Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) a U.S. publicly funded research center, uses the term “denier” six times in this upcoming talk, which he has submitted as a preprint to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in full public view. I’m reproducing it in full below, with only one comment: he uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language. His planned talk is enlightening, I suggest that everyone read it in full. Dr. Trenberth also helpfully includes his NCAR email address in the publicly available document, such that if anyone has any suggestions for him on how he might improve this address to the AMS before he gives it, he can be sent comments.
UPDATE: Physicist Luboš Motl has some thoughts, see here
UPDATE2: Steve McIntyre weighs in with some historical perspective as does Warren Meyer with A New Scientific Low
UPDATE3: Willis Eschenbach offers an open letter to Dr. Trenberth – highly recommended reading.
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
This talk is in honor of my friend and colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public. I have given many public talks on climate change, and I have always tried to emphasize the observational facts and their interpretation, rather than the less certain projections into the future. I will illustrate how I have always tried to present the material in a fairly policy neutral way, and I have pointed out ways to encourage discussion about value systems and why these lead to potentially different actions about what one does about climate change. For many years now I have been an advocate of the need for a climate information system, of which a vital component is climate services, but it is essential to recognize that good climate services and information ride upon the basic observations and their analysis and interpretation. The WCRP Observations and Assimilation Panel, which I have chaired for 6 years, has advocated for the climate observing system and the development of useful products. Moving towards a form of operational real time attribution of climate and weather events is essential, but needs to recognize the shortcomings of models and understanding (or the uncertainties, as Steve would say). Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.
===============================================================
The above is the foreword posted on the AMS website along with the link to the PDF there. Here’s the text of PDF of his upcoming talk, which I’ve saved locally also in case the main one disappears or is changed.
AMS, 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
COMMUNICATING CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THOUGHTS ON CLIMATEGATE
Kevin E Trenberth*
NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307
1. INTRODUCTION: CLIMATEGATE
This article briefly summarizes my views that have formed in recent years on communicating climate change in the light of first hand experiences in so-called “climategate”. The latter term refers to the emails and personal information about individuals, including me, that were illegally taken from the University of East Anglia through a hacking incident. The material published relates to the work of the globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way. Instead there should be condemnation of the abuse, misuse and downright lies about the emails: that should be the real climategate!
I was involved in just over 100 of the hacked email messages. In my case, one cherry-picked email quote went viral and at one point it was featured in over 110,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “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.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. But that is the way a vast majority of the internet stories and blogs interpreted it.
*Corresponding author: Kevin E Trenberth, NCAR, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.
Email: trenbert@ucar.edu
Several of the emails document the detailed procedures used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 Fourth Assessment report for Chapter 3 (for which Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth were coordinating lead authors) and other chapters. In a hacked email from Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC Assessment. The comment was naïve and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held. It was not sanctioned by me. Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC. As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed all papers even though not all could be included owing to space limitations. Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper, brought to our attention any papers we may have missed.
Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010).
Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry. The IPCC assessments are a means of taking stock and avoiding some of the “noise” created by the different approaches and thereby providing conservative but robust statements about what is known and what is not.
2. THE DENIERS
But their critics are another matter entirely, and their false claims have not been scrutinized or criticized anything like enough! Perhaps climategate comes from the somewhat inept response of climate scientists to criticisms from various sources. The climate change deniers have very successfully caused major diversions from the much needed debate about what to do about climate change and how to implement it. It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.
3. THE MEDIA
The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers. Climate varies slowly and so the message remains similar, year after year — something not exciting for journalists as it is not “news”. Controversy is the fodder of the media, not truth, and so the media amplify the view that there are two sides and give unwarranted attention to views of a small minority or those with vested interests or ideologies. The climate deniers have been successful in by-passing peer review yet attracting media attention. In those respects the media are a part of the problem. But they have to be part of the solution.
4. THE SCIENTISTS
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments. Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions. They find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding.
While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press. Others are diverted from their science to address the concerns. There is continued pressure to do policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science. Scientists who cross the line to being advocates for courses of action are often perceived as pariahs by their colleagues because their science is potentially biased.
Many scientists also do not help with regard to communicating the role of global warming in climate. Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. The burden of proof is high. In general in this case, scientists assume that there is no human influence and to prove that there is requires statistical tests to exceed the 95% confidence level (5% significance level) to avoid a chance finding of a false positive. To declare erroneously that the null hypothesis is not correct is called a type I error, and the science is very conservative in this regard about making such an error. Scientists are thus prone to make what are called type II errors whereby they erroneously accept the null hypothesis when it is in fact false.
Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.
So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms. Granted, the climate deals with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.
Another point is that we have substantial natural climate variability from events like El Niño and La Niña. Given that global warming is always going in one direction, it is when natural variability and global warming reinforce one another that records are broken and extremes occur. This takes place with warming in the latter part of and shortly after an El Niño event, for instance, as has happened in 2010.
When asked about what could and should be done about climate change, many scientists back away for fear of being labeled advocates. However, scientists should note that the IPCC strives to carry out policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science assessments, with considerable success. Given the physical science findings, what are the ramifications for society and the environment? It is important for scientists to recognize that Working Group II of IPCC deals extensively with the past and future expected impacts of climate change, the vulnerabilities that exist, and the adaptation and coping strategies for dealing with these. Similarly, Working Group III deals with options for mitigating the problem by reducing future emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists should recognize that these options exist and, to the extent they are familiar with them, state what they are. Scientists should also be aware of the national and international discussions and negotiations underway to address the problem. Putting a price on carbon, carbon taxes and offsets, and cap and trade systems can be discussed in a neutral way to inform the public.
Personally, I close this aspect of my presentations with a statement that “you will be
affected by climate change, and you already are, whether you believe it or not. But more than that, you will be affected by the outcomes of legislation and international treaties, perhaps even more!” As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.
5. THE POLITICIANS
The argument is that to make decisions, all aspects of the problem must be taken into account and it is the politicians who are supposed to do this, not the scientists, in order to represent all interests. My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole. It is clear that climate science has become politicized, and scientists are slow to recognize this. Politicians hide behind the apparent uncertainties and have failed to act. Hence while politicians are often also part of the problem, implementation of policies necessarily goes through them.
In the days of hundreds of TV channels and the internet, people do not have to hear “inconvenient truths” and become informed. As scientists we can continue to try with our message of what is happening and why, what is expected in the future, and what options there are to change the outcome, but we need to do more.
6. WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Environmental groups and one segment of scientists have focused on what is called “mitigation” that aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and slow and ultimately stop climate change in its tracks. Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change. However, by itself, I view this as short-sighted, as the steps required are so revolutionary as to be highly unlikely to be achieved. Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming. How we cope with challenges ahead and build more resiliency in our system, are major questions that should be higher on the agenda.
The major failures in making progress, such as in Copenhagen in December 2009, imply that we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable, along with environmental refugees, and so what are we going to do with them? Some steps in this direction were taken in the recent meeting in Cancun. It is too bad if success means that we are able to limit the outcome to an ongoing series of environmental disasters that inevitably happen locally as hurricanes strike, heat waves and wild fires take their toll, droughts cause famine, and water shortages or flooding (ironically — in different places, or different times) cause mayhem. The summer of 2010 with floods in Pakistan, India, and China, and devastating drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia, is a case in point. Indeed, 2010 provided many such examples from the New England flooding and “Snowmageddon” in the Washington D.C. area in February and March to the flooding in California associated with a “Pineapple Express” of moisture from extending from the Hawaiin Islands to California in December. Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed.
The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global commons, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.
Building a better observing system for climate, better climate and earth system models and predictions, and the associated improved information system and climate services is one essential step (Trenberth 2008) as it reduces uncertainties, but uncertainties and natural variability are never going away. Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).
It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources. Ironically, it is easier to find a forecast (e.g., http://www.cpc.noaa.gov ), than it is to find and analysis and assessment of what has happened and why. Waiting 6 years for the next IPCC report is not an option. The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.
Routine climate services and regular assessments of the state of the climate and the short-term prognosis as part of a climate service, much as is done for weather forecasts, is an essential development. At present this is being approached at best in a piecemeal fashion, and the needed investment is not available. It should be a high priority and linked to any climate legislation on mitigation and adaptation.
Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem, involving not just the environment, but also energy, water, sustainability, the economy, foreign policy and trade, security and defense. Far too little is happening on all fronts: communicating and informing the public, reducing emissions and building new energy infrastructure by decarbonizing the economy (mitigation), and planning to cope with future climate change and its consequences.
REFERENCES
Hasselmann, K., 2010: The climate change game. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo919, 511-512.
Trenberth, K. E., 2008: Observational needs for climate prediction and adaptation. WMO Bulletin, 57 (1), 17-21.
Wilson, K., 2009: Opportunities and obstacles for television weathercasters to report on climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1457-1465
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This “warming is unequivocal” statement that Trenberth and others make is so irritating. Granted, warming due to carbon dioxide is unequivocal, based on principles of physical chemistry. Is it significant, is the important question. It is also unequivocal that Lake Mead, Lake Sakakawea, etc. hold back water going to the ocean and thus lower sea-level. The degree is what’s in question. Please Trenberth, stop thumping the big drum and demonstrate that anything is of crisis proportion. Don’t make arguments that only demonstrate half of your thesis and then complain that those who point out your thesis is incomplete are deniers.
“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press.”
I wonder if Dr Trenberth can name some of these shrinking violets. The Hockey team can’t wait to get in front of a microphone even Phil Jones hugged the limelight.
The whole of Trenberth’s political diatribe is full of excremental special pleading and as a political treatise does not stand even the most cursory inspection. It is on a par with “I smoked but did not inhale” and “I did not have sex with that woman”
Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.
This kind of self-confidence in your own way of thinking is just amazing. I have never heard or read such a statement from a prominent scientist like Mr. Trenberth. Gordon Manley, the original author of the Central England Temperature record wrote in 1974: Science has been said to proceed through a series of approximations of increasing precision. http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf It is ‘very likely’ that Manley’s ideas were completely disappeared from mainstream climate science. As we all know, scientific advancement cannot be achieved without continuous questioning, re-examining and debating. When real world based observations are starting to disagree with a certain theory, it is high time to adjust our views instead of saying ‘nothing to see here, move along’ or even worse: modifying the data in order to save a worshipped theory.
Apart from the religious talking points cited above, I would love to see the ‘unequivocal’ evidence for the hypothetical constant global relative humidity, which forms the base of the whole IPCC positive water vapor feedback concept. Yes, we have plenty of evidence for a general warming trend in the last 150-160 years, but I have enough reasons to be unconvinced about its anthropogenic origin.
Does anyone actually think that Trenberth’s proposal for a new GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment), would make progress toward its alleged objective?
”To measure and predict global and regional energy and water variations, trends, and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts), through improved observations and modeling of land, atmosphere and their interactions; thereby providing the scientific underpinnings of climate services.
Isn’t there enough of what he proposes going on already?
“Datasets: Foster development of climate data records of atmosphere, water, land, and energy-related quantities, including metadata and uncertainty estimates.
Analysis: Describe and analyze observed variations, trends and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts) in water and energy-related quantities.
Processes: Develop approaches to improve process-level understanding of energy and water cycles in support of improved land and atmosphere models.
Modeling: Improve global and regional simulations and predictions of precipitation, clouds, and land hydrology, and thus the entire climate system, through accelerated development of models of the land and atmosphere.
Applications: Attribute causes of variability, trends and extremes, and determine the predictability of energy and water cycles on global and regional bases in collaboration with the wider WCRP community.
Technology transfer: Develop diagnostic tools and methods, new observations, models, data management, and other research products for multiple uses and transition to operational applications in partnership with climate and hydro-meteorological service providers.
Capacity building: Promote and foster capacity building through training of scientists and outreach to the user community.”
And why would he be presenting this at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting? http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper177326/New%20Gewex_AMS11_v2.pdf
Hmm…dedicated to “stretching-the-truth” and “tthrow-up-scary-scenarios” Schneider who in the 70s was scaring the world about slipping into an imminent anthropogenic ice age. This fellow has plumbed a couple of extreme null hypotheses of climate change. Probably somewhere in the 80s he talked about the travesty of no cooling. I fear he will be rehabilitated as a guru for predicting the misertable cold climate in the offing. You don’t suppose these guys are illustrating climate variability with their travesties?
This is a fairly predictable hissy fit.
Imagine what it must be like. A person is at the top of his game last year, and now things have changed. A once loyal media is now more likely to publicise adverse comment. Working relationships have noticeably cooled – the sense that colleagues are now keeping their distance, wary of close association. Trusted channels of communication can no longer be relied upon for privacy. Creeping doubt, with more questioning and testing of views which would been accepted on trust and authority just a few months earlier. Past analysis and reports could be picked open, as more recent data becomes availabe, and doesn’t neatly confirm previous assertions. There may even be nagging feelings of whispering and sniggering.
It can’t be easy. Expect more hissy fits to come.
Wow, what a profoundly interesting look into the mind of an influential warmist. Fundamentally misunderstands the scientific method, lacks an ethical committment to the pursuit of truth, has no apparent interest in historical accuracy. A mind like that is capable of doing great harm.
Why aren’t more of us complaining that NOAA’s National Weather Service doesn’t release the hourly data from its ground stations and satellites that it uses for its weather predictions?
Billions of dollars are risked every day on this data. Trillions every year.
Can we trust NOAA with this?
So it is true then? It is settled.
Trenbert seemingly unequivocally dislodging himself from the scientist community to start the journey of previous like minded and become a wannabe cultist leader who, dare I say, will hence forth, just like his idols before him, make sure he only speak in front of a majority, of the infamous, crowd of already converted cultist and like minded wannabes.
Before the consequences creeps into the light of day, or filling up the digital mailbox, as they always tend to do, Trenberts trek up the mountain of madness, will, I’m sure, to him, seem like the grandest dandiest gloriously most spiritually uplifting trailblazing pathfinding bestest of holiest mission (ever deviced by a climatological self proclaimed wizard’s most triumphant of machinations.)
Oh, how happy the days will seem before D-day. A time to rejoice and bath in the light of imaginary glory. To experience a perfect time. A bliss. Enlightenment even. And to be chosen to once light to all who just will listen and believe. Even they can become one with me and the light of gaia.
Will the madness never end. Is there even an end in sight? Check back a week from d-day, for we normal putts usually call this type of pre-hangover wondrous endeavor for what it truly madly just is: a “prima fidelis” bender.
Some posters have compared Trenberth to a priest. Please don’t insult priests.
It will be interesting to see whether Trenberth’s Alice in Wonderland turning of the “null hypothesis” on its head will gain traction in the warmist community and the media. It might.
All the best.
Sometimes I find myself wondering if there may be something to the AGW theory after all.
Then I read things like Trenberth’s latest offering here, and I’m quickly returned to solid earth 😉
Trenberth needed to come clean.
The whole point of the “redefinition” of peer literature was really this as we pointed out in the book.
1. That Jones responded with a process TRICK, rather than science. His response should have been, “let’s write a paper to counter McKittricks work”. That wasnt his response. His response was to threaten a process trick.
2. Jones and Trenberth TRIED a process trick. for the first two rounds of the drafting process the REFUSED to cite the paper.
3. When forced to consider the paper, they engaged in another process TRICK. they dismissed the conclusions of the paper by making arguments NOT SUPPORTED IN PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE.
until trenberth and jones defend the sentences they wrote dismissing Mckittricks work, they are guilty. full stop.
The problem of course can be fixed quite easily. The following paragraph of AR4 should be changed From:
“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.”
To:
McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) demonstrated that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused up to 50% of the observed warming over land since 1979. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development may not have the level of statistical certainty those papers established . In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.”
As the paragraph stands Trenberth and Jones simply made stuff up. There is NO study showing that Ross’s work fails to be statistically significant after accounting for circulation effects ( in fact Ross has follow-on work showing this is not the case.
To be clear, I do not think that Ross’ work is without issues ( we’ve discussed some of them on CA) but I think that the summary given by Trenberth/Jones is just wrong . Yes they finally agreed to discuss the paper. But in their discussion they dismissed the findings on grounds that have NO BASIS in peer reviewed literature.
The wrong doing is pretty clear.
“However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.”
That is a mathematical statement. Trenbertha and Jones claim that the correlation ceases to be significant. trenberth….. SHOW THE CITATION WHERE THIS MATH IS DONE. he can’t. jones cant. they cant because they guessed at it and did not do the math.
Here is my wish. My wish is that all skeptics would please focus on this precise detail.
If you want to write to AMS or write to trenberth ask this simple question.
or Anthony, put this simple question up as a post, a challenge to believers in AGW
Dr. Trenberth, in AR4 you and Dr. Jones wrote :
“However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.”
can you please cite the paper or show the math you did to determine that the relation found in Mckittrick 2004 ceased to be statistically significant?
Focus on that detailed question. Don’t cloud the issue with anything else or they will slip their way out of it.
[Trenberth] uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language.
In contrast to the AMS “Board”, I would think that many AMS members out there at large should desperately want to get the AMS out of the Climate Science Tribe of CAGW “believers”, with their regressive verbiage and “science”, and back to doing Meteorology based upon the objectivity of the scientific method and principles; which I’m sure is much more personally and professionally satisfying for rational, ethical people; and in strong contrast to the alleged Totalitarian thought-control escape to a “saving the world” Utopia offered up by the deluding and delusional, “perception is reality”, Post Normal Scientists and the rest of their fellow Looting and Controllist evolutionary throw-backs and deviants
Otherwise, everyone in the AMS will probably also have to start getting used to listening to more of the same quality of Trenberthian propagandistic gibberish from people like Climate Science’s “Mini-me”, Greg Craven, just as they did at the AGU’s own recent Steven Schneider Climate Change Meeting
If you wait for the the time when the AMS Board and its Climate Science Shamens start “talking in tongues”, it will be too late!
“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated,” and “Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible..”
Not only is his Null Hypothesis a pitiful excuse for science, but he continues to propagate a behavior more characteristic of a cult than a scientific debate. For example, all hypotheses should be subjected to an attempt to falsify. In the case of “climate change” that is pretty easy. If the sited “climate change triggered events”, such as floods, wildfires, droughts, heavy snows in the winter, etc. occured routinely before man put the “extra” CO2 in the atmosphere, then I would suggest that the hypothesis has been falsified – or nullified in this case – time for a new hypothesis.
Granted, the total abandonment of science with his new “null hypothesis” is ridiculous, but perhaps the most alarming statements of all involve his attitude towards people. Let me guess, he and his ilk will design the pragmatic steps to eliminate the over-population issue – afterall, if people emit CO2, then fewer people means less CO2 – and if CO2 is the root of all weather evil, then we must stop at nothing to overcome…
Sad to say that my hard earned money is being confiscated to support such nonsense.
I too a genius like Al Gore to discover that the trace amount (less than 0.04%) of a clear gas like CO2 could cause all these problems.
Don’t forget that if you send an email to Trenberth, you will be added to a list and investigated by John Holdren and Homeland Security. Sarc/off
It’s a balmy 25 C below today where I live in central Alberta. Thank goodness for AGW or it might have been 40 below …. Sarc/off
“given that global warming is unequivocal”, when did that happen?!!!. Have I missed something?
” Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change.”
Is this supposed to be the modern approach to writing in a reasonable, scientific manner, or is this author paraphrasing a politician’s opinion?
Utter drivel.
(I took the liberty of sending the following to Dr. Trenberth, since he obligingly included his e-mail address in his draft remarks)
Dr. Trenberth
I have seen numerous examples of much higher temperatures during the Holocene than present. A graph of Greenland ice cores leads to an obvious conclusion: during the past 10,000 years, roughly 9,100 of those years were warmer than the warmest year of the past century (which according to NASA was 1934 in North America).
Numerous studies of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are in disagreement with Mann’s Hockey Stick, which suffers from a large number of study errors and flaws.
It is obvious that we have had intermittent warming during the past two centuries. That is to be expected, given the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800’s. A graph of the Greenland ice cores showed that such warming was frequent and normal (not human driven) over the past 10,000 years. It also shows our present warming to be remarkably unremarkable.
I’m sure you know sea levels rose over 400 feet in just over 10,000 years, an average of about four feet per century. Our current rate of increase in sea levels of about six to eight inches per century is a natural continuation of melting since the Ice Age, the most recent but not the last glacial period.
During that period coral not only survived great fluctuations in temperature, but coral growth rates were easily up to the task of keeping up with the rapid rise of sea levels. Recent photographic studies of the Tuvalu Islands, supposedly endangered by global warming sea level increase, shows they have actually grown overall during the past fifty years.
And, Dr. Trenberth, this is all derived from peer-reviewed studies, unlike the IPCC’s assessment reports which contain much material which is not peer reviewed.
With so much arrayed against climate change being caused by human activity, and so little evidence for it being catastrophic (since it has been much warmer and colder in times past), I am surprised that you are not more open to debate.
Sincerely
Michael B. Combs, Major, U. S. Air Force (retired)
MBA, CPA, husband of the CEO of Vulcan, Inc., a leader in industrial baling wire for the recycling industry
Gualala, CA
At the Foresight Institute, J. Storrs Hall had some interesting graphs made from NOAA ice core data (Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.)
In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.
Trenberth says
While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers.
Many posters to WUWT have noted that the reverse is very true.
I do not blame Trenberth for his emotionalism about the subject, though. After all, we are talking about potential disaster and the well-being of billions of people and trillions of other organisms. I am VERY emotional about this issue myself. This difference is he has his “head in the clouds” literally–and also figuratively as he relies upon models without a track record of predictive success. In my high school physics class, they told me that successful prediction is the essence of science. I am a biologist, and have actually studied the effects of carbon dioxide and temperatures on living things. The FACTS there are 180 degrees opposed to Trenberth. Oh yes, I get very emotional indeed.
Marc Morano hits the nail on the head when he posts the following header at Climate Depot:
Climategate & UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s reveals ‘mindless worshiping’ of IPCC – Offers ‘weird opinions about climate’ – Slams ‘Deniers’ — Calls for a planned economy ‘for decades ahead’
http://green-agenda.com
Lubos Motl simply says ‘Wow”.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html
The solution to Global Warming
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/the-solution-to-global-warming/
Sorry, as soon as someone uses the term “denier”, I tune them out. It is instinctive as I know they have lost any rational thought and are now appealing to emotion.
I do not deny the Holocaust. I do not deny climate. In point of fact, I deny nothing except close minded individuals who deny all else.
I could not resist a few comments, given the email address.
Dear Dr Trenberth,
Regarding the text or your speech for January 26th:I have a few comments from my first reading.
“Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!””
This goes to intent and state of mind. Just because the papers were eventually included, it does not mean that his intent was to not exclude them (and could not), indicating that he had/has an unscientific approach to others’ work. Unprofessional thinking. This is far from the only egregious thinking, attitude, or activities indicated by the e-mails
“Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct . . . established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues.”
Not true. The three investigations by biased, predisposed-to-validate committees who did mostly cursory and incomplete investigations and then basically whitewashed the affair—I think one even mentioned that they were nice guys‚ that’s objective?
In fact, these scientists have every reason to mislead the public as they are funded by a politically motivated agenda to promote global warming and their income depends on forwarding this program. “You cannot trust a man whose income and the welfare of his family depends on his agreeing with his employer.” You have here a clear conflict of interest, and the tendency for this effect to corrupt scientific thinking is apparent in the e-mails.
There is no evidence that the “climategate” e-mails were hacked. The composition of the collection suggests quite strongly that they were assembled by an insider and either left to be downloaded (at a public-accessible site) by outsiders or purposely released. Stop pretending that these were stolen—it begs reality to think that a hacker could draw e-mail from so many sources, or sort from a huge e-mail storage base, such a selection of e-mail with such specific, related content—it would take too long.
“they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect”
Not true again. Firstly, you are essentially saying that skeptics make (all) false claims, and that, if they cannot be shown to be incorrect, then they still must be false. This is innuendo that begs the listener/reader to assume skeptics perforce make false claims. And you are saying that, just because you cannot show them untrue, they must be untrue anyhow. That’s so self-serving. But, that is what propaganda is all about. Pummel the public with a false story and faulty logic that looks believable on the surface and try to swamp out the real story. Public memory will eventually start to believe the false story.
“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies,”
Ah, but telling lies, half-truths, and faulty logic is the only way you (warmists) can win. However, without real science behind you, you perforce lose. Sorry. Life is tough. This is a patently ingenuous statement as, if your science is valid, you will win. Further more, you counter lies with real facts. Unfortunately, if your “facts” are of poor quality or your, other better facts will trump the junk facts.
“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.”
Oh, come on! The media has been so into supporting the global warming junk science that it has been hard for real science to see the light of day. This is a specious argument and simply pretends that you are the victim, when in fact the realists are the victims of disinformation campaigns against them—and we face a funding gap that is ridiculous; tens of billions for warmists and 10s of millions for skeptics (most them get nothing). Do not whine, it’s unbecoming
Remember the two hallmarks of losing an issue is to attack and impugn the character of the other and to claim the debate is over. You are close to that here.
To use the term “deniers” is to flag yourself the loser. Beyond that, one does not need a peer-reviewed publication to point out obvious flaws in published papers, opinions, and junk science put forth by the alarmists. Notice we do not have a denigrating term for scientists who are morally corrupt, feel free to adulterate data, and create junk science and false models to further a political agenda which is not designed to help the planet and specifically designed to hurt man while benefitting a few.
“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. ”
Okay, let’s talk about Dr. Hansen. He’s cautious? The claims of numerous catastrophes do not come from the skeptics, nor does the artificially warmed temperature data and failed predictions; they come from your camp. We (skeptics) are constantly pointing out that many warmist claims are overstated, exaggerated, or nonexistent. We also believe that many climate changes are better handled with adaptation and not Draconian policy changes, massive restructuring of the world’s society, economic destruction, or a new totalitarian world order/government. So, who is being cautious here?I would say the alarmists are rather rash and incautious.
Null hypotheses are difficult. You could legitimately say that every organism on the planet affects climate by its sheer presence. And it is also impossible to prove that any individual has no effect—you cannot prove a negative. BUT, although long-term global warming (from the Little Age) is unequivocal, a manmade influence has not been clearly shown at any level. It’s that simple. The computer models are worthless and should not even be mentioned—anywhere—they are a huge waste of resources.
The IPCC is political body masquerading as a scientific entity. It takes largely honest efforts by scientists to describe climate change, albeit heavily biased with the assumption that warming is ongoing, and then adulterates the summary to serve a political agenda. The integrity of most of these scientists is intact, but the product and the temperature data sets have been highjacked by a small number (yourself included, imho). The propensity and abundance of non-peer-reviewed, activist, and/or plainly incompetent sources in the latest IPCC report clearly shows that they cannot support their political position using real science—it has to be polluted with tainting opinions from nonscientific sources to give it the flavor they need. They literally hope that most people will not delve into an examination of the sources, under the assumption that the public is stupid.
“Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, . . .”
You labor under the assumption that warming is a given and cooling not an option, ignoring the historical fact that global temperature goes up and down at the decadal level as well as longer periods. To blithely say that it is happening and pervasive is to ignore sites where warming over a hundred years is zero or actually cooling. So, “happening” and “pervasive” are both wrong!
“As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.”
Good on you for mentioning it, but you seriously underplay the evil nature, widespread harm, and critical flaws in this entire endeavor. The sooner the whole debacle is killed, the better.
“Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change.”
Yes, the least of which is climate change, as you know very well that a trace gas cannot warm the atmosphere in the face of the water vapor-driven convectional cooling of the water cycle. The water vapor heat engine is a global negative forcing factor. There is no evidence to support the contention that CO2 does or will cause detectable warming, except in a real glass greenhouse where convection is suppressed. Actually, if CO2 did cause warming, it would serve to ramp up convectional processes and possibly lead to slight cooling.
The Russian developments describing that most oil and gas may actually derive from the Earth’s core supports the fact that we find these materials virtually everywhere that we drill deep enough and suggests that this is a huge and possibly renewable, in effect, resource. As CO2 is rather low at the moment, compared to historical levels and plant and animal needs and tolerances, higher CO2 would be a real boon for the planet and man. CO2 as plant food is one of the key limiting plant growth factors. And coral reefs love it. Acidification alarms are false and unfounded as an equilibrium cannot influence itself with its own products. More CO2 means more CaCO3 deposition.
Husbanding our resources is always good, but we also need to be realistic regarding the consequences. Copenhagen was not a failure as we missed a horrible agreement which was aimed to set up a one-world government/power structure which would be in control of the world’s economies and all of our lives and for no real, valid reason, except a political agenda of power-grabbing and wealth redistribution. The latter agenda itemis not designed to help but to make undeveloped countries into nanny nations, permanently stunting their development—this is evil dressed up as aid, claiming compenasation for non-existent climate change damages. (This is the same as giving someone morphine for their pain knowing full well that you do not care, and even intend, that they become irreversibly addicted.) So, the overall goal of the Copenhagen group was not climate mitigation, but a new world order that does not care a fig about climate. They admitted as much at the Cancun conference. Is that what you support with junk science?
The problem you have regarding the environment is that you have no proof that the climate is moving in any one direction or that it will continue in that direction (forever as alarmists seem to think). This year’s events in Russia and Pakistan devolve from jet stream blocking events which typically happen during periods when the climate is cooling. Not mentioning this and simply listing such weather events as part of global warming is to lie to the audience.
It would appear that your claim that warming affects/causes(?) everything essentially would include that it causes the lack of warming and cooling we have seen in the last 15 years. So, you are saying that warming causes cooling. WHat would it take for you to drop warming and admit that cooling might be a dominant trend or process, despite CO2 still rising (we all know about the lag time between cooling and CO2 decreases; it is also possible that our emissions will prevent the lagged decrease, but there is no evidence that this is or will be a bad thing).
You can continue to ignore natural ocean cycles and solar influences all you want, but it does not take a climate scientist to realize that warming and cooling periods happen—we could not be warming out of the LIttle Ice Age, if it had not cooled from the Medieval Warm Period—and that to assume, unilaterally and arbitrarily, that, just because CO2 is increasing, warming must persist. There is no evidence for this unfounded assumption, unless, of course, you ignore all other natural factors. To refuse to include all factors, you construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s clear why you focus on CO2. It is the only way to blame climate on man’s activities. Unfortunately, as it is not true, you find it very difficult to make a clear case and have to resort to extended innuendo, omissions, fuzzy-thinking, and half-truths.
“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. ”
Wrong and wrong. It simply does not follow that we are over-populated because we want a higher standard of living. You suggest that being beyond agrarian is sufficient and we should just stop there? This is a meaningless statement which cloudily suggests that there is some hidden connection; this is fuzzy pseudo-thinking.
And it is far too easy to say that many things are unsustainable and never have to show anything to support this. Not only are most things more sustainable than the average person might realize (sure we need to take care of usage, recycling, etc.), but we have yet to fail to replace anything that has come into short supply with a useful alternative. That’s the progress of science and technology in action. It works just fine and it will sustain us. To shout “That’s unsustainable!” is a cop-out and tantamount to quitting—the attitude of a loser who does not have a real grasp of the realities and real options we do have. Too many times the unsustainable label has been applied just because an individual decided so because they felt like, more than anything else. They want to create guilt and worry as the public tacitly assumes that the label is properly applied—most often, I believe, it is not.
It must be hard to have to come up with all of this convoluted material. I have to give you credit for creativity, but not for science. As a propaganda minister, you have a job. But, then again, you are undoubtedly paid enough to make you suitably productive. Good oh, on so much diatribe that is designed to claim that you operate at a disadvantage and are fighting an uphill battle. You are, but it’s the real world you fight as well as those of us who stand for morality, integrity, the real world, and real world decisions made with the planet and human welfare reasonably considered.