see the effects of that in the current global warming trend, so it’s entirely reasonable to discuss the details of the natural variability superimposed on that warming trend, and Trenberth is right to point out that we can’t yet adequately measure and identify all the physical processes involved in that natural variability. Read his paper again and you’ll see what I mean.
Icarus,
Instead of your baseless speculation that some mysterious hidden global warming is lurking below the 6,500 foot depth of the oceans, just read Vincent’s comment above yours. Keep in mind that there is thermohaline circulation of the ocean layers, and if there was “heat in the pipeline” it would have been detected by now.
Actually, you and Trenberth are simply running out of excuses. Cognitive dissonance prevents you from admitting the likely probability that there has been no measurable global warming over the past eight years. See my post in the current ‘Smoking Gun’ thread @09:11:42. You will see that when the Team’s artificial “adjustments” are removed from the raw data, no warming is evident.
Only by placing your belief system in the hands of those massaging the data [and who still refuse to explain their methodology] can you trust their pronouncements that significant global warming is occurring. And if minor global warming is occurring, it is a natural function of the planet’s emergence from the LIA. It is not caused by humans; there is zero proof that CO2=AGW. ZE-RO. The climate has been through the same cycles repeatedly throughout the geological past. Occam’s Razor tells you to avoid adding unnecessary explanations to natural occurrences.
The scary thing is, Trenberth is the least corrupted scientist in the whole corrupt AGW bunch. They are just science nerds who have unexpectedly become media stars by fudging the numbers for fame and money. They are bought and paid for. And now they’ve been caught.
Prove me wrong. Have them disclose all of their raw data and methodologies, which they continue to stonewall.
Icarus,
““Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.” (my emphasis).
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
It seems we can’t rule out sequestration in the deep ocean after all”
It is true that the heat could be below 2000m of the ocean, but this is extremely unlikely. Why would it all go down to 2000m without any heat showing up in the much more probable upper layers? There is no clear mechanism for this to happen.
This whole argument is starting to have the feeling of desperation about it.
And yet there can be no possibility, none at all, that the warming has stopped.
Icarus (09:22:47)
We are aware of what Trenberth is saying. Smokey, Vincent et al are interpreting what he couldn’t find and that explains what Trenberth fails to conclude. Trenberth of course admits to being in the dark.
As for anthropogenic *forcing*, no such thing exists, unless it can be proven. There is no evidence of this. Nevertheless I assume this anthropogenic forcing doesn’t refer to carbon dioxide, since thats a physical impossibility.
Incidentally, did you look through the youtube video, or plot the graph from the suggeste source?
sometimes Icarus, you just have to think outside the box.
Smokey:
“Have them disclose all of their raw data and methodologies, which they continue to stonewall.”
“Then an avalanche of answers must be found too fast.”
Smokey (10:01:32) :
Icarus,
Instead of your baseless speculation that some mysterious hidden global warming is lurking below the 6,500 foot depth of the oceans, just read Vincent’s comment above yours.
Take a look at the recent record of global average temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
I think we can both agree that interannual variation is always present, and that there is an undeniable warming trend in the data (even if you attribute the warming to entirely natural causes). So, one or both of the following must also be true:
1: The variability is a function of our imperfect monitoring;
2: The variability represents genuine fluctuations in the Earth’s energy balance.
In other words when the global temperature appears to drop in any particular year in the middle of a warming trend, it could be that there really is cooling (due to clouds or aerosols or whatever), or it could be that we failed to identify where the warming went in that particular year, but either way the trend is still there. Neither of these two possibilities in any way contradicts the warming trend – we can see it right there in the data. If that’s true for (say) 1981 then it also has to be true for today.
Keep in mind that there is thermohaline circulation of the ocean layers, and if there was “heat in the pipeline” it would have been detected by now.
‘Heat in the pipeline’ usually refers to heat that the Earth will accumulate in *future* years due to radiative forcing, not to heat that it has *already* accumulated.
Actually, you and Trenberth are simply running out of excuses. Cognitive dissonance prevents you from admitting the likely probability that there has been no measurable global warming over the past eight years. See my post in the current ‘Smoking Gun’ thread @09:11:42. You will see that when the Team’s artificial “adjustments” are removed from the raw data, no warming is evident.
OK, let’s test that claim. How much temperature anomaly constitutes a trend (or deviation from a trend), and why? Is it 0.1°C? 0.4°C? 0.7°C? How long does it have to persist for you to be confident that it represents a real long-term change, and why?
Only by placing your belief system in the hands of those massaging the data [and who still refuse to explain their methodology] can you trust their pronouncements that significant global warming is occurring.
Sorry but there are many independent sources of climate data and they all show the warming. To suggest they are all in on a vast conspiracy is just absurd. Besides, the natural world reflects the warming too.
And if minor global warming is occurring, it is a natural function of the planet’s emergence from the LIA. It is not caused by humans; there is zero proof that CO2=AGW. ZE-RO. The climate has been through the same cycles repeatedly throughout the geological past. Occam’s Razor tells you to avoid adding unnecessary explanations to natural occurrences.
Then what is the forcing causing the warming of the last 50 years?
The scary thing is, Trenberth is the least corrupted scientist in the whole corrupt AGW bunch. They are just science nerds who have unexpectedly become media stars by fudging the numbers for fame and money. They are bought and paid for. And now they’ve been caught.
Their work reflects observed changes in physical and biological systems all over the world, so I’m inclined to think you’re wrong.
Icarus,
You can have the last word as far as I’m concerned. This is my final comment to you on this thread. Look at all the people correcting you above, and your mind still appears to be shut tight. Do you really think everyone else is wrong, and you are the guy with the right answers?
OK, in response to your questions, I’ll answer:
First off, no one is saying there is no global warming. Yet true believers constantly try to re-frame the argument that way. I am saying there is no empirical measurement that shows any cause and effect between rising CO2 levels and rising temperature: click. Therefore, CO2 can not be the forcing you believe it to be.
And trends are always present. But trends are subjective: click. That one shows no warming for the past twelve years; the trend line is flat. Want an NOAA chart showing the same time frame as the one you posted? click [it’s a blink gif showing the artificial “adjustments”. Give it a few seconds to load.]
And your GISS 0.1° y-axis chart magnifies any temp fluctuations to make them alarming. Here is one is with a normal y-axis: click. Not so scary, eh?
And explain how prehistoric SUVs caused higher temperatures 140,000 years ago: click. You’d best start worrying about freezing, rather than warming.
The central argument is whether a rise in CO2 will cause a subsequent, runaway rise in temperature. But as you can see, there is no cause and effect correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures: click. Further, CO2 has been many times higher in the past, for millions of years at a time, even during ice ages: [click on graph to expand].
Next, “heat in the pipeline” is not a scientific term. It was invented as a fudge factor by alarmists who were unable to identify the heat from increased CO2 that they were just certain must be lurking somewhere. You fall into the same trap. You are unable to accept the possibility, even the likelihood based on real world measurements, that the effect CO2 is so insignificant that it can be completely disregarded; its effect certainly is so small that it is empirically unmeasurable.
By asking “How much temperature anomaly constitutes a trend”, you show that you don’t understand what a trend is. A trend is a function of time, not temperature. And as stated above, trends are subjective. That is why I post charts with widely varying time lines. Pick the trend you prefer, but they all contradict the CO2=CAGW conjecture that a handful of crooked climate scientists are making fame and fortune from promoting.
Next: “Sorry but there are many independent sources of climate data and they all show the warming.” That is only because you read sources that you agree with. Realclimate, for example, routinely censors viewpoints contrary to AGW. If you go there you won’t see the true climate situation. If WUWT was run like RC, your posts would never see the light of day.
Aside from the charts I posted here showing plenty of cooling episodes, here’s a more recent one: click. Do you consider GISS an ‘independent source’? Me neither. But UAH, RSS and ARGO are credible, and they all show cooling. Do you still want to claim it’s a ‘conspiracy’? Or that “they all show the warming”?
“Then what is the forcing causing the warming of the last 50 years?”
Why pick an arbitrary 50 years? Why not 5 years, or 5,000 years? The warming of the planet has the same causes on different time scales. Unless you can prove otherwise. If so, you will be the first to be able to do so.
You don’t seem to understand Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything — William of Ockham (1285-1349). By adding a completely unnecessary entity — CO2 — to the natural ebb and flow of the climate, you make it more complicated for no justifiable reason. For the umpteenth time: there are NO empirical measurements showing that an X rise in CO2 causes an X rise in temperature. Unless that sinks in, you will always be going down the wrong garden path.
Finally, concerning your last assertion, “their work” is still kept hidden. They refuse to abide by the Scientific Method, and disclose all of the raw and adjusted data and methodologies, and any quantified “observed changes” they used to support their conjecture that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
The Scientific Method requires full transparency, beginning with the raw data, and the methods they used to adjust the data to get their results, and the computer algorithms they used, and anything else that has any effect on their conclusion.
Instead, they fall back on a circular appeal to authority — the authorities cited are their pals, who cite them back, and they all work together to keep skeptical views locked out. They’re not acting like scientists, they’re acting like Elmer Gantrys, saying, “Trust us.”
Why do you trust people who refuse to show you, or any skeptical scientist, their data or methods?
Smokey (12:03:22) :
Apart from the fact that educating Icarus may be impossible, you do a nice job of explaining why he (and so many like him) are so wrong. Nice job.
If you don’t have this website, which has tons of real science that debunks the warmers myths, you might like it.
http://www.c3headlines.com/
yonason,
C3 is one of my favorites.