Trenberth at AMS defends himself against deniers

Dr. Kevin Trenberth

Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue

Dr. Trenberth delivered his highly-anticipated presentation at the American Meteorological Society 91st Annual Meeting in Seattle on Wednesday.  The talk was titled “Promoting climate information and communication of climate change“, and an overflowing crowd of several hundred listened for about 20-minutes, then scattered.  Those that read the preprint online (version 3 now) and expected Trenberth to back off on his rhetoric were sorely disappointed.  Dr. Trenberth

  • vigorously defended himself against the out-of-context slanderous claims from ClimateGate emails
  • cheerfully promoted the science of the IPCC regardless of silly errors [like the Himalayan Glaciers — Telegraph Jan 27 news article]
  • threw Phil Jones under the bus for being naive about “keeping papers out”
  • doubled-down on the denier vitriol
  • trashed the media for insufficiently sympathetic and woefully inaccurate climate change coverage
  • attributed a dozen recent extreme weather events to global warming including the Queensland flooding
  • and finally suggested that the “null hypothesis” concerning AGW attribution be turned on its head.

All in all, it was the stemwinder that everyone expected from the preprint preview/fiasco. Details from the talk follow…

I sat in the rear-most row of the conference room and took some notes on my laptop during the proceedings.  I have quotes that can be confirmed when the AMS publishes their presentations online likely in the next month or so.  Otherwise, I am paraphrasing the slides that were presented.

The presentation was dedicated to Dr. Stephen Schneider who passed away last July.  Trenberth described the ClimateGate incident as an “illegal email hacking” that spawned viral attacks on scientists.  The emails were used to “damn the IPCC and many of us”, and included conversations that were clearly not for human public consumption.  The term “ClimateGate” should have been replaced by “swiftboating”.  Trenberth himself was not embarrassed per se, just dismayed about the viral nature of the coverage.  He went on to explain the “can’t find the heat / travesty” email, and said he was not particularly upset with what was put out in the public domain in terms of his email correspondence.   According to him, ClimateGate simply proved that scientists were human.  There was “some evidence of a lack of openness” but all following reviews/inquiries found no problems with the science.

Trenberth then discussed the small errors in the IPCC report (Himalayan glaciers), but there were no major changes to the overall IPCC conclusions.  He admitted that the IPCC handled the “errors” rather poorly and left some scientists “hung out to dry”.  Trenberth had not seen the Phil Jones email (Trenberth was not cc’ed) that said “we are gonna keep these papers out of the IPCC”, but blamed Jones for being naive about the process.  Regardless, the papers, which Trenberth snidely commented “weren’t very good anyways” were indeed not excluded.  (The system worked.)  The “It’s a Travesty” is still accurate, but Trenberth believes that the missing heat is somewhere in the oceans, maybe below 300 – 700 meters depth.  It was just a cherry-picked email anyways.

Deniers:  in the AMS preprint, which Trenberth described as garnering plenty of “nasty email responses” the term is heavily used.  Trenberth defined it in the talk as someone that simply rejects basic information about climate science.  There is a difference between skeptics and deniers, though it was not explicitly delved into.  Trenberth lamented exasperation with the deniers and suggested that he and everyone else simply not debate nor grant them visibility or a platform by engaging with them.  Good advice — with the obligatory quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan about having your own set of facts.  Indeed, on the distinction between deniers and skeptics, he said “if the shoe fits, wear it”.  The audience chuckled.

Media:  same as preprint.  Trenberth lamented the trend that blogs and media contaminate the discourse with an increasing trend of uninformed opinions.  He has seen his colleagues get burned when they engage with the media often through misquotation or slanted coverage.  He suggested that a scientist feed the media a story and exclusively promote your own stuff in order to tell a story or generate news.  Some quotes from Thomas Friedman on a Meet the Press from Sept 6, 2009 were read, but I didn’t jot them all down because he reminds me of Paul Krugman.

Nature of climate change:  It’s winter he declared, that’s why it is cold and snowy.  The audience laughed loudly at that quip.  Natural variability is ongoing and when the natural warmth and AGW are in the same direction, as with the recently waned El Nino, then “records will be broken”.  He showed the obligatory shifting of the bell-curve to demonstrate changes in extreme events with global warming by moving the entire distribution to the right.

The null hypothesis has been (prove at 95% confidence level) that “there is no human influence on climate” which required folks to prove otherwise.  However, with the IPCC declaration of “unequivocal warming due to humans”, Trenberth implored that we change the null hypothesis to put the onus of proof on the deniers:  “There is a human influence on climate.”  Therefore, the following events would not have happened or as bad or something (not clear what he meant/implied) without the human influence on climate:

Flooding in Pakistan, Russian drought, heat wave, and wildfires, flooding in the US including the rainstorm in Nashville, the active Atlantic hurricane season, and Snowmageddon.

The key is the 4% increase in moisture or water vapor over the past 4-decades shown in anomalous SSTs.  The Queensland flooding is also due to SST increases and “indeed global warming” related, but he also mentioned La Nina.  He suggested that we use these events (disasters) as teachable moments to “straighten out the media”, “inform the public and politicians”, and resolve renewed US leadership in climate science.

The two audience questions were brief and ancillary to Trenberth’s thesis.

————-

This talk is one of the opening salvos in a well-coordinated broadside initiative to redeem and repackage climate science, climate scientists, and climate policy in the eyes of the public.  This “re-education” campaign needs a brand name.  Together We Thrive and Win the Future are taken


Promoting climate information and communication of climate change

206 thoughts on “Trenberth at AMS defends himself against deniers

  1. The difference between skeptics and “deniers” is obvious. Skeptics look at new data, and see how it fits with their current ideas, and change their ideas if necessary. “Deniers” try and evaluate new data to see if it confirms their ideas. If it doesn’t, they attack it.

  2. A new brand name? Well, we might recycle a bit. How about “Kraft Durch Freude” or “Arbeit Macht Frei“?

    Maybe “Kauft Nicht Bei ClimateGate!” ?

  3. When something hasn’t been working, it’s tempting to go back and just do it harder.

    Better to stay locked in a worldview than face its collapse and consequent depression.

    Of course it is always someone else’s fault that it wasn’t working — the media, deniers, etc.

  4. He is on the teat and it is going to take amputation of the teat to stop him.
    Also, look out for the renewable pea and thimble trick where they use” clean energy” taxes instead of carbon taxes to drive everyone into the poor house.

  5. vigorously defended himself against the out-of-context slanderous claims from ClimateGate emails ..

    “out of context”… yeah, that’s the ticket

  6. Thanks for the great summary, Ryan. I guess it is safe to say that the audience was mostly agreeing with Trenberth during his presentation? Why only two questions? What is the reaction to Trenberth’s proposal re: the null hypothesis? Was/is that a popular proposal amount climate and weather scientists?

    [ryanm: the second question was about regional climate projections, but trenberth did not take the bait. he simply said that we need to educate ourselves more. No one disagreed vocally, so I guess they all agreed]

  7. Ryan N. Maue

    Was Trenberth warming received?

    John

    [warmly? yeah, the room was crowded, but there weren’t any heckles or gasps or anything unprofessional]

  8. The onus remains to prove that there is a human influence on climate and to quantify that effect.

    Floods, heat waves, drought etc have always happened. It may be that many or most of these ‘extreme’ events can be compared to a similar or worse occurence in the same locality, even in the recent past (e.g the worst flooding for 100 years, i.e. a flood must have occurred 100 years ago that was worse). However the onus is on a.n.other to analyse the historical record and demonstrate with the required confidence that this particular flood etc is abnormal and subsequently prove that it is due to human influences.

    If the null hypothesis is inverted then people will have to spend their time correcting bad science from the people proposing AGW and which claims to demonstrate its effects, e.g. the hockey stick, penguin die off in Antarctica (truly found to be a human induced effect – but unfortunately due to the monitoring device fitted to their wings making them less able to hunt and find a mate), melting glaciers in the Himalaya, increased hurricanes, smearing of temperatures in the Antarctic, huge sea level rises etc.

  9. John Brookes says:
    The difference between skeptics and “deniers” is obvious. Skeptics look at new data, and see how it fits with their current ideas, and change their ideas if necessary. “Deniers” try and evaluate new data to see if it confirms their ideas. If it doesn’t, they attack it.

    No.
    The difference between skeptic and “denier” is that “Denier” term was created by AGW proponents to destroy people who they disagree with. Any other explanations should be treated as attempts to justify usage of a disgusting term and make it look like it has some foundation in history.
    The “denier” is term that creates moral equivalence between someone AGW folks disagree with and people who deny, and implicitly and explicitly condone, the genocide perpetrated on entire race. “Skeptic” just didn’t do it for propaganda purposes, it did not have necessary effect of completely destroying someones point of view before that point of view was even presented, destroying it on grounds completely unrelated to the arguments being presented.
    So, I’ll ask you, sir, do you make your claims from ignorance or are you belong to those who’s goals are to “mainstream” the term?

  10. We are all indebted to Ryan for taking notes and offering this essay.

    As for a campaign name, I think perhaps: “Climatic Attitude Adjustments”

    [ryanm: thanks anthony. small world: i sat next to dr. susan solomon while i took notes]

  11. Building a Better Climate!

    Warmists of the World Unite!

    Onward Climate Soldiers!

    War on Warming!

    Consensus Uber Alles!

  12. Campaign names:

    Climate Conformity Coalition, Climate Forcing Education Association, The Partnership for Climate Hygienics.

  13. Thanks Ryan

    Following the pre print in WUWT a few weeks ago I emailed Dr Trenberth to complain about the use of the word ‘Deniers’. The deliberate connotations to us in Europe in particular are highly unpleasant. My father in law was one of the first to enter a concentration camp in 1945 as part of the British Army and the experience affected him for the rest of his life.

    I had a reasonably civil reply back from him-my email had in itself been perfectly reasonable. However, it was obvious that he had been innundated with numerous abusive emails which I think had only served to harden his position.

    Personally I think it does no good at all to be unpleasantly combative and abusive to such as Dr Trenberth (and Dr Mann et al) as this will only reinforce their prejudices.
    on the nature of their ‘opposition.’

    tonyb

  14. Law of Unintended Consequences

    Trenberth Null Hypothesis revised with Implications?
    The null hypothesis has been (prove at 95% confidence level) that “there is no human influence on climate” which required folks to prove otherwise. However, with the IPCC declaration of “unequivocal warming due to humans”, Trenberth implored that we change the null hypothesis to put the onus of proof on the deniers: There is a human influence on climate” [and the records and climate modeling of climate science], therefore, the following events such as [global warming alarmism, climate change alarm, climate disruption anxiety and associated worldwide economic disruption and impoverishment] would not have happened or [been] as bad or something…without the human influence on climate [records and climate modeling].

  15. What I like about this speech is that it takes a refutable position. We should reverse the null hypothesis.

    Well, where is the evidence which suggests this? The IPCC posits scenarios based on computer models based on data which is, itself, suspect. As evidence that the null hypothesis should be abandoned it is weak. And weakened further by the “missing heat” the “trick” and the last decade of either cooling or no significant warming.

    Trenberth has drawn a line in the sand. He has no evidence, no observations and, frankly, no case. But he has done us all the favour of demanding the scientifically incoherent. And we should do him the courtesy of demonstrating the incoherence of his position.

  16. “The emails were used to “damn the IPCC and many of us”, and included conversations that were clearly not for human consumption.”

    Obviously only the ‘Gods’ should have access to the emails and the fact that us heathens even presume to understand the deep meaning of them is a travesty that should be punishable. He should start to realise soon that the reason that his pedestal is shaking is because there is an axe man called reality at the bottom.

  17. This is not the sober, careful and scientific evaluation of a man who is sure of himself and his position. It is the whining rant of a weak man who sees his position crumbling around him and who is desperately fearful that his mana is blowing away in the cold wind of the real world. I see this, and many other similar ‘pronouncements’, as growing evidence that the game is up! And they know it!

  18. Udar says:
    January 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Re-read what John Brookes said, the explanation of “Deniers” was directed at AGW believers IMHO.

  19. Personally I think it does no good at all to be unpleasantly combative and abusive to such as Dr Trenberth (and Dr Mann et al) as this will only reinforce their prejudices.
    on the nature of their ‘opposition.’

    This is a manifestation of Formosa’s Law, which states:
    The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding to it.

    So yes, I think we should go easy on Trenberth and other AGW proponents … they have a hard enough time dealing with the facts, let alone they get part of the abuse they inflict on those they disagree with reflected at them.

    /semi-sarc

  20. “Nature of climate change: It’s winter he declared, that’s why it is cold and snowy. The audience laughed loudly at that quip.”

    I have seen many ignorant dolts saying the same thing in the Guardian CiF, but I could not imagine such a high scientific figure to stoop so low and to be so misleading.

    I believe any references to heatwaves and other similar summer phenomena should be abolished as indicators of a warming planet, since it is always hot and dry in summers.

  21. Watching the band playing on the Titanic – is what comes to mind!

    Play louder Trenberth – that way you won’t hear the water coming!

  22. The “It’s a Travesty” is still accurate, but Trenberth believes that the missing heat is somewhere in the oceans, maybe below 300 – 700 meters depth. It was just a cherry-picked email anyways.

    The “It’s a Travesty” is still accurate, but Madoff believes that the missing money is somewhere in the oceans, maybe below 300 – 700 meters depth. It was just a cherry-picked SEC investigation anyways.

    Col. Mustard says it was Mr. Green with the e-mail from the library who was responsible for the disappearance and concealment of the heat.

    Olly olly oxen free
    Heat heat
    Come out now
    For all to see!

  23. TonyB:
    “Personally I think it does no good at all to be unpleasantly combative and abusive to such as Dr Trenberth (and Dr Mann et al) as this will only reinforce their prejudices.
    on the nature of their ‘opposition.’”

    The best course is for criticism to be reality based. ClimateGate (and the whitewash investigations and the pathetic lack of response by the vast majority of climate scientists to ClimateGate) revealed there is something rotten in the core of climate science. The corrupt ClimateGate climate scientists are in an existential struggle for their professional life. Being nice to them is not going to suddenly make them honest. Much better to brand them as the corrupt, politicized abusers of the scientific process that they are.

  24. The man is in complete denial if he thinks the msm do not support and promote the unsupported alarmist assertions emanating from self named climate scientists such as himself and his fellow hockey team members.
    He has no science to support the promotion of his political views and thus requires the scientific method of onus of proof to be altered.
    Anyway whatever ever happened to loyalty amongst theives.
    Teacher. Where’s your homework?
    Trenberth. I lost it.
    Teacher. How do you think you did?
    Trenberth. Brilliantly Sir as usual.
    Teacher. Where did you lose it?
    Trenberth. At the bottom of the oceans.
    Teacher. Good answer clever boy so I’m going to give you minus 10 out of 10. Please Trenberth no squealing again to the school inspectorate?

  25. inpostion says:January 27, 2011 at 12:21 am

    What I like about this speech is that it takes a refutable position. We should reverse the null hypothesis. Well, where is the evidence which suggests this?

    Inpostion, that is the whole point of trying to reverse the hypothesis. This is the post modernist approach — everything is subject and therefore anyone and everyone (except deniers) can have an opinion. And so science is “proved” by the consensus … and as the only idiots that are stupid enough to state their opinion on a subject where there is next to no fact are the idiots in the warmist camp, the “consensus” (of all “sceintists who were stupid enough to say they knew) was that mankind causes global “warming” (or as it is now global “pausing” … get it 9/10 cats prefer catnip …. paws … for those in the US it’s a cat food advert that got banned)

    So, post modernist science rejects the notion of the null hypothesis, replacing it with the concept that everything is subject and what matters is individual interpretation.

    Clearly this is now causing a problem for Trenberth, because real scientists are taking exception to their charade.

    So, he’s trying to graft post modernist BS onto real science, by admitting he needs a null hypothesis, but making the null hypthosis the Post modernist concept of the “consensus”.

    What in effect he is trying to do is say: “in a subject where there is little if any real evidence, get enough people to guess what they think is happening …. and then the Null Hypothesis is what these people guessed and then it is up to everyone else to disprove this guess using the real evidence which they didn’t have to prove their BS in the first place.

    It’s the equivalent of having a task of climbing a mountain …. and getting round the problem by redefining the top of the mountain as being the base camp from where you start.

  26. Dunno. I really do not.

    As I understand it the AMS is quite small, some ?15.000? members some of whom are presumably of Trenberth’s persuasion.

    Others maybe not, but it seems strange that he should launch such a disconnected diatribe unless he felt it would be effectually endorsed by the immediate listeners, but that might or might not be by the membership as a whole.

    Again dunno. I have no idea what they think.

    But given the publicity this will get in the blogosphere if the not the MSM it seems a peculiar thing to do. A politician of some extreme views might do this to the little band of faithful to spur them on certain in the knowledge that it is hardly likely that it will be reported more widely or sully the carefully nutured title of a reasonable politico.

    As your correspondent remarks the tiny size of the AGW crowd is shown by the company he sat next to, does that really represent the whole membership of the AMS? Or the actual strength of the AGW crowd? that they can only muster a handful of supporters for prominent meetings. Or possibly the lethargy of the membership who simply can’t be bothered with this balderdash? and who can blame them?

    As I said baffled, bemused and bewildered here.

    Kindest Regards

  27. Sorry that should say: “in the post modernist approach to science, everything is subjective … i.e. its personal opinion that is important, not silly pre-post-moderists ideas like: evidence, null hypothesis, experimentation.

    … you can see why post modernist philosophy is so attractive to the climategate team!

  28. I thought these two presentations from past AMS conferences were interesting. They are about the lack of trends in the global precipitation record of the past 2 decades.

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/17Air17Sat9Coas/techprogram/paper_174154.htm
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/17Air17Sat9Coas/techprogram/paper_174358.htm

    The first seems fairly conclusive. The second is from a still yet incomplete data set (this one is mentioned in Pielke Snr. lastest post). The data is best seen by clicking on the “recorded presentation” link on these pages and requires installing some simple software but it seems worth while. The fact that water vapour increases along side temperature but that this doesn’t lead to an increase in precipitation seems like an interesting observation. Especially at the moment when extreme rainfall is being linked to climate change is a quite simplistic way.

  29. tonyb says: January 27, 2011 at 12:16 am

    …I emailed Dr Trenberth to complain about the use of the word ‘Deniers’… I had a reasonably civil reply back from him… However, it was obvious that he had been innundated with numerous abusive emails which I think had only served to harden his position.

    I am aware of the existence of brownshirts ON BOTH SIDES whose main activity seems to be to send threats direct to people without posting on blogs to say what they are doing; so blogs are not aware and don’t feel the need to take any responsibility for policing or at least clearly disown such people. I believe this includes death threats to people on both sides. This simply cements divisions into place and makes dialogue harder if not impossible.

    We don’t know the content of what was emailed to Trenberth, and I doubt if he will tell. But I think it might help a lot, to have some kind of public disclaimer sent to any appropriate people on occasions like this, disowning any abusive language or threats. I hope this message reaches Lisbon too.

  30. Only two questions? Then there wasn’t much point in being there. The question I would have asked him would have been about the work of Dr. Aiguo Dai, who credits Trenberth as a mentor and one of his reviewers. I’d want to know why the implications of Wentz’s work in Science reporting that the AR4 models reproduce less than one half the increase in precipitation observed in the recent warming, was not cited and discussed in Dai’s assessment of the risk of drought based upon those same AR4 model results? He allowed Dai to avoid literature that seriously undermines the credibility of any conclusion of increased drought risk based upon those models. From Trenberth’s attempts at dismissal, denial, avoidance of debate, and selective review of the literature, it appears he is not interested in doing science. A scientist who truly thinks the his hypothesis is supported by the data, doesn’t avoid the weaknesses in his argument, but addresses them forthrightly.

  31. About what you would expect really. This is a man woefully trying to save his reputation and failing miserably. I can’t see him backing down.

  32. Extreme religious cult and political leaders all share the same philosophy: “Don’t debate your beliefs with anyone – never risk having the minds of the faithful contaminated by the truth and facts.”

    As demonstrated yet again here, the high priests of the AGW cult are no different.

  33. I have an hypothesis.

    My hypothesis is that no more than 50% of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (over 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    I propose that this be the climate “null hypothesis” and I defy anyone to falsify it.

  34. It sounds like he was likable enough, but taking a strong stance. I agree with some of his points about differences between skeptics and deniers. Clearly he was well prepared for this venue and played well to the crowd.

    He seems like a much better choice than someone like Mann who would not nearly be so likable. I trust Anthony’s instincts that this is the start of the next salvo to convince the world that they know what they are talking about.

    They know a lot, it is too bad they can’t see the correct conclusion.

    John Kehr

  35. He may indeed be correct, that some or even all of what he has claimed was attributable to global warming. So what, just prove that it was & he’s home ‘n dry! Stop living in the dark ages making wild unsupportable witch-finder-general claims about it. He is like the Wet Office, anything & everything remotely calamatous weather-wise is attributed to AGW, without proof! “No specific event can be directly attributabel to Climate Change, but this is the sort of event that we would expect to occur!” I translate to say “no this is not attributable to Climate Change but it is really!” If only they would just listen to themselves now & again.

    I used to work in a small office where light-hearted debates & arguments would take place. One respected colleague used to often use the following paraphrasing of the late great Abraham Lincoln, & I ‘m sure I’ve said this before,but…”it’s a free country, you’re entitled to be wrong, & I’ll defend to the death your right, to be wrong!” That of course was back in the days when the UK was a “free” country. Free from namby-pamby, wishy-washy, politically correct, do-gooders,who want no one offended by anybody but causing incalculable offence in all directions in the process. Given the latest thought crimes committed by a couple of football commentators recently I rest my case! Trenberth & his like will not go quietly into the night, there is too much money at stake & his pension plan may not be complete just now.

  36. Heh, ‘Swiftboat’ he said. There’s a generic clue. Man, do we have a culture war, or what?
    ==============

  37. Ryan, I gotta tell you, two years ago in May I had the pleasure of presenting your ACE graph to a literary group discussing Mooney’s ‘Storm World’. There was a cloud modeler leading the discussion. I’m not sure when I’ve had such fun.
    =============

  38. Whatever the null hypothesis, a paper supporting AGW, no matter how shoddy, is much more likely to be accepted than a paper opposing AGW, no matter how well argued and supported. Science simply accepts the proposition at a political level. Man is numerous, therefore climate must be being affected, therefore anything saying how is not subjected to particular scrutiny, while the opposing view is heavily scrutinized.

  39. I am more than a little surprised and disapointed that the AMS gave Trenberth time, space and a venue for his alarmist and dishonest nonsense. How can a group of science professionals take seriously Trenberth’s assertions that a bunch of heat is hiding in the cold water of the ocean deeps, or even listen to that concept without laughing? He is making the type of specious claims attributing the cause of occasional but not unprecedented weather events to AGW that one reads in the Guardian’s CiF by G Monbiot’s sycophants, such as the connection between the Australian floods and AGW being the ‘increased water in the hydrological cycle’, when the current Australian floods are less severe than previous floods that have occurred in the short timespan since Europeans first settled there.
    I also agree that sending him nasty letters and emails will not make him alter his stance – true believers appear to relish recieving nasty stuff as it reinforces their ideas of something akin to matyrdom in the name of their cause, no matter how dishonest or just plain wrong.

  40. Just to remind – the null hypothesis is simply what the experimenter wishes it to be for the purpose of his/her experiment. There is no preordained null hypothesis, and the choice of it carries no presumptive weight..

    Dr T should be encouraged to adopt a null hypothesis “made made GHGs cause more than 50% of the recent warming” and test it rigorously. This would mean that his experimental effort (to the extent that he participates in any) would be focused on rejecting this. The discipline of him doing this would improve climate science, and not inhibit anyone else choosing whatever they felt was the null hypothesis appropriate to their own experiment.

    Dr T is out of his depth on this stuff.

  41. The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug. The facts on the ground are that the AMS itself, the APS, the NAS, the Royal Society, etc, etc,, are all committed to promoting urgent CO2 reductions. The MSM and the politicians follow these Authorities. You get the feeling that the commenters at WUWT think they are winning the battle. Perhaps skeptics have landed an odd lucky shot, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.

  42. The arrogance of this guy is of monumental proportions.
    He’s making a great contributions to the skeptic case.

  43. When you have been looking for a long time for the “missing heat” and still can’t find it, as Trenberth has attempted to do for years now, you can only come with two conclusions;

    1. The “missing heat” is not missing, it doesn’t actually exist.

    2. The “missing heat” exists only in your mind.

    Kevin Trenberth believes in his own fairy stories.

  44. A lot of this is for setting up praise in the future?

    Monbiot our Gav and the rest of the clan will be spouting :-

    ” The eminent Doctor Trenberth’s made a speech to the AMS , an august body in the field of meteorology. Dr Trenbert (our mate) demonstrated completely that the leaked emails were irrelevant and demonstated unequivocaly that climate change is happening and its happening now”

    The speech was very well received with no dissenting voices? The applause was deafening with shouts of come on down.

  45. I think this is all part of a co-ordinated counter-attack by the AGW crowd to try to regain the ground they lost after Climategate. Expect more of the same over the next few months.

  46. From what I read most people know that places like Australia are subject to periods of excessive rainfall and long droughts. Even the BBC has said these events cannot be attributed to global warming, it’s just the weather, e.g. “worst for Brisbane worse since 1893” Well Brisbane was only founded in 1824 so if they had had enormous floods in say 1780, who would have know about them, or cared? There wouldn’t have been that many people to settle on the flood plane of an enormous river.

    Take a look on Wikipedia for Drought and flood in Australia” and see the cyclical nature. From the graph it seems Brisbane can expect a major flood every 50 years or so. Now what warming act of man is cyclical every 50 years to cause the warming that brings on these floods?

    “John Oxley, early explorer, mentioned evidence of an inundation which he discovered on 19 September 1824 in an area north of the junction of the Bremer with the Brisbane : “the starboard bank an elevated flat of rich land, declining to a point where had evidently by its sandy shore and pebbly surface, been at some time washed by an inundation; a flood would be too weak an expression to use for a collection of water rising to the full height (full fifty feet) which the appearance of the shore here renders possible.” “

    In 1820 the industrial revolution in Britain was still in it’s infancy and was just being born in the USA, so what caused the 1824 inundation? Well according to Trenberth it must have been too many people eating food that cause gaseous emissions -AGW. What else could it have been. Natural perhaps?

  47. @John Brookes, January 26, 2011 at 11:10 pm
    The difference between skeptics and “deniers” is obvious. Skeptics look at new data, and see how it fits with their current ideas, and change their ideas if necessary. “Deniers” try and evaluate new data to see if it confirms their ideas. If it doesn’t, they attack it.

    I think you’re wrong – again – John. I can just about get it with your ‘skeptics’ definition, but I see deniers as a slanderous construct of fevered minds who are trying very hard to rescue something from what, to them, has become a doctrine having nothing to do with science.

    Skeptics – who really ought to be led by the scientific method – can often be found, like Monckton, to be in general agreement that the climate is changing (it always does, don’t you agree?), but have grave doubts that it is because of ‘man’. Let’s face it, even you must agree, surely, that if there is a warming trend, a lot of it must be natural with only a slim possibility that a bit of it is man-made.

    Me, being a skeptic, will continue to accept it to be natural unless and until your camp (excluding the idiocies of Al Gore) can show without doubt that there is a man-made component to it. At the moment, without your data, model code and procedures being shared, as they should be, you are failing miserably.

    Finally, you still haven’t come back with an answer to a question that greens always seem to duck. It is this:

    If you think the climate is changing – catastrophically, as now seems to be the mot de jour – what do you think should be the ideal climate; how shall you achieve it (at what cost); and how in hell do you think you are going to sustain it?Oh, and do you think you will achieve it in this lifetime, or the next?

  48. John Brookes says:
    January 26, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    The difference between skeptics and “deniers” is obvious. Skeptics look at new data, and see how it fits with their current ideas, and change their ideas if necessary. “Deniers” try and evaluate new data to see if it confirms their ideas. If it doesn’t, they attack it.

    Do you mean Trenberth is a denier because of his attack on ARGO OHC data?

    “Although Lyman and colleagues’ paper reinforces the overall view that the ocean has been warming at a rate consistent with radiative imbalance estimates from anthropogenic climate change, the slowdown since 2003 is at odds with top-of-atmosphere radiation measurements. This discrepancy suggests that further problems may be hidden within the ocean observations and their processing.”

  49. “the “null hypothesis” concerning AGW attribution be turned on its head.”

    Doesn’t that mean that any religion, be it CAGW or any other, must be accepted as truth and incorporated into law until there is proof to the contrary? What defence is there when even the establishment agrees with and enforces such an insane travesty of the most axiomatic scientific principle?

  50. From January 2010 Trenberth wrote in Nature: More knowledge, less certainty

    “The climate scientists that comprise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don’t do predictions, or at least they haven’t up until now1. Instead the scientists of the IPCC have, in the past, made projections of how the future climate could change for a range of ‘what-if’ emissions scenarios.”

    “In previous IPCC assessments[1], changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouses gases and aerosols over time were gauged using ‘idealized emissions scenarios’, which are informed estimates of what might happen in the future under various sets of assumptions related to population, lifestyle, standard of living, carbon intensity and the like. Then the changes in future climate were simulated for each of these scenarios. The output of such modelling is usually referred to as a projection, rather than a prediction or a forecast. Unlike a weather prediction, the models in this case are not initialized with the current or past state of the climate system, as derived from observations. Instead, they begin with arbitrary climatic conditions and examine only the change in projected climate, thereby removing any bias that could be associated with trying to realistically simulate the current climate as a starting point. This technique works quite well for examining how the climate could respond to various emissions scenarios in the long term.”

    This seems at odds with Trenberth’s more recent view that the case for AGW is proven. All that has been achieved is a gaggle of scientists from disparate fields working through the consequences of some yet to be validated computer projections.

  51. Prove the reverse Null hypothesis that CO2 is safe?

    Sure we can do that, just give us the billions of dollars in funding, university chairs and departments and 20 years and we’ll let you know.

  52. It irritates me when Trenberth and Jones say that the Climategate e-mails are taken out of context. The answer to that is simple. Download the entire server and put its entire contents in the public domain. Then people can see the true and proper context in which the allegedly out of context e-mails truely sit.
    Come on Trenberth release all the e-mails that you have on your server and lets see whether there is any justification to your clain that the Climategate e-mails are sitting out of context. I dare you Trenberth to put your money where your mount is.

  53. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Richard Hill when he says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:37 am
    “The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug. The facts on the ground are that the AMS itself, the APS, the NAS, the Royal Society, etc, etc,, are all committed to promoting urgent CO2 reductions. The MSM and the politicians follow these Authorities. You get the feeling that the commenters at WUWT think they are winning the battle. Perhaps skeptics have landed an odd lucky shot, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.”
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    There is not a quick game changer on the horizon. What we need is a decade of cooling temperatures. If global temperatures can be seen to actually be cooling, in one or more of the official temperature records, for a prolonged period, even though CO2 emissions are increasing, it will become increasingly more difficult to persuade the public for the need for change and the need for them to dig deep into their pockets.

    The tide may already have changed (since there are many factors which appear to be coming together suggesting cooler times ahead) but we need that tide to fully ebb to take with it the AGW scam.

  54. Purakanui says:
    January 27, 2011 at 12:25 am
    This is … a man who sees his position crumbling around him and who is desperately fearful that his mana is blowing away in the cold wind of the real world.

    With a tag like that and a word like that you declare yourself to be a Kiwi. (Real or adopted.) The unfortunate thing is no one outside NZ understands the word “mana” (it is not biblical), which is a real shame as it is a fantastic way to express the concept and I find my UK colleagues looking very blank when I use it.
    Mana 1. (noun) prestige, authority, control, power, influence, status, spiritual power, charisma

  55. so Dr Treberth attributes Queensland flooding to global warming. Could be right, I mean what’s the chance of heavy rain in Queensland during the Wet?

  56. “This talk is one of the opening salvos in a well-coordinated broadside initiative to redeem and repackage climate science, climate scientists, and climate policy in the eyes of the public. This “re-education” campaign needs a brand name. Together We Thrive and Win the Future are taken”

    Hmm, given that politicians start thinking about their campaigns way ahead of the election date – years ahead – I think this is the start of the campaign for the next IPCC report. By the time the actual report is published we will all have been brainwashed into accepting the reversal of the null hypothesis and no-one will bat an eyelid at it. As a lead author, Trenberth has already flagged up from which angle he will be coming.

    Watch out.

  57. Sounds like Trenberth was arrogant and combative, which is par for the course with these CAGW people.

    “This “re-education” campaign needs a brand name. ”

    How about…

    Climate Re-education for All People

    or

    Foundation for Advancing and Renewing Climate Education

  58. ******
    Promoting climate information and communication of climate change
    ******

    Jeesh, this has to be the most blatant piece of %@#!. You’d think after the last 30 yrs of taking control of almost all means of communication except radio and the internet, hijacked the entire “peer-review” system, infiltrated practically every gov agency & university, & evaporated tens of billions of $$s, that they’d already have total control of “climate information & communication”. That’s the problem, everybody on earth already “knows” their propaganda, & many have outright rejected it!

    Give me a frakkin’ break.

  59. I truly wonder about the math literacy of these people. They already own 100% of the world’s governments, 100% of the world’s schools and colleges, 100% of the formerly Christian churches, 100% of television and newspapers, and 80% of radio and the web. Nobody has EVER questioned Gaian doctrine on a mass-market medium. No religion or ideology or cult or scam or king or empire has EVER owned so much of the world, and still they want 150% or 255969068482734673% or Forty-leven giga-mega-pazillion Exa-percent of everything.

  60. Purakanui, I agree with Murray Grainger that some Maori words and phrases that resonate very strongly with us Kiwis of whatever extraction just earn us odd looks from our cousins in the UK and in other parts of the world. Your comment is beautifully written and very powerful to a Kiwi, but here in the UK where most have a fairly superficial knowledge of New Zealand or its culture, the nearest translation for ‘Mana’ is the biblical ‘bread of heaven’, which is quite incorrect. Mana is meangful to Welsh Rugby supporters but for the wrong reason as they associate the word with the title of a Welsh hymn and sing it as a battle cry, a lament and a victory song at Rugby matches when the Welsh team is playing.

  61. I guess i am not a denier because i believe that UHI is definitely a human influence and that the mesurement of temperature data as done by GISS/CRU etc prove that the temperature of airports in urban areas has increased due to construction, increased traffic and types of airplanes used.

  62. Alexander K says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:24 am

    > I am more than a little surprised and disapointed that the AMS gave Trenberth time, space and a venue for his alarmist and dishonest nonsense.

    After talking with a Joe D’Aleo and a few others about what the AMS board has become, I figured they sought out Trenberth and encouraged as much publicity as they could about it.

    [Ryan wrote:] > This “re-education” campaign needs a brand name.

    The Trenberth Imbalance?

    Scratch that – I should be ashamed of myself for even thinking it. :-)

  63. I recorded all three presentations…the first (by David Karoly) is interesting…I particularly enjoyed him pointing to a spike in the numbers of climate-related editorials and letters-to-the-editor at the end of 2009 and explaining it was related to the Copenhagen meeting. I’m sure he searched and searched and could not find a better explanation.
    Trenberth’s presentation starts about 23:15…
    http://www.livescribe.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/LDApp.woa/wa/MLSOverviewPage?sid=6xbk80SldX5n

  64. I just shoveled 18 inches of globull warming this morning. Trenberth can spout all he wants about his projections and computer models and simulations. I’m a scientitst: When observation doesn’t match speculation, I throw the speculation out. I don’t know what Trenberth does except speculate more frequently and more fantastically.

  65. For those that asked about KT’s reception, I would say it was very warm. The applause was vigorous and the laughs were on cue. I was in the warmist bubble for an hour and it was an odd, surreal place. These people believe the science is settled and we should get busy divvying up the carbon tax booty for them.

  66. I’m getting tired of his rhetoric. After shovelling globull warming for the fourth time this winter, I’ve come to the conclusion that a warmer planet would be a better planet. I want the planet to warm up. I’m not sure an average of 2 or 3 degrees will be enough.

    Their whole basis of AGW fear mongering is what’s known as the logical fallicy of “Slippery Slope” argumentation. It’s a giant leap of faith to go from connecting release of CO2 to a runaway warming planet to the destruction of life as we know it. What sane, logical, and intelligent person believes that?

  67. “Together We Thrive and Win the Future are taken”

    Win The Future = WTF

    There must be some other WTF acronym meanings we can use for the climate debate.

    Weather That Fails?
    We Take Funds?

  68. The idea of reversing the null hypothesis is so strange. The question “do humans affect the climate” is answered by most sceptics with “yes”. But what we want to know is “how” and “how much”. Trenberth’s null that humans affect the climate provides no information whatsoever. Is his null that the IPCC reports are sent down from heaven on stone tablets? Well, he admits that the Himalayan glacier thing was an error, so I guess not. Is he saying that we should accept any pronouncement from any climate change scientist? Like Hansen claiming many meters of sea level rise this century or that the Greenland ice sheet will simply slide into the sea? Which null exactly is he claiming should be accepted? It really makes no sense, besides being a juvenile debating trick.

  69. Richard Hill when he says: January 27, 2011 at 2:37 am
    “The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug. The facts on the ground are that the AMS itself, the APS, the NAS, the Royal Society, etc, etc,, are all committed to promoting urgent CO2 reductions. The MSM and the politicians follow these Authorities. You get the feeling that the commenters at WUWT think they are winning the battle. Perhaps skeptics have landed an odd lucky shot, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.”

    Sorry, politics is a bit like weather — when the conditions are right: warm, wet meeting cold air — when “scientists” loose their credibility, the “honeymoon period” is over, and people start looking critically at a subject with next to no evidential base — when the conditions are right, you may not be able to say exactly when or where the storm will develop but develop it will!

    Tha’s a storm coming and no one can stop it!
    (upswings from natural variation excepted)

  70. Unlike most people on here I don’t particularly care whether I am called a skeptic or a denier.

    Yes, I absolutely understand that the thermaggedonists use the term to try to smear those who keep asking awkward questions with the notion of ‘holocaust deniers’. Yes, that is needlessly and deliberately very offensive.

    But there is no way to win the argument with these clown because, as has been pointed out many times, the warmist position is quasi-religious (and many of them have WAY too much to lose). The nearest you will get to a concession, when the clearly observable facts are too blatant, will be a goalpost-moving tactic. So instead of snow being a “rare event”, snow will become a sure confirmation of Global Warming, which everyone except the “deniers” has realised all along.

    I also like Lindzen’s point that, to be sceptical about something, there has to be a plausible hypothesis to be sceptical about. And that the notion that human CO2 emissions are likely to have any more than a trivial effect on climate, let alone to constitute an urgent problem that justifies the expenditure of Trillions, certainly isn’t plausible.

    There is perhaps an analogy with Kaiser Bill’s description of the British forces in WWI as a “contemptible little army” and the insult’s subsequent adoption by British soldiers, whose post-war veteran’s association calls themselves “The Old Contemptibles”.

    I think it might greatly irritate idiots like Hansen and Trenberth if we took their snide insults as badges of honour.

  71. Interesting contrast on reports of the missing heat:
    Dr Maue’s account: “The “It’s a Travesty” is still accurate, but Trenberth believes that the missing heat is somewhere in the oceans, maybe below 300 – 700 meters depth. ”

    Dr Curry’s student: “What he was actually referring to, he says, is the fact that at the time we could not account for the global energy balance when the total ocean heat content is considered, but now it appears that much of the heat is being stored below 300 m”

    I wonder if the speaker intended the impression to be “it’s still unknown, a possibility is the heat is below 300m”, or the impression that “the missing heat has been located” even though it hasn’t been measured?

  72. At this point sane people need to start turning their back on Trenberth. If we go much further paying attention to this man, we start to look like the scientists who argue with creationists. His belief system is set, he has made his choice. Yes, he claims to be a scientist, but his behavior says otherwise. No real scientist would have such an “if you’re not with us you’re against us,” way of looking at the world. We need to stop listening to what he says, much like ignoring Hansen. They’ve made their choice and thrown their eggs in one basket. No amount of talking to them is going to undo that situation.

  73. Murray Grainger says:
    January 27, 2011 at 4:52 am

    Purakanui says:
    January 27, 2011 at 12:25 am
    This is … a man who sees his position crumbling around him and who is desperately fearful that his mana is blowing away in the cold wind of the real world.

    With a tag like that and a word like that you declare yourself to be a Kiwi. (Real or adopted.) The unfortunate thing is no one outside NZ understands the word “mana” (it is not biblical), which is a real shame as it is a fantastic way to express the concept and I find my UK colleagues looking very blank when I use it.
    Mana 1. (noun) prestige, authority, control, power, influence, status, spiritual power, charisma
    ———————————————————————–
    Murray, your UK colleagues have clearly not read the novels of the supremely English C P Snow, who used the term more than once in his writing!

    Re Trenberth, I guess his speech is a summary of the current narrative of AGW alarmism. It’s not likely to set the world outside his inner circle alight though. I doubt that it will change anyone’s mind, one way or the other. Probably best if we all get back to our respective fields of endeavour and continue to use whatever skills we have to bring about change. Wasting energy on the witterings of these people to their supporters is unlikely to be productive, IMO.

  74. Surely a man who can claim that the theory of AGW is so solid, so without flaws that the null hypothesis should be reversed, would have no problem in falsifying the current null hypothesis in the first place. In that case why doesn’t he just do that – no reversal would even be necessary.

    Or is he merely a child, stomping his foot in the playground, yelling: Yes it is too, it is because I (or someone else) says so.

  75. richard verney says: January 27, 2011 at 4:47 am

    The tide may already have changed (since there are many factors which appear to be coming together suggesting cooler times ahead) but we need that tide to fully ebb to take with it the AGW scam.

    Richard, you seem to believe that the global warming scam will only go away when there is proof positive it is wrong. That’s the scientist in you speaking, and yes the right way to think about it is a balance of evidence.

    But the public and media don’t work that way. Just look at swine flu. Swine flu never went away, people still keep getting Swine flu, people still keep dying from flu … indeed flu is a major cause of death in the winter. But somehow despite the evidence that people are still dying from Swine flu … the scare has gone away (despite frequent attempts to revive it)

    Other examples are the nuclear winter: did the missiles disappear, or did public perception regarding the danger of those missiles disappear?

    Big public scares like these tend to be a self-feeding frenzy. They are like wild-fires, they rapidly spread and keep growing so long as there is combustible material (i.e. newsworthy stories) to feed the flames.

    Eventually, the stock of newsworthy material becomes exhausted – the public don’t want to hear the same stuff again and again and again and the media and public get bored, and the fire just fizzles out.

    Obviously, it helps if e.g. cooler weather dampens down the fire and worse if the weather (climate) is against up, and yes there are always small pockets of combustible material which haven’t been touched and go up after the main fire is out, but it is going out!

    Obviously, extending the analogy, brushwood grows again and e.g. the weather keeps coming up with new stories, but these repeat flare-ups never have the intensity of the big initial burn.

    If you want me to put a figure on that … about 30% less interest by the media over the last year. Around 60% over the last 3 years. At that rate of decline, it’ll have virtually fallen off the (public) radar in five years. It’s going, and about the last bit of new-media brushwood that hasn’t been burnt (story that can be run) is for the mass media to turn in against the climate “scientists” and make a few months of headlines tearing them to shreds!

  76. On balance I would say the adoption of the word “denier” by the AGW faithful was a major mistake. By making name-calling a big part of your marketing campaign you disenfranchise any new “customer” who comes in with any of the difficult to answer questions regarding the AGW religion. I think many of the readers here have experienced it and may have contributed to their adoption of the skeptic position.

    Also, it allowed those who doubted AGW to start calling themselves “sceptics”. We all know that scepticism is essential to good science and letting your opponents adopt this moniker was a truly gigantic error by the AGW cultists.

    I think this all demonstrates the appalling critical thinking capabilities of the AGW faithful. The fact is these folks are just not very bright.

  77. Richard Verney says, “There is not a quick game changer on the horizon. What we need is a decade of cooling temperatures. . . . “

    I am much more sanguine about even a decade of cooling having any effect at all in correcting the situation. If what Anthony has proven concerning the source of the data being biased, is as bad as it seems, then the the deck is heavily stacked against any future cooling trend ever showing up except in the minority of ‘rural’ sensors that remain active. Unfortunately, if the status quo for “official temperature record” keeping continues, without serious scientifically sound elimination (correction?) of obvious upward biases (urban and airport heat effects, sensor drift, data homogenization etc.) the deck is stacked against even natural cooling showing up in the “official temperature record”. I seriously doubt the world-wide human population is going to decrease. Urbanization is going to continue on its unrelenting upward track, and consequently urban centers where sensors are monitored will continue to show gradual warming regardless of the sources of energy that those urban centers tap into. Furthermore, as is evidenced from how vast portions of the population can be scared by dire predictions of the consequences of 1 degree change, even no change at all in a a very noisy temperature signal can always be spun to say whatever you want it to say, and can work unethical (funding and consensus motivated) scientists, unthinking (biased and uncritical) journalists, and unwise politicians into a tizzy.

  78. So, on the one hand Trenberth says not to engage the “deniers”, and on the other says that the onus of proof is now on the deniers. So, if climate scientists refuse to engage, and media outlets follow suit, how exactly are we to present the voluminous proof disputing AGW?

    His distinction between deniers and skeptics seems trivial. Did he identify who he believes are genuine skeptics and who are only deniers? Does he think Steve McIntyre is a denier? If so, he has no clue what he’s talking about.

  79. I haven’t read all the posts but . . . the game described is as old as the old testament . . .

    Pay more tithes, spring will come . . . railed against by Isia . . .

    Wear your burka . . . earthquakes will stop . . . said by an Iman in the mid east recently past.

    Pass cap n trade . . . and all will be well . . . by you know who!

    Anything bad happens . . . you made “the big guy upstairs” angry . . .

    Bottom line, somehow we are in abject, absolute, control. (they say) The basis for this entire grand dilusion. . . .

    Somethings we can control . . . hopefully ourselves.
    Somethings we can influence. . . and somethings we must accept . . .

    Insert the Serenity Prayer here. . .

  80. Consider that Trenberth is correct enough: if you factor land use and albedo changing soot and [insert an entire list of human activity] it would be hard to argue that six plus billion souls are *not* changing their environment at least in some way.

    The great leap here isn’t the recast of the null hypothesis, but the implied notion that mankind can stop being mankind. Six billion people need to eat and have places to live and so on, and OK, let’s posit that this has an effect on climate. Deal with it.

    The only real danger here is the help Trenberth gives to the wannabe totalitarians who want to tax western culture into oblivion while the rest of the world blithely goes on about their business.

  81. Inside each of the recent warmist speeches is the statement that “the influence of man on climate” is clear. Impossible to reject, but hardly important. It is the CATASTROPHIC influence that concerns us.

    The reduction in the danger: the key to backing down.

  82. Ryan, what was the audience reaction? Was he preaching to a converted audience or dark silence? Thanks

  83. The poorest of the poor see a lifetime’s work slip between their fingers and slowly spatter on the ground. We are only able to take a good name to the grave, and some won’t even take that. For some their life’s work amounts to nothing except an example for others of what not to do.

  84. “tonyb says:
    January 27, 2011 at 12:16 am

    Following the pre print in WUWT a few weeks ago I emailed Dr Trenberth to complain about the use of the word ‘Deniers’.”

    In AGW terms I prefer to interpret it as “Denier is a unit of measure for the linear mass density of fibers.” That fine mesh of scrutiny applied by open minded thinkers to the polluted outpourings of a pseudo-scientific cabal of agenda driven climate activists.

  85. Jeff Alberts said

    So, if climate scientists refuse to engage, and media outlets follow suit, how exactly are we to present the voluminous proof disputing AGW?

    BINGO for you, great question . . . PRIZE . . . . I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they, DON’T.

  86. richard verney says:
    January 27, 2011 at 4:47 am

    “There is not a quick game changer on the horizon. What we need is a decade of cooling temperatures. If global temperatures can be seen to actually be cooling, in one or more of the official temperature records, for a prolonged period, even though CO2 emissions are increasing, it will become increasingly more difficult to persuade the public for the need for change and the need for them to dig deep into their pockets. ”
    =======================================================

    Hmm, a decade of cooling even though CO2 has increased throughout the decade. Seems implausible, but let’s see if we can find something like that……(rummaging, digging, tossing stuff to and fro, no, “not this one”, “Helloooo, what have we here?”) You mean like this one?…..

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    A decadal trend of decreasing temps in spite of increase CO2 levels.

  87. missing heat
    if the energy is somehow being stored away in the deep ocean through some unknown or undetected mechanism, it surely is not the first time for that to have happened. Or is this a mechanism that only works for “high” levels of CO2?
    Could not heat stored there back in the early to mid 20th century have been released through the same mechanism – unknown or undetected during the end of the 20th century causing the heating? Is there a model for that?

  88. Don V and Richard Verney

    People WILL start to notice and asking questions if the temperatures fall consistently.

    Take a look at this-CET from 1772.
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

    The precipitate decline is being talked about (helped by people like me!) The temperature in 1659-the first year of the full CET record is identical to 2010 -the last year in the record at a chilly 8.83C.

    When we look at INDIVIDUAL station records, instead of global ones, the nuances within so called ‘global’ warming can be clearly seen as many places are cooling.

    Tonyb

  89. PALSy – Politicians Acting Like Scientists

    HAMAS – Human Activists Masquerading As Scientists

    POPE – POliticians Playing Experts

  90. tonyb says:
    January 27, 2011 at 12:16 am
    Personally I think it does no good at all to be unpleasantly combative and abusive to such as Dr Trenberth (and Dr Mann et al) as this will only reinforce their prejudices.
    ========================================================
    Ryan said: an overflowing crowd of several hundred listened for about 20-minutes, then scattered.
    ========================================================

    and reinforcing their prejudices is a bad thing? why?

    warmcold wetdry – if this trend continues

  91. During the financial melt down the daily headlines were that the banks had lost 5Billion, 25 Billion 190 billion etc.

    Silly little me to wonder where they could have lost them until I realised they didn’t exist in the first place, just like Trenberth’s missing heat, it doesn’t exist, its a figment of a fixed mind whose whole life’s work appears to have been built with foundations laid on quick sand.

  92. Jeremy says:
    “At this point sane people need to start turning their back on Trenberth. If we go much further paying attention to this man, we start to look like the scientists who argue with creationists.”

    But why stop paying him attention – he’s so funny!

    Just because clowns talk nonsense, it doesn’t mean the world doesn’t need clowns!

    Creationists and global warmers are just part of the rich tapestry of life and the world wouldn’t be half the fun it is if we didn’t have people like them!

  93. Trenberth then discussed the small errors in the IPCC report (Himalayan glaciers), but there were no major changes to the overall IPCC conclusions.

    Scanning the preprint at http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf , I don’t see any mention of the Himalayan glacier error. Nor can I find “Himalayan”, “glacier”, or “glaciers” using the search tool. Did he add this in his verbal comments?

  94. Swiftboated:

    As one of “those people” due to the fact my daughter attended Texas Tech U. in Lubbock Texas (she is at a national lab now, dad thing) I remembered that Texas Tech had aquired the Vietnam archives from the Govt.. As I worked the insert of sensors for operation igloo white in Laos ect. for 2 1/2 years, I did have some knowledge of VC/NVA ambushes and how our forces and my unit reacted to said ambushes. A poster there by the nic Navy Chief contacted me and ask, “Do the after action reports and Lt. Kerry’s awards and citation records square with what did happen in an ambush such at the deal on the Hap River?”. So I read the after action reports of the day from the 5 swiftboats that day. One communication from all 5 of the boats “We need a tow boat.” In a nut shell all the other awards and citations for Lt. Kerry were much the same.

    This guy herein above has the same kind of history to back him up. Made up on the fly reports of global warming all for awards and grants.

    He “swiftboats himself”.

  95. This is the second time in recent weeks (the first was a BBC Horizon programme on temperature) that I’ve come across the temperature bell curve being pushed to the right presumably to demonstrate that there will be more excessive temperatures than there are now.
    It struck me as being a false explanation though I don’t have the knowledge to pin down exactly why I felt that why or whether I am right. Perhaps one of you good people can explain.
    One thing though. It would seem to bear out the the theory that we are into a concerted effort to revive a flagging argument.

  96. Richard Hill says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:37 am
    “The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug. The facts on the ground are that the AMS itself, the APS, the NAS, the Royal Society, etc, etc,, are all committed to promoting urgent CO2 reductions. The MSM and the politicians follow these Authorities. You get the feeling that the commenters at WUWT think they are winning the battle. Perhaps skeptics have landed an odd lucky shot, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.”

    I completely disagree.
    Ask almost any young person and you will hear global warming is so yesterday. The Cap and trade exchange is closed in the US, the Europeans are pissed at the level of corruption of their C&T program. The world stopped warming a decade ago, no mention of Global warmin, climate change climate disruption in the state of the union address (though clean energy is an interesting term), climategate is getting better all the time as just liker watergate its the cover ups after the fact that will ultimately sink their ship. I could go on and on but it is very clear AGW is dying fast. Look out though as the “Huge threat to biodiversity” is the next Tax the masses scheme coming.

  97. Richard Hill says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:37 am
    “The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug. The facts on the ground are that the AMS itself, the APS, the NAS, the Royal Society, etc, etc,, are all committed to promoting urgent CO2 reductions. The MSM and the politicians follow these Authorities. You get the feeling that the commenters at WUWT think they are winning the battle. Perhaps skeptics have landed an odd lucky shot, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.”

    It’s so important that Obama forgot to mention it in his SOTUA.

  98. I found the atmosphere in the room rather anticipatory for some sort of fireworks, but there was little debate or excitement. The applause lines or chuckle-getters were rather deadpan stuff. One quip in the earlier Karoly talk was about which newspapers did Rupert Murdoch own. Yawners. The question time was literally 2-3 minutes and they were not challenging to Trenberth’s philosophy. It is clear that this forum was a very safe place to deliver his opinions.

    I sat next to Dr Susan Solomon In the back row, and noticed plenty of other meteorology and climate royalty in the room. I would guess that The talk will be a call to action or a permission slip for scientists to fight back and use PR tactics to demonize the deniers. The anti-science rhetoric and vitriol has a tinge of Paul Krugman in it (his immediate post-Tucson NY Times blog op-ed). This is the new narrative — but with the 112th Congress and Obama going in Witness protection from climate, the deniers have won big and have the momentum.


  99. JohnH says:
    Udar says:
    January 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Re-read what John Brookes said, the explanation of “Deniers” was directed at AGW believers IMHO.

    If I misread John Brookes message, will I take back my last sentence. But it does not change my point that “Denier” is not a accepted term for people with disagreements (whether valid or not), but deliberate insult, coined by AGW supporters to label people who disagrees with them

  100. RobW said: Look out though as the “Huge threat to biodiversity” is the next Tax the masses scheme coming.

    Rob: I don’t know what the next Tax the masses scheme is coming, but I think you are correct . . . . there will be one. Even though most of the money, the land, the weapons, and the power are in the hands of a relative few, I assert you are correct in your statement . . .

    I ask . . . and wonder . . . what more could they want?

  101. Trenberth’s AGW cult is missing an important trick.

    Generally religions provide for some kind of reward, along with the doom, where the reward is accrued at a later date (making accurate accounting challenging). The problem with AGW is that the doom is there: submerged cities, tired and hungry polar bears, droughts, snow, floods, etc.; but the posthumous benefits need work.

    I therefore suggest a re-education program based on the premise of a tranquil summer’s day in the afterlife. This will likely appeal to the typical tax paying selfish Audubon.

    With this modification, the AGW movement would no doubt be unstoppable.

  102. I find it inexplicable that an inferential generalization like “climate” is actually treated as a “real” phenomenon. Historically “climate” is a social and geographic concept rather than a scientific one. Climate was why the barbarians were barbarians as far as the Greeks were concerned, and why the lotus eaters accomplished so little. It is why Arizona was considered healthful for “consumptives,” and why California was “ideal” for agriculture. Why has no one asked Trenberth to demonstrate the scientific necessity of the idea of “climate.” There is a real null hypothesis – no understanding of climate is necessary if we understand weather.

    Climate it has been said (I’ve said it myself) always changes, but this is actually mistaken logic. Climate is not an aspect of reality but rather a generalization we make about weather. Climate – a generalization – follows from weather. The ice ages were not cold, nor did they end because of climate, but because year-by-year WEATHER changed. Every bit of “climate” data that is adjusted by a climatologist somewhere is in fact data collected from hourly, daily or annual (if you accept ice core and tree ring proxies) meteorological observations. Do we really need climatologists, and is climatology actually a science?

  103. Richard Hill : January 27, 2011 at 2:37 am
    The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug.—, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.

    richard verney: January 27, 2011 at 4:47 am
    Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Richard Hill

    Mike Haseler :January 27, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Sorry, politics is a bit like weather — when the conditions are right: warm, wet meeting cold air — when “scientists” loose their credibility, the “honeymoon period” is over, and people start looking critically at a subject with next to no evidential base — when the conditions are right, you may not be able to say exactly when or where the storm will develop but develop it will!.
    ————————————————————————
    All the above observations are correct in my view. The ‘Authorities’ support the IPCC and that extends to governments in most countries so the sceptics are deluding themselves if they think they are winning anything at present. . But the ‘tide of change’ with the general public is inexorable. It is connected to the evidence before their eyes – the frozen winter weather each year, the increasing cost of heating their homes, the failure of their economies. This is the ‘winter of discontent’ and the anger of the masses is evident in many parts of Europe and probably bubbling below the surface in the US. The people are becoming increasingly angry with rising costs and diminishing services across the board. They are particularly angry about increased energy costs and are quickly realising that this is due to the switch to ‘clean’ and costly energy supply to replace carbon based energy. The people are ahead of the politicians here. The storm will indeed develop!

    Douglas

  104. Udar says: . . . “Denier” . . . . a deliberate insult, . . . .

    You mean worthy of condemnation . . . like Heritic . .

  105. Douglas says: January 27, 2011 at 10:21 am

    They are particularly angry about increased energy costs and are quickly realising that this is due to the switch to ‘clean’ and costly energy supply to replace carbon based energy. The people are ahead of the politicians here. The storm will indeed develop!

    That is so true! And suddenly, … it’s finally dawned on me …. all those protests in Tunisia, Egypt, etc. were ordinary people who have had enough.

    I had no idea that “Arab” mood of resentment at governments might be a world-wide phenomena that could happen in the US and UK.

  106. So, Trenberth’s excuse for using the “denier” label for those who disagree with what he terms “basic information about climate science” is some supposedly “nasty” emails he received? How convenient!
    It would be interesting indeed to see what he considers “basic information”. Consensus science, anyone?

  107. Onward, Climate soldiers, marching as to war,
    With the dross that please us going on before.
    Mann, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
    Forward into battle see his great stick go!

    At the sign of triumph McKyntire’s host doth flee;
    On then, Climate soldiers, on to victory!
    Science’s foundations quiver at the shout of AWG;
    Believers lift your voices, loud your anthems glee.

    Like a mighty army moves the consensus driven;
    Believers , we are treading where the grants are given .
    We are not divided, all one body we,
    One in thought and doctrine, one in banalty

    Apologies to Baring-Gould

  108. Well I don’t think I was ever “Skeptical”, and I am not now a “denier”.

    There was a time when I could honestly say:- “I dunno !”, and that was the truth, I had no knowledge at all of the molecular absorption spectra of common so-called Greenhouse Gases; never had any cause to know any of that, and my first introduction to it was the GHG warming thesis. So I got busy learning what that was all about, and researching the physics and chemistry. I believe it ws Dr Willie (Wei-Hock) Soon, who first steered me to the proper region of the spectrum (on blogs).

    I’m still a long way from understanding the mechanisms of the “greenhouse” effect; those that we lump under that misnomer heading; and I would never deny that such an effect exists; that’s fool’s gold territoty. I don’t and never have denied that climate changes; hell, I’ve lived through at least two full 30 year climate cycles; so I have experimentally observed that climate changes.
    I don’t deny that humans are putting fossil fuel residue carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. We also are putting scrap plastic materials that are long lived. Humans are also putting fossil fuel residue Hydrogen into both the atmosphere, and the oceans and lakes. Who knows; maybe the H/D ratio is different for fossil fuels or for biological materials; what about the Tritium content.

    You see putting these materials in the environment doesn’t mean that WE are responsible for the increases. Well I believe that the increases in plastic residues in the environment and the Pacific Trash Patch really is human caused; so maybe some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by us; how much, I have no idea, because I have not been convinced by any of the accounting numbers. That doesn’t mean I’m “skeptical” (which implies cautious disbelief); I just dunno.

    So forest clearing (which I deplore) affects CO2 and the (local) climate,a nd we do that. I should distinguish between forest clearing, and clear cut forest farming. The former tends to turn rather poor soils that were supporting forests into very poor soils that will support not much of anything. The latter is an effective way to manage agricultural forestry; and the resultant replanting, is way more effective in carbon sinking than is stagnant old growth forest (which is carbon neutral); the support of which I strongly endorse.

    But as to the whole claptrap that is collected under the heading of MMAGWCCC (Man Made Anthropogenic (wtm) Global Warming Catastrophic Climate Change); well I don’t believe a lot of what is claimed to be going on. I flat out don’t believe that high clouds warm the surface, and the higher the warmer. As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s the conditions on the ground beforehanfd that CAUSE the high clouds; not the other way round. I can find no process by which any extra water molecule anywhere in the atmosphere, at any geographical location on the planet, at any time, can somehow INCREASE the total amount of incoming solar energy radiation that reaches the surface of the earth (land or ocean); it ALWAYS reduces that amount of surface incident energy. Now in the spirit of ‘the exception that proves the rule’, one can imagine sunlight that strikes the atmosphere at grazing incidence at the limb, and goes on by out into space, given a clear sky. But put a nice cumulo nimbus thunderhead out there on the horizon, and the side of it can scatter (reflect) some of that otherwise lost solar energy, down to the ground. I’ll let you do the math on just how much of that there could possibly be. The cloud layer might be 8 miles thick out of 8,000 miles earth diameter, 0.1%; about the same effect as TSI variation over solar cycle. Oh don’t forget the curve ball in that pitch. Because of that cloud sitting there on the horizon, there is bound to be some sunlight that would have hit the ground, sans said cloud, but as a result of the cloud it first hits the cloud and then is scattered upwards out into space. Y’alls be careful sorting that all out now. I’ll stick with my conjecture; extra water in the atmosphere always reduces ground level incident solar energy input.

    So no I’m not skeptical, and I’m not a denier of human influence; I simply don’t believe some of what is presented as science in this regard; and don’t even get me started on the lack of validity of the global Temperature sampling methodology. Climatists need to learn some Sampled Data Systems Theory; they also could do with a course on feedback; and what it is, and isn’t; don’t forget the time dependent response of feedback systems.

  109. More from the Spin Machine:

    24 January 2011

    ClimateGate affair: ‘Learn and move on’, say MPs

    By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News

    “Inquiries into issues raised by 2009’s climate e-mail hack did have flaws, a committee of MPs concludes.

    But despite questions over remits and omissions, they say it is time to make the changes needed and move on.

    The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee does not find anything to challenge the prevailing view of human-induced global warming.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12269493

  110. Ryan Maue says:
    January 27, 2011 at 10:03 am

    “I found the atmosphere in the room rather anticipatory for some sort of fireworks, but there was little debate or excitement… It is clear that this forum was a very safe place to deliver his opinions. “‘

    I was thinking that the AMS rank and file meteorologists probably don’t get to go to these conferences(travel budget restrictions). They are, instead, meetings for academics and government types who, by and large, are CAGW true believers. Hence the lack of any confrontational questioning…

  111. Is it not the case that in law one is innocent until proven guilty (poor old CO2 in this case). Trenberth would have it that one is guilty until proven innocent.

    Mr Trenberth very much reminds me of a 21st Century Claudius Ptolomy trying to fit all weather events into his AGW theory yet his missing heat doesn’t fit the theory, like Ptolomy’s ideas that planets slow down, stop and move in reverse.

    Sorry mate -not convincing enough.

  112. Perhaps the size of his Ego is obscuring the size of his ability.

    We have been told by “fellow travellers” of Dr Trenberth that individual severe climatic events are “weather” and not “climate”.

    But perhaps we need somebody of his ability to let us know which climatic events are confirmation of AGW, and other climatic events (like record breaking cold) are just weather and of no interest.

  113. Max Hugoson said Onward, Climate soldiers, marching as to war, . . . .

    Yes, I would like that . . . . to see them kick Mother Nature’s butt . . . . I assure you (ok, I assert) she will get rid of them long before they get rid of her. . . .

  114. Trenberth implored that we change the null hypothesis to put the onus of proof on the deniers…

    That’s fine.

    I accept his challenge.

    My paper drops sometime this year.

  115. I wished someone would have asked him about the Argo data and the total ocean heat content. Will the data from Josh Willis be withheld until Dr. Trenbreth can account for the lost heat? I think we are almost 3 months beyond when the data was supposed to be released.

  116. A denier, someone in denial.

    Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. [wikipedia]

    Trenberth: ” 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 CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    I hope he won’t accuse me of slander if I quote him out of context: “if the shoe fits, wear it”.

  117. Very soon, the free money stream from the USA is going to dry up………they better get their money now before China cashes in.

  118. Don V

    “If what Anthony has proven concerning the source of the data being biased, is as bad as it seems, then the the deck is heavily stacked against any future cooling trend ever showing up except in the minority of ‘rural’ sensors that remain active.”

    Don’t be sanguine. The satellite data – UAH – is maintained by John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and that will not be biased upwards.

  119. HAS says:

    “”Just to remind – the null hypothesis is simply what the experimenter wishes it to be for the purpose of his/her experiment. There is no preordained null hypothesis, and the choice of it carries no presumptive weight.””

    That’s not quite correct. In the case of the global climate, the Null Hypothesis is the range of temperatures, precipitation, trends and so on that existed before the recent rise in co2.

    Any alternative hypothesis must be tested against those parameters, which together form the climate Null Hypothesis. If the increase in co2 hasn’t caused a measurable change outside of those parameters (and it hasn’t), then the Null Hypothesis is unfalsified, and the alternate hypothesis fails.

    Trenberth hasn’t been able to falsify the Null Hypothesis, so now he wants to replace it with his own carefully selected alternate hypothesis, and then demand that skeptics have to, in essence, prove a negative.

    That is so far beyond the Scientific Method that it is pseudo-science.

  120. A week or so ago, I had an email correspondence with Kevin Trenberth. The correspondence speaks for itself as to Trenberth’s level of integrity. I can forward the original emails to anyone interested but here is a summary:
    ===========================
    The Evidence for Man Caused Warming

    ME: EXACTLY what is the SINGLE biggest piece of EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing global warming ?

    Trenberth: The planet is warming, it has to have a source [best seen in the rising sea level].

    ME: You describe rising sea levels as being the evidence for man caused global warming. It had been my understanding that sea levels have been rising steadily for thousands of years and now at a very slow rate.

    Trenberth: The rates have not been steady and picked up markedly in the mid 20th century and even more since 1990 or so. CO2 has been increasing since 1750 although mainly since 1850.

    ME: Firstly, you said that sea levels are the evidence for man caused warming. Here is a graph I found, of sea levels for the past 8000 years.
    Sea levels:

    This seems to bear no relation at all to fossil fuel consumption (man’s CO2).
    Fossil fuel consumption

    As you can see man’s CO2 increased about 1200% after 1945 but the sea levels have flattened completely after the rapid rise 7000 years ago.
    Am I missing something here ?

    Trenberth: Please see the attached for SL in the last century or so. Since 1993 when we have altimeters in space the rate of rise is 3.3 mm/yr: higher than anything in past few hundred years.

    ME: I give a summary of our discussion.

    Trenberth: No. Keep me out of this. I do not agree with the following at all.

    ME: I’m not surprised you want to be “kept out of this”. I’m sure you know that it is a tad ridiculous to suggest that rising sea levels are the “evidence” for man caused global warming.

    Trenberth: Sea level does not rise without reason and in recent times there is good reason from human activities and rates have increased. The equilibrium time scale of the deep oceans is over 1000 years and so the system is not in equilibrium and changes previously reflect that.
    Your comments are rubbish. Please don’t contact me any more.
    Kevin Trenberth

    =====================
    Temperature Rising

    ME: Phil Jones, University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, suggests there has been no significant warming since 1995. I was wondering if there is yet any accounting for this lack of global warming over the past 15 years, as the world’s CO2 generation continues to soar ?

    Trenberth: Phil does not say that. the past decade is warmest on record and 2010 ties with 2005 as warmest year on record.

    ME: You are also incorrect in your statement “Phil does not say that”. Phil Jones did say it, in a BBC interview, as I’m sure you are aware:
    BBC – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
    PJ – “Yes, but only just.”

    Trenberth: …no response …

  121. “Trenberth implored that we change the null hypothesis to put the onus of proof on the deniers…”

    The prove is already in and thats planet Earth with no alarming temperature rise over the past 100 years. No warming in the pipeline that anybody is aware of, no hotspot, no weather events that haven’t occured before, no cooling stratosphere since mid 1990’s (stable) and no positive feedback detected. Tenberth and his fellow alarmists choose to ignore these inconvenient facts and have shown here why this proves they are wrong. The biggest flaw that they can’t explain is how the rate of warming over the past century is going to increase at least four fold, just to achieve the lowest rise that may be regarded as CAGW. (>3c) With no CAGW, their evidence is wrong and us so called deniers have shown that indeed they are basing science on faith and opinions which is not supported by science.

  122. Was this a rant from the heart of a believer or was it the bluster of politician buying time?

    I would say the latter because

    1. “Trenberth lamented exasperation with the deniers and suggested that he and everyone else simply not debate nor grant them visibility or a platform by engaging with them.” seems to indicate he is running away from debate with his critics.

    2. he avoids the null hypothesis (again running away).

    3. Only 2 questions (again running away).

    and the jokes seem to be about reassuring himself the crowd are still onside and not about to lynch him.

    This speech has the hallmarks of someone who is trapped and is trying to bluster his way through stormy weather in the hope that things will improve. But he seems to lack a strategy (such as winning a public debate against his critics) for making the good weather happen.

  123. Mike Haseler says:

    Creationists and global warmers are just part of the rich tapestry of life and the world wouldn’t be half the fun it is if we didn’t have people like them!

    Nice try…but the analogy between those two groups doesn’t quite work that way. Rather, if you look closely, you find:

    (1) Creationists arguing that the scientific community is actively keeping them out of journals, etc., etc. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed), just as “climate skeptics” make similar claims.

    (2) In the case of both evolution /creationism and global warming, you have all of the respected scientific organizations on one side of the debate but a large majority of people refusing to accept the scientific evidence because they don’t like the conclusions.

    (3) It just so happens that it is the “climate skeptics” side that has one of its very few well-published and reasonably respected-in-the-field scientists arguing that “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.” ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/ )

    Those of us who have been involved in both the climate debates and the evolution debates know how the analogy between the two actually plays out.

  124. Alan the Brit says:
    January 27, 2011 at 1:54 am

    Pedantic correction:
    “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
    Voltaire

  125. As a Queenslander, I am appalled that this fellow conveniently ignores the fact that there was nothing extreme about the recent floods. As readers of this blog know, 1974 was a much bigger rain event in Brisbane. But even it was dwarfed by the 1893 floods.

    The problem with the floods this year has been the development of expensive housing and offices on the river flood plains. In 1974, the areas flooded were largely industrial. Sure, the city and residential areas were also flooded and it was a huge disaster. But it didn’t cost anywhere near as much in dollar terms as the recent floods.

    It is the economic cost that is extraordinary this time. It has nothing to do with the weather or climate. It has everything to do with local planning laws, expensive residential developments in flood prone areas and the management of the Wivenhoe Dam.

    Dr Trenberth has no credibility.

  126. Julian in Wales says: January 27, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    Was this a rant from the heart of a believer or was it the bluster of politician buying time?

    Dr A Burns says: January 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm
    A week or so ago, I had an email correspondence with Kevin Trenberth. The correspondence speaks for itself as to Trenberth’s level of integrity. I can forward the original emails to anyone interested but here is a summary:
    ——————————————————————————-
    When you put Trenberth’s AMS defence paper and Dr A Burns’ email summary you have to conclude that Trenberth is really a liability to his cause. He is unconvincing. His answers to Dr. Burns were didactic, petulant, arrogant and lacking the necessary reason that one could take as the basis of a good argument.

    He should be ignored now.

    Douglas

  127. Thanks, Ryan. This post is much appreciated.

    tonyb says:
    January 27, 2011 at 12:16 am
    “The deliberate connotations to us in Europe in particular are highly unpleasant. My father in law was one of the first to enter a concentration camp . . .

    The feelings, although personal and thus unique, are not unique to Europe. I’m aware of U.S. soldiers that as young men entered (liberated is a term some use) concentration camps. The experiences are still vivid. Some are able to relate what they saw, some not. I have a friend that can and does, thinking it important to do so.

    I agree with you too, that when one wants to promote a position it does little good to antagonize those of the opposition. Talk radio hosts are the exception. Such tactics generate excitement*, publicity, raise ratings, and their salary. [*Sort of like kicking a wasp nest.]

  128. Joel Shore says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    (1) Creationists arguing that the scientific community is actively keeping them out of journals, etc., etc. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed), just as “climate skeptics” make similar claims.

    (2) In the case of both evolution /creationism and global warming, you have all of the respected scientific organizations on one side of the debate but a large majority of people refusing to accept the scientific evidence because they don’t like the conclusions.

    (3) It just so happens that it is the “climate skeptics” side that has one of its very few well-published and reasonably respected-in-the-field scientists arguing that “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.” ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/ )

    Those of us who have been involved in both the climate debates and the evolution debates know how the analogy between the two actually plays out.
    ———————————————————————
    Joel. Point 1. So what? Point 2. Get real. What you say is not true. Point 3. so what again.

    In short. What are you trying to say? Your comments don’t seem to be of anyvalue at all Joel.

    Douglas

  129. I agree with Trenberth that the emails were not that personally embarrassing to him. His guilt in climategate is mostly by association and his frank concern for the missing heat made him look like the best of the bunch. If he had been as open in his frank discussion of the evidence in public, and openly addressed, subject to peer review, issues raised by the data and the model diagnostic literature he would be a credit to the field. The IPCC process is not subject to peer review and in his role he exploited the option he had to just dismiss or avoid relevant studies. In his subsequent work as a reviewer and speaker he has conveniently missed relevant results that should have been addressed, and engaged in the type of rhetorical games he played in this talk.

    Based upon the state of the evidence, where what is really in dispute is the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing in the current climate, I think a reasonable null hypothesis is that the direct effects of CO2 are warming the climate at a sensitivity of approximately 1 degree C for a doubling. The AGW believers hypothesize that the net feedbacks are positive and that the sensititivity is such that AGW will swamp natural variation. I think there is agreement that a 1 degree C level of climate sensitivity will merely perturb natural variation and is not a cause for alarm. Skeptics hypothesize that the net feedbacks may actually be negative. There doesn’t appear to be much evidence for either hypothesis, with the models having severe problems with correlated error and bias, and but there is some, not yet conclusive, evidence from the actual radiative balance data, that the net feedbacks appear to be negative at the lower latitudes.

  130. Richard Hill says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:37 am

    The tone of the comments on this topic seem a bit smug. The facts on the ground are that the AMS itself, the APS, the NAS, the Royal Society, etc, etc,, are all committed to promoting urgent CO2 reductions. The MSM and the politicians follow these Authorities. You get the feeling that the commenters at WUWT think they are winning the battle. Perhaps skeptics have landed an odd lucky shot, but the IPCC is still winning the war. Lets see a body like the AMS modify its official statement on the issue.

    You are leaving out the dark horse in this race, the opinion of the great (scientific) unwashed. It is my experience that in the lay public, it is the soi disant intellectuals that seem to embrace the CAGW rhetoric. Your average citizen, while not scientifically learned, has no compunction about calling BS on the pronouncements of politicians and other people of authority. Try it out. After a substantial winter deposit of global warming, joke about it with the garbage collector, the meter reader, the newspaper delivery person, the postman. You will likely get an agreeable chuckle and a derogatory remark about Al Gore. Then joke about it with your local leftist or centrist candidate for office or other such politically active people, or people involved with any kind of “social justice” cause, people involved in the media etc. Be prepared for a superior to thou lecture on the 2,500 scientists of the IPCC and the 97% of climate scientists trumping your puny denials. So if we keep having the types of winters that we have been having, it will not make any difference to that average person if GISS says that 2010 has been the warmest year ever. As the credibility of CAGW is eroded (rightly or wrongly), a “tipping point” will be reached where the politicians and media will need to change their tune. Do the espousers of CAGW have the cojones to stay on message in the face of a decade or two of flat to cooling temperatures?

  131. The BBC’s “Men of Rock” program today asserted in it’s last five minutes that a new ice age is on its way. Most of Britain, Europe and the US is going to become uninhabitable as it will be under hundreds of feet of ice and for a very long time. There was not a single mention of AGW in the entire program.

    “Geologist Iain Stewart retraces the steps of a band of maverick pioneers who made ground-breaking discoveries in the landscape of Scotland about how our planet works.

    “In the final episode, Iain finds out about daredevil scientist Louis Agassiz, who first imagined the world had been gripped by an ice age. Plus, the story of humble janitor James Croll, who used the planets to work out the natural rhythms of the earth’s climate.”

    Don’t tell Trenberth, but the implications of this program are that someone at the BBC reckons that the coming big ice is going to be the biggest killer of all, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wvjnq/Men_of_Rock_The_Big_Freeze/

  132. Kate

    I missed the programme but Stewart is an arch warmist so I would be surprised if he associated himself with the ice age message. What was the context?

    tonyb

  133. Douglas says: Joel Shore says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    (1) Creationists arguing that the scientific community is actively keeping them out of journals, etc., etc. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed), just as “climate skeptics” make similar claims.

    Douglas, I’ve no problem at all with the public being told about intelligent desire and the manmade global warming scam … these cult religions can only be exposed for what they are by being exposed using good science.

    Science is not afraid of information, it is not afraid of the open and honest debate of ideas based on the facts. E.g. even tonight I’ve suddenly realised that there could be a scientific basis for certain obscure methods of controlling pain … obviously the “new-age” cult type theory behind it is totally bogus, but there may be a physical explanation (not just placebo) why the right frame of mind can not only control, but even physically reduce pain.

    There are also areas of human investigation where scientific methodology is just the wrong way to approach the subject … again, open and honest debate and allowing the free access to ideas is essential.

    So, even though intelligent design is one of the less serious issues of modern society, I’ve no problem with it being adequately covered in Wikipedia.

    But unfortunately wikipedia is full of mini-hitlers who don’t share my belief in truth honesty and freedom to information and providing information without filtering everything to match the group-think point of view of those hypocrites at wikipedia.

  134. I vote for Frank K.’s “Foundation for Advancing and Renewing Climate Education” it makes a great acronym.

    Dr Trenberth really deserves the moniker “Travesty” Trenberth for this.

    It’s Climategate, not swiftanything, anyone that refers to Climategate as swiftwhatever is trying to pull a fast one and change the optics. Very political, just like using the word “denier”.

    Natural climate variation didn’t stop working in 1930, there might be some AGW, but it’s not catastrophic, and very unlikely to be catastrophic in the next 90 years or 900 years.

    Read THIS, Barry.

  135. Last night (26 Jan) my local (Sacramento, CA) PBS station ran an hour long special entitled-

    “The Next Frontier: Engineering the Golden Age of Green” cuts through the debate about global warming and climate change. Instead, it focuses on the renewable, clean energy technologies that can improve our future and create significant economic opportunities.” I missed the first minute, or so, of the special hence I must of missed the debate about global warning and climate change. The show was sponsored by the Professional Engineers in California Government, a brief description of the show is located here- http://www.thenextfrontiermovie.com/one_sheet.pdf

    The head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB- the state agency responsible for implementing CA’s cap and trade system for CO2) was interviewed during the presentation.

    The show is going to be broadcast again tomorrow on the Sacramento PBS station. The show is being broadcast throughout the country as well- schedule noted here- http://www.thenextfrontiermovie.com/broadcasts.htm

  136. Joel’s argument fell apart when it came out of his fingers. It’s a sign of desperation. We’ll soon be pitying the die-hard alarmists.
    ==========

  137. Rocky H says January 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    “In the case of the global climate, the Null Hypothesis is the range of temperatures, precipitation, trends and so on that existed before the recent rise in co2.

    “Any alternative hypothesis must be tested against those parameters, which together form the climate Null Hypothesis. If the increase in co2 hasn’t caused a measurable change outside of those parameters (and it hasn’t), then the Null Hypothesis is unfalsified, and the alternate hypothesis fails.”

    Sorry, as a scientist I am free to do what I want when it comes to setting nulls and alternates. How I do that will be fundamental to my experimental design, the results I might produce, and the value of my experiment.

    You can’t tell me what to test, and nor can Dr T.

  138. HAS,

    You are certainly free to do what you like, and I’m not preuming to tell you what to test.

    What I am pointing out is that the climate null hypothesis – the pre-industrial temperatures and other parameters – has not changed as a result of the rise in CO2.

    It is all normal and natural climate variability. The null hypothesis has not been falsified.

  139. I suggest that we take Dr. Trenberth’s idea seriously and test drive the proposition that the NUL hypothesis should be reversed.

    But, why just limit it to climate “science”.
    The world of science is much wider and richer than that.

    Let’s start with, say STOMACH ulcers.
    Let’s make a new NUL hypothesis out of that.
    I’ll even thro[w] in a double negative to make it a little more interesting:

    “There is no significant evidence that stomach ulcers are not caused by stress”.
    Many thousands of doctors laboured for more than 100 years to disprove that hypothesis.

    WUWT?

  140. Any of you that may be still awake by now, may have noticed my (usual) typo.
    For “I’ll even THROUGH …..) the more scholarly amongst you may prefer “throw”, but I’ll leave that to you to decided as well.

  141. FWIW, there are observations that could be used to disclaim a human influence on climate (though that statement is a matter of degree).

    If you look at records of temperature going back pre-1900, the adjusters have altered trends more than highs and lows relative to adjacent years. In many parts of the world one can see hot years on or about 1914, 1941, 1970 and 1998. These just happen to be about 28 years apart for reasons I can only guess at.

    However, for each station that shows these hot years, there are many that do not. So, there is a process in action that in some parts of the world, before man became too active, where there are hot 1914s. There are other parts of the world where 1914 is not anomalous. So, the effects is not global unless there is a lot of noise, and they predate the great CO2 climb.

    Study the 1998 hot year in particular. It warmed land, sea and air, but only at some places, at much the same time. Further, if noise is not creating the pattern, there seem to be about 3 heat pulses of about two months each or less. This is not a pattern one would expect of man-made global warming from GHG and I think it is sufficient to call the reverse onus of proof.

  142. Alexander K says:
    January 27, 2011 at 2:24 am
    “I am more than a little surprised and disapointed that the AMS gave Trenberth time, space and a venue for his alarmist and dishonest nonsense.”

    It’s not surprising at all. This is the same organization that awarded James Hanson the Rossby Award, the Society’s highest honor, back in 2009.

  143. On the question of AGW/skeptics vs. evolution/intelligent design, I’ve never had problems with the science of what is commonly called “evolution,” – even though that term involves and entails a lot of stuff. Where I’ve had problems is with the philosophical conclusions some scientists draw from the evidence they have found. I see “intelligent design” as just another reasonable philosophical conclusion one can properly draw from reading or doing the science. Now I know some out there try to pawn it off as science, and there just isn’t enough evidence to make that kind of an argument. But I think it quite fair to see it that way from a religious or philosophical viewpoint. The world is not as random as we may think.

  144. tonyb says: I missed the programme but Stewart is an arch warmist so I would be surprised if he associated himself with the ice age message. What was the context?

    …Yes, I was surprised as well because I’ve objected in the past to Steward’s sweeping statements about AGW. On this occasion, he was in Scotland and talking to geologists (yes! real scientists!) who specialise in glaciers and ice age geology. On a calm lake in Scotland, they were examining the evidence at the bottom of the lake at the tracks carved out by the glaciers in the last ice age, which, being at the bottom of the lake, were perfectly preserved. Looking all around at the breathtaking scenery, Steward remarked that in 20,000 years or so the entire area would be covered in ice sheets the top of which would be at least 400 feet above him. He said he “couldn’t imagine it”. The real scientists then provided proof of what is going to happen, which he accepted, and then they ran a program illustrating the spread and extent of the next ice age which they said is already overdue.

    As 60% of the US is going to be covered in ice sheets up to two miles thick for thousands of years, maybe the Mexicans will be running border controls to keep the Americans out!

  145. “[ryanm: thanks anthony. small world: i sat next to dr. susan solomon while i took notes]”

    Well, don’t leave us hanging … did she crib?

  146. The trenberth quote

    “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. It likely also applies to the flooding in Queensland, Australia In January 2011.”

    He seems to be making calls on events that happened two weeks ago. I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark but I guess all the relevant data on the Queensland flood is collated, never mind a full analysis done. Where’s the science in that particular statement?

  147. HAS:

    Despite repeated explanations and corrections, at January 27, 2011 at 2:30 am, you yet again assert;

    “Just to remind – the null hypothesis is simply what the experimenter wishes it to be for the purpose of his/her experiment. There is no preordained null hypothesis, and the choice of it carries no presumptive weight..”

    No! That is a falsehood! And it is an attack on the scientific method.

    The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless there is empirical evidence that a change has occured.

    So, in the case of the cause(s) of climate change, the null hypothesis is that the causes of climate change are the same (i.e. natural) as the causes of previous and similar climate changes unless empirical evidence that shows a different cause is obtained.

    That is the ONLY null hypothesis concerning climate chjange and it is the governing hypothesis according to the scientific method. Any assertion is pure pseudioscience if it disputes this is the only null hypothesis concerning climate change.

    Richard

  148. Can I be the first to say this? I think the missing heat is being sequestered in ocean water below 2,000 meters.

    Or perhaps 20,000 fathoms. Something has to keep the beast warm. Or maybe the beast is the source of the warmth.

    Science note: 20,0000 fathoms is 120,000 feet. Which is approx 19.75 miles. The Mariana Trench is approximately 7 miles deep. It makes you wonder where the other 12 miles are.

  149. Jeff Alberts says:

    Joel’s argument falls apart when you come across atheists who question AGW.

    Only if you completely and utterly fail to comprehend it. I was not saying that (with the notable exception of one of the top “sketpic” climate scientists), those who are “skeptics” believe in creationism. What I was responding to was someone who tried to make an analogy between creationism and AGW by pointing out that the analogy utterly fails and works much better the other way around for the reasons that I explain.

    I suggest reading what I wrote again and trying to actually comprehend it. If my argument failed so badly, someone here would actually be able to shoot it down rather than just making snide remarks about it and attacking straw man versions of my argument.

  150. Kate says:
    January 28, 2011 at 1:43 am
    [….]
    As 60% of the US is going to be covered in ice sheets up to two miles thick for thousands of years,

    Watch the Democrats and EPA regulate that event…. Can’t you just visualize the Democrats of Chicago sending an entourage up to the face of the approaching glacier face on the southside of Milwaukee to cast carbonnated water and implorations of global warming and climate change at the groaning ice sheet as they wave copies of the applicable EPA regulations and a court restraining order?

  151. Joel Shore:

    At January 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm you yet again demonstrate that your ignorance is profound.

    I think I can help you in your self-proclaimed ignorance of the difference between Creationism and ‘climate scepticism’. It is as follows.

    Creationism
    There is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that evolutionary processes have happened and continue to happen but Creationists dispute the influence, effect and magnitude of those processes.

    ‘Climate scepticism’
    There is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that the AGW hypothesis is true and ‘climate sceptics’ point to the growing body of evidence (e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, Trenberth’s “missing heat”, etc.) which refutes the hypothesis.

    I hope that helps and you to now understand, but I recognise that it is not possible to help the deliberately ignorant.

    Richard

  152. Douglas, I really like the way you copy and paste that which you are about to critique, I so would like it if every one did it so that we don’t have to go back just to put a critique in context. . . thank you

    I am not an experienced user of the internet, but I do know that there is probably an easier way to link back to someones comment . . . but copy and paste works for me . . .
    Many times, I read comments on this site and I wonder who in the world some commenters are referring to when they make comments, I become confused & befuddled!

  153. D. Patterson says: “…Can’t you just visualize the Democrats of Chicago sending an entourage up to the face of the approaching glacier face on the southside of Milwaukee to cast carbonnated water and implorations of global warming and climate change at the groaning ice sheet as they wave copies of the applicable EPA regulations and a court restraining order?”

    …Yes, but only if patriotic Americans haven’t lynched them all first. Hopefully, the glacier will oblige us and bury them all in one of its spectacular ice falls. That would be poetic justice, indeed.

  154. John Brookes says:
    January 28, 2011 at 1:15 am

    I hearby declare 2011 “International Get Trenberth Year”.

    John, certainly as one of Thomas Sowell’s “annointed”, your powers cannot be assailed! But, just for some extra reassurance, please be so kind as to tell us what the “rest of the world” thinks of your declaration, because no doubt a bunch of us sceptics mistakenly think Trenberth’s already doing a good enough job of it all by himself!

  155. “”””” Laurie Bowen says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am
    Douglas, I really like the way you copy and paste that which you are about to critique, I so would like it if every one did it so that we don’t have to go back just to put a critique in context. . . thank you

    I am not an experienced user of the internet, but I do know that there is probably an easier way to link back to someones comment . . . but copy and paste works for me . . .
    Many times, I read comments on this site and I wonder who in the world some commenters are referring to when they make comments, I become confused & befuddled! “””””

    Well Laurie C&P is a good way to do it. I often C&P the whole post someone left; and then if I can erase a bunch of stuff that is not pertinent to what i want to add; tyring, when I do this to indicate deliberate editing with a bunch of …………. and then I use my maxi quotes:- “”””” blah blah blah “””””, which is five times double quotes and spaces at each end for clarity.

    But you are right, a lot of times, I can’t tell who is saying what or complaining about what. It helps to at least C&P the header of whoever said what; then we can go back and find that post if we want to knoww aht was said. A big problem with this sort of “Stream of consciousness” forum, is that people read the (article; maybe!) and then post a comment; and never read what anyone else has already posted. As a result I see all sorts of interesting postage by others; and find that nobody ever bothered to engate in tete a tete with them. Nested formats, tend to eliminate that problem; but have some of their own; such as hijacking the whole thread onto some side track shunting rail.

    I would never suggest to Anthony to alter his format; because it IS the format of WUWT; and properly used by posters, it does work very well; but people should at least put some delimiter around what they excerpt. And for those who haven’t noticed; if you C&P from a post that has ben formatted somehow into italics or some other editorial wizardry; all of that vanishes when you C&P it with what M$ has given us to work with; so it is NOT a good way to distinguish stuff.

    G

  156. “”””” Richard S Courtney says:
    January 28, 2011 at 5:04 am
    HAS:

    Despite repeated explanations and corrections, at January 27, 2011 at 2:30 am, you yet again assert;

    “Just to remind – the null hypothesis is simply what the experimenter wishes it to be for the purpose of his/her experiment. There is no preordained null hypothesis, and the choice of it carries no presumptive weight..”

    No! That is a falsehood! And it is an attack on the scientific method. “””””

    Good to see your shingle here more often Richard. Just when I think insanity has headed for the cash window with the chips; you show up to pour some oil on the waters.

    George

  157. “”””” Larry in Texas says:
    January 28, 2011 at 1:13 am
    On the question of AGW/skeptics vs. evolution/intelligent design, I’ve never had problems with the science of what is commonly called “evolution,” “””””

    Well Larry iT, we are fairly sure that at the moment of conception, only a single cell is present; ergo, only ONE person can be present at that time, to collect it’s Social Security number. Certainly only one set of DNA is there. Yet at birth; there could be a catastrophic birth defect result, and the baby is born totally malformed; even in two or three parts; that look remarkably similar and alive; but only one of them can have the SS# bestowed at conception.

    But we are told, that the DNA is no longer identical. The multiple cell divisions have resulted in many typos, so the two or three pieces that we call identical twins or identical triplets; are no longer identical; and grow even less identical as they age.

    So “evolution” couldn’t possibly be happening could it ? If evolution happened, children would not look exactly like one of their parents, for the two majority genders; or identical to both of them for Hermaphrodites.

  158. The only way that Trenberth and his followers can win the debate is if they do turn the null hypothesis on its head and force skeptics to prove him wrong. Of course that goes against everything in science, but fits in perfectly with religion (where followers challenge non-believers to prove them false).

  159. Richard S Courtney says:

    I think I can help you in your self-proclaimed ignorance of the difference between Creationism and ‘climate scepticism’. It is as follows.

    I hope that helps and you to now understand, but I recognise that it is not possible to help the deliberately ignorant.

    No…It doesn’t help one bit and I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would think otherwise. It is just one person’s opinion. How is a policymaker supposed to decide about the current scientific status of AGW and of evolution? Are they supposed to solicit Richard S Courtney’s opinion? Do you really think that is realistic?

    So, tell me, what sort of OBJECTIVE criterion could they use to determine the answer? I would submit that the best way we know how to do this is to have them solicit the opinion of the scientific societies that have been set up, some with this sort of purpose in mind, societies like the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. or the Royal Society in London (or, on AGW, also the IPCC).

    An argument based on Richard S Courtney’s personal assessment of the science (or Joel D. Shore’s personal assessment of the science) frankly is not worth diddlysquat! And, I find it bizarre that you actually think it is.

  160. George E.Smith says:

    “… people should at least put some delimiter around what they excerpt.”

    About six months ago I discovered the “blockquote” and “/blockquote” tags (inside angle brackets, of course) and have used them ever since. I think the indentation they provide is a great help.

  161. PHEW! The seemingly endless amount of sheep are back in the paddocks, and I can refresh myself this afternoon… Did anybody miss me? (warm smiles)

    Now, where were we? Oh yeah. It’s ‘Dr. Trenberth time’ and his ‘much anticipated’ speech. In which he said nothing new ~ with the marked exception of ramping up irrational hatred of his enemies Du jour ~ ‘The Deniers’.

    Frankly, Scarlett’s ~ I have had it up to ‘HERE’ with the Global (in this case, scientific) Elite and their dual obnoxious methods of Behavioral-ism-ing (aspiring Linguist, you see). What bores me to no end is that they only have ‘two hands’ to entertain us with when dealing with ‘The People in the Audience of the World’.

    BIG Yawn… Allow me just one moment to explain, I promise (this time) I’ll be quick.

    In one hand they recite verbal hatred and demean those which merely disagree with them (by forever dragging in the lowest possible common denominator) by purporting in this case, that their ‘adversaries dujour’ aren’t quote unquote ‘scientific’ – when, in fact – their “Agenda” comes from an old dusty Sociologist’s Playbook.

    (Anyone else ever notice that in the last 15 years ‘The art of Debate’ has been twisted (as has Poetry) into something strange and akin to verbal mud wrestling…? hmmm? Do you REALLY think that’s ‘Progressive’, do you? It’s the ultimate in oxymoron – right next to ‘Planned Parenthood’….No little wonder ‘Progressive’ used to only be used in HIGH RISK insurance, methinks…

    Anyhow ~ ‘Hand’ #1 just has one ‘little ball’ to toss into the air that deals with all the supposed intellectuals on this planet.

    In the other Hand, they have billions of dollars and ‘useful idiots’. This hand foments and channels physical and irrational anger ~ to cause physical uprisings (or, hahaha… ‘real’ Climate Change) in places like the Middle East – at the moment. They actually place adverts in local papers and solicit for ‘activists’ the going weekly wage of the area! In the 80’s in Cleveland, Ohio, it was $600 U.S.D. per week…not bad, huh? (I wonder what they pay Dr. Trenberth for his ‘smoke and mirrors’ she muses…)

    Well, I for one, am bored with ‘Our Global Jugglers’ which only have the capacity to juggle two balls in their two (albeit large and cumbersome) hands.

    One hand – ‘forever’ increasing cognitive dissonance within the intellectual community by giving speeches like Trenberths’~ orrrrrrr… Hand Two – the incitement of of a never ending supply of ‘young useful idiots’ urging them into acts of violence. (Can we all say: ‘Dear Old’ (now) Francis Fox Piven, Class?) It’s right outta her and her hubby’s playbook. Face it – if Glenn Beck can get everyone in the U.S. to buy truly historical books over the past 2 years – Cloward & Piven’s strategies are playing out in what’s happening in the Middle East this very night.

    I think the worst BEST example I heard today, actually – was…. Our current ‘birthcertificateless’ president (decidedly little p) coming on Cable in a FOX NEWS ALERT telling those poor kids over there that it was right and ‘okay’ to believe in the concept of freedom… When he is – in fact – with his OTHER HAND – stamping it out in the U.S.A. How tragic. I mean…scientists unite. How can we be hearing that Soetoro
    will have an internet ‘kill switch’ just one day ago – and TODAY have the same character tellin’ the waifs of Egypt that ‘they too’ can ‘live the American Dream’! (What a nightmare, right?)

    I mean, how does anyone like Birthcertificateless Barry (and again akin to Trenberth) have the chutzpa to say that while he’s taking apart the land of my birth piece by ever lovin’ piece? Again. They can only play with 2 balls in the air at the same time and it’s what is gonna get them exposed for good this time.

    Two hands – Two balls. ‘Climate Change’/’Global Governance’ only two balls in the air at all times…

    Our supposed ‘Intelligentsia’ is intellectually bankrupt, my friends. This cool internet ‘w.w.w.’ (world wide web) that they’ve built around us all ~ has now become the forum through which Truth is being exposed on a hitherto unknown Grand Scale. Amazing, isn’t it? The very vehicle built to enslave – now, frees. Oh, the Delicious Irony of it.

    You know – even if you don’t “believe the Bible”, you should ‘at least’ read the part when it talks about digging a pit for someone and the propensity for falling into it with no outside assistance whatsoever… It’s truly a Great Read, and simply ‘a must’ – for wanna-be-Scholars…

    No one I know of is becoming shaken at all because we’ve long seen their agenda from a far off. (Personally ~ I am relieved that all this manufactured ‘stress’ and strain is being exposed – it’s almost cathartic feeling, isn’t it? almost ‘freeing’???

    Here, here’s my word picture to sum this all up and I’ll be done with the ‘rant’… and I bet if I’d given this ‘talk’ to the Scientists in that room a few days ago – we would’ve had many questions and even a template for ‘WORLD PEACE’ as we ordered out for pizzas and yacked far into the evening at some favorite pub…but, I digress once more.

    Imagine a huge theater. A GLOBAL THEATER, in fact.

    While the audience sits in the shadows, the newest ‘Juggler’ is in center-stage spotlight. By all ‘perception’ it looks as if the Juggler has firm and total control of the room… (Trenberth, Soros, Clinton, Gilliard, even the Liberal guy…Tony Abbott…here in OZ – it truly matters not ‘who is the Juggler’ at the time… ALL of them can only juggle two at one time.)

    But, anyhow… Once his/her Audience becomes bored to tears with either one ball or the other… “The Great Global Audience” will tire of the show and get up ‘en masse’ or one at a time ~ or mebbe even leave in droves by their (gasp!) sexual preferences… (for who truly cares what another does in their bedroom – as long as kids don’t get hurt and parties are consensual, right?) and all adults begin to exit the Theater… (NO NEED to ‘yell fire’ in that crowded place, either!)

    Everyone – globally will simply begin re-assert God-given human freedoms and live and govern themselves as they should.

    Here’s the last GREAT PART… (oh, I always do love a happy ending!)

    Then, that LARGE WORLD STAGE that Dr. Trenberth, his cronies and their Handlers stand upon will look out onto the emptiness of The Global Theater and someone will catch on that the PUBLIC has gone and finally (saving energy, of course) some flunky will flick the switch for the spotlight into the ‘OFF’ position.

    Leaving ~ all our charlatan Jugglers of the Global Stage with no audience. No audience whatsoever. Both groups – formerly ruled by one of two hands – finally learned the Truth that they could stand up on their own accord and go home, or to school, or to the office, or to Jenny Craig for goodness sakes… They could go ANYWHERE else because the Global Theatrics that have been going on wear very very thin on human beings who love being entertained – but, loathe hearing that other humans are being considered less than any other human being on earth. Yeah. It’s like: ‘Don’t Tread On My Brother OR Me’. THAT’S what adults humans ‘are about’.

    With or without financing – with or without televisions – even with or without ARMS (I’m talkin’ the kinds that come outta shoulder sockets, like kids in Slum Dog Millionaire!) we will merely stop participating as ‘the audience in the dark’ if we are no longer entertained – and are only being demeaned by one hand or the other.

    Soooooo…. I guess that’s my cue… Yeah. I’m standing up outta my seat for the moment…

    So, now ~ if you Ladies and Gentlemen excuse me… I’m taking my own advice, and not stressing over one hand: Trenberth or the other: Egypt.

    I’m going surf-fishing across from the farmhouse… The weather is grand (70F) (regardless of what you’ve heard!) and the seas truly magnificent – the skies tonight ~ truly the envy of the world… so, I’ve decided to go toward The Exit of this grand Global Theater this late afternoon…

    Excuse me, oh…yes. thanks. Sorry,ooophs…Excuse me…Thank You….sorry…thanks.
    (Phew ~ SUNLIGHT! YAHOO.)
    Cynthia Lauren Thorpe

  162. HAS says:
    January 27, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    [snip comments on a previous post – j]
    Sorry, as a scientist I am free to do what I want when it comes to setting nulls and alternates. How I do that will be fundamental to my experimental design, the results I might produce, and the value of my experiment.

    You can’t tell me what to test, and nor can Dr T.
    —————————————————————–
    No wonder science is in such a state. Your post reminds me of the famous Alice in Wonderland quote about a word meaning what I want it to mean etc.

    I am appalled that anyone who calls themselves a scientist can claim that:

    “as a scientist I am free to do what I want when it comes to setting nulls and alternates.”

    As an individual, you are certainly free to do that. As a scientist, you have no idea. According to you, the null hypothesis is anything you might come up with in the bath or shower (depending on where you live) that morning.

    Codswallop.

  163. Joel Shore:

    At January 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm you said you did not know the difference between ‘Creationism’ and ‘climate scepticism’. So, at January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am, I took the trouble to explain this to you by writing:

    “Creationism
    There is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that evolutionary processes have happened and continue to happen but Creationists dispute the influence, effect and magnitude of those processes.

    ‘Climate scepticism’
    There is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that the AGW hypothesis is true and ‘climate sceptics’ point to the growing body of evidence (e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, Trenberth’s “missing heat”, etc.) which refutes the hypothesis.”

    At January 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm you have replied to that by saying;

    “No…It doesn’t help one bit and I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would think otherwise.”
    and you added a load of irrelevant twaddle about “personal opinion” and decisions of policymakers.

    Well, I find it “utterly incomprehensible” that anybody of average intelligence could fail to understand the differences that I explained. Perhaps the reason for your failure is in the statement with which I concluded my post at January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am: it was,

    “I hope that helps and you to now understand, but I recognise that it is not possible to help the deliberately ignorant.”

    I suggest that you need to ponder the matter.

    Richard

  164. Richard:

    I understand what your opinion is, but it is an opinion that is not shared by most of the scientific community. [And, in fact, it is an opinion not even shared by fellow AGW-skeptic Roy Spencer, who does not feel that the evidence for evolution (at least on a macro scale) is very overwhelming.]

    It is basically just tautology…You are an AGW-skeptic, ergo you do not feel there is lots of empirical evidence for AGW. That does not make your belief true any more than it would make the similar belief of a creationist about evolution true. How can you rationally expect a policymaker to take your assessment of the science more seriously than the assessment of the actual scientists in the field, the various scientific bodies like the NAS, Royal Society, etc., etc? Do you seriously expect them to say, “Well, on this side we have the assessment by all these scientists but how can we trust them when we have someone from the coal industry whose assessment differs?

    If you want to get the ear of any policymakers other than those ideologically-inclined toward your point of view, you have to actually convince the scientific community of your opinion. And, you do that by engaging them in the serious scientific journals and such.

  165. Joel Shore, you are simply using the illogical and deceitful fallback argument all Alarmists sooner or later use; the Argument from Authority, or “Consensus” argument.
    As for tautologies how’s this one; you are a Warmist Believer ergo you feel that “the science is settled”, and that the null hypothesis now is that mankind is primarily to blame, via his production of C02 for the recent (greatly exaggerated) warming. Clearly, you are blinded by your own belief system, and you prefer it that way for some reason.
    It is, as Richard says, a “deliberate ignorance”.

  166. Joel Shore says:
    January 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    “Well, on this side we have the assessment by all these scientists but how can we trust them when we have someone from the coal industry whose assessment differs?

    Except for the above statement, your stance is reasonable. Imagine how many people would have died this winter if it were not for the coal industry. You seem to be resorting to the tactic used by many of the politically motivated CAGW supporters trying to denigrate skeptics as deniers, and suggesting there is a conspiracy similar to one we have been led to believe was perpetrated by tobacco companies.

    I have been thinking about comparisons between the creationist/evolution and CAGW/climate skeptic discussions for some time, and now I have recent experience with another; abiotic oil/organic oil, where the following blog was commandeered by abiotic oil proponents who seem motivated by an almost religious fervour: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/shale-gas-boom-on/

    I have to admit to bias obtained through a science background, but find myself skeptical of climate alarmism, which seems to be more anti-development than scientific. Emission of CO2 may in fact influence climate, but a long view tells me it is self-limiting, and it’s influence is certainly not linear, as the earth has apparently not warmed significantly in over a decade and CO2 emissions have risen considerably.

  167. Joel Shore:

    At January 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm you say to me:

    “It is basically just tautology…You are an AGW-skeptic, ergo you do not feel there is lots of empirical evidence for AGW.”

    No! That is the precise opposite of the truth!

    I know there is no empirical evidence for AGW while there is much empirical evidence that refutes it and, therefore, I am an AGW-skeptic.

    At January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am I wrote, and at January 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm, I repeated:

    “There is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that the AGW hypothesis is true and ‘climate sceptics’ point to the growing body of evidence (e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, Trenberth’s “missing heat”, etc.) which refutes the hypothesis.”

    To prove me wrong you only needed to provide one solitary piece of empirical evidence for AGW. But you did not. Instead, you repeatedly asserted that I was providing an “opinion” (n.b. not scientific fact) and resorted to ad hom.

    Your response is a proof beyond doubt that you know I am right.

    Richard

  168. Richard,

    I and plenty of others have talked about the wealth of empirical evidence before. However, if you really believe there isn’t any, you are not going to be convinced by anything along those lines that I will say….When you set yourself up as judge and jury, you can conclude whatever you want to believe, which is what you will do.

    Flask says:

    You seem to be resorting to the tactic used by many of the politically motivated CAGW supporters trying to denigrate skeptics as deniers, and suggesting there is a conspiracy similar to one we have been led to believe was perpetrated by tobacco companies.

    No, Flask, in this case I am simply stating what industry Richard is in fact employed in (assuming the information available on the web is still up-to-date): http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney I think people deserve to know when someone has that strong an interest that would tend to influence their views on this matter. I am not claiming that this is true of most of those who are skeptics…I think that for most it is more ideological reasons…but in Richard’s case there is apparently more than just that.

  169. Joel Shore:

    You are making a fool of yourself.

    In response to my challenge for you to cite one single, solitary piece of empirical evidence for AGW, in your post at January 30, 2011 at 6:27 pm you assert:

    ” I and plenty of others have talked about the wealth of empirical evidence before. ”

    But you do not mention any such empirical evidence BECAUSE YOU KNOW THERE IS NONE.

    And your ad hom. comments about me do not change that obvious fact.

    So, I will not answer any more of your nonsense unless and until you cite some empirical evidence for AGW (n.b. anthropogenic warming and not merely warming that is recovery from the LIA).

    Richard

  170. Bruce Cobb says:

    Joel Shore, you are simply using the illogical and deceitful fallback argument all Alarmists sooner or later use; the Argument from Authority, or “Consensus” argument.

    Bruce,

    That is because it is very hard to argue against nonsense at some point. The fact is that authorities in science are authorities for a reason and if you are much less of an authority and reach a conclusion in conflict with the one that they authorities have reached, perhaps you need to re-examine what you believe. It takes a certain lack of humility to conclude that the authorities are all wrong and you are right.

    Richard:

    In a nutshell, our current understanding of AGW is based on a wealth of empirical data, starting with the data showing the rise in CO2 levels…and their close tie to the rise in anthropogenic emissions, proceeding through the fact that it is warming and that the warming shows basic features in agreement with the prediction that the warming mechanism is due to greenhouse gases (such as cooling of the stratosphere while the surface warms). It is also based on all of the empirical data that we have regarding the absorption spectrum of CO2 and our understanding of radiative and convective transfer and how these translate in a radiative imbalance or “forcing”, a forcing that every serious scientist including Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer agrees with. Empirical evidence of the climate sensitivity being about 0.75 +/-0.25 K per (W/m^2) comes from climate changes that have occurred in the past, such as the glacial – interglacial transitions and our estimates of all of the forcings that produced these changes. There is now also strong empirical evidence from the satellite record that the water vapor feedback is happening in the way that the models predict (as found by Dessler and by Soden et al., for instance). While cloud feedbacks remain a source of uncertainty in regards to the magnitude of effects predicted by the models, a negative cloud feedback makes it very difficult to understand paleoclimate, as well as to understand the climate record of the last century of so.

    This is just some of the empirical data that would lead almost any serious scientist to laugh at your assertion that there is no empirical data supporting AGW. What is your hypothesis for why basically all the major scientific organizations on the planet believe that there is strong empirical evidence for AGW? Are they all deceiving us or are they all deceived and how can you explain such mass deception?

    There is a reason why we have built our modern society on the best scientific understanding available. You will throw us back into the Dark Ages by trying to get us to abandon science as informing public policy when the science concludes things that you don’t like.

    It is fine for you to try to win the day with your arguments in the scientific community…I have no problem with that. It’s what science is all about. However, what has happened is that you have been losing the argument in the scientific community so you are instead trying to get the public and policymakers to go along with your ideas despite the fact that the scientific community has rejected them. It is the same strategy followed by the creationists and by the tobacco companies. And, it is fundamentally an attack on science and especially on the use of science to intelligently inform public policy.

  171. Joel Shore said

    ‘The fact is that authorities in science are authorities for a reason” . . . . . You got that right Joel . . . and on this subject it is because they were a bunch of boot lickin “huckster” kissin jack asses . . . . No two ways about it . . .

    Sorry, fella . . .

  172. Joel Shore,

    “There is now also strong empirical evidence from the satellite record that the water vapor feedback is happening in the way that the models predict (as found by Dessler and by Soden et al., for instance).”

    That was hardly a point in dispute, there is also empirical evidence that the negative feedback from precipitation is perhaps twice as strong as the models represent in the recent warming, and this is before the incredible model temperature projections. The crux of the issue is whether NET feedbacks are positive or negative, and current climate models lack credibility when it comes to a basic part of the water cycle, i.e., precipitation, much less clouds.

    Climate sensitivities from glacial/interglacial transitions are not relevant to the sensitivity of the current climate over the next couple centuries, unless there is evidence we are close to one of those tipping points.

  173. Martin Lewitt:

    That was hardly a point in dispute, there is also empirical evidence that the negative feedback from precipitation is perhaps twice as strong as the models represent in the recent warming, and this is before the incredible model temperature projections.

    I don’t see how precipitation is a negative feedback. It just redistributes energy between the surface and the rest of the troposphere. I agree that clouds are a source of uncertainty but the evidence for a negative cloud feedback miraculously saving us from a pretty sizeable climate sensitivity is based mainly on wishful thinking.

    Climate sensitivities from glacial/interglacial transitions are not relevant to the sensitivity of the current climate over the next couple centuries, unless there is evidence we are close to one of those tipping points.

    So, you are assuming that basically the climate is insensitive except for tipping points and furthermore assuming that there are no tipping points that we need to be concerned about? Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking again. There is little reason to believe that the climate system behaves miraculously differently between the glacial and interglacial climates than it does for a warming from the interglacial, especially when you consider that the estimates of the climate sensitivity from the last glacial maximum to now take the ice albedo effects to be part of the forcing. If you consider them as being feedbacks (as any such changes would be in the current “experiment” we are carrying out), the implied sensitivity, as Hansen has noted, is about twice is large. There are some good reasons to be hopeful that the effects will indeed be smaller (and on a slow enough timescale) for a warming from the interglacial climate…But saying that just says that 6 C per CO2 doubling is probably an overestimate and hopefully ~3 C per CO2 doubling is not a significant underestimate.

  174. Joel Shore,

    “I don’t see how precipitation is a negative feedback. It just redistributes energy between the surface and the rest of the troposphere.”

    Precipitation is part of what that “positive feedback” water vapor is doing in the atmosphere. It evaporatively cools the surface and releases that latent heat higher in the atmosphere above most of the CO2 and water vapor where the heat can be radiated into space. A couple extra turns of the water cycle and the net impact is negative rather than positive feedback.

    “So, you are assuming that basically the climate is insensitive except for tipping points and furthermore assuming that there are no tipping points that we need to be concerned about?”

    Essentially, yes about the tipping points and doubly yes about the need to be concerned, considering that so far there is not any evidence that the sensitiveity to CO2 in the current regime rises above a mere warming perturbation of natural variability, i.e., a sensitivity on the order of its direct effects. Actually, we might want to be concerned about the transition into an ice age, since that is the tipping point we know about. The greenland and antarctic ice sheets have survived much longer and warmer periods of warming, and analysis the glacial outlets for Greenland’s ice sheet show that there would have to be continuous flows out of all the outlets at rate seen for only hours at a time at any one outlet in order for there to be any significant impact, and even that would not be a significant positive feedback to the warming, but just a meter or so sea level rise. A few hours on individual outlets once or twice a year doesn’t cut it. It needs to be happening continuously on all outlets and even then we have a century to adapt.

    If there is a tipping point there it might be cooling brought on by fresh water fluxes disrupting Atlantic currents. But not even these models have shown that we are close to that.

  175. Martin Lewitt says:

    Precipitation is part of what that “positive feedback” water vapor is doing in the atmosphere. It evaporatively cools the surface and releases that latent heat higher in the atmosphere above most of the CO2 and water vapor where the heat can be radiated into space. A couple extra turns of the water cycle and the net impact is negative rather than positive feedback.

    What you are describing is basically the lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback that is already in all of the climate models. If you want to argue that this feedback is being underestimated, that would be mean that the warming of the upper troposphere relative to the surface would be underestimated. However, this is exactly the opposite of what many skeptics have argued…i.e., the “missing hot spot” in the tropical troposphere would mean that the transport of heat from the surface into the troposphere is being overestimated, not underestimated. (Although, I think a more likely problem is some residual artifacts in the data sets that contaminate the long term trends.)

    As for the rest of your post, it again sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else. It basically amounts to: “The climate system is sensitive to perturbations when I want it to be (because I invoke tipping points) but insensitive when I don’t want it to be.” It is the sort of argument that people come up with when they start from the notion that they don’t want any regulation of CO2 emissions and work backwards to desperately try to find science to justify what they want to believe.

    The greenland and antarctic ice sheets have survived much longer and warmer periods of warming, and analysis the glacial outlets for Greenland’s ice sheet show that there would have to be continuous flows out of all the outlets at rate seen for only hours at a time at any one outlet in order for there to be any significant impact, and even that would not be a significant positive feedback to the warming, but just a meter or so sea level rise.

    Actually, the paleoclimate data shows that the sensitivity of sea level to temperature seems to be much greater than what the IPCC is forecasting, suggesting that the Greenland ice sheet and part of the Antarctica ice sheet are very sensitive to temperature changes. Of course, part of that is due to the fact that we are hopeful that some of the melting processes are slow enough that they won’t happen over the timescale of a century or so…but that is not clear. (Clearly, part of the Antarctic ice sheet is in very cold locations that will not experience significant melting for the envisioned temperature rises, but there is plenty enough ice sheet to cause several meters of rise that is not so stable.)

  176. Joel Shore,

    The precipitation deficit in the models documented by Wentz in the journal science, was not just in the tropics. It isn’t in the models, hot spot or not.

    You don’t seem to understand the basic asymmetry of tipping points, they are called tipping points for a reason. If you move closer to the tipping point you risk going over and having far more dramatic change, going away from the tipping point is just business as usual. The sensitivity would be great in one direction and not in the other. The basic point that sensitivity across a glacial/inter-glacial transition is just not relevant, unless you think the climate is cooling.

    We are not just “hopeful that some of the melting processes are slow enough”, we know they are slow right now in greenland, and would have to be much faster to amount to a meter or so sea level rise, and we know that Antarctica is no where near warm enough to start melting, except for the peninsula which is in a different climate zone. To the extent that warming increases precipitation, Antarctica will actually add mass.

Comments are closed.