Trenberth at AMS defends himself against deniers

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.

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.

It’s a travesty that i can’t find his missing brain.

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]

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.

Geesh, it almost makes you embarrassed to call yourself a scientist.

Surely this is exactly the kind of rant that deserves any ad hominem attack he receives?

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.

ha ha that should be enought to get me another grant

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.

“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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.
=============

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.”

This “re-education” campaign needs a brand name.
How about:
“And travesty marches on”

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.

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.

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

“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.

******
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.

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.

My vote goes to “Consensus Uber Alles”

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. . .

No sunspots for you Trenberth.

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

I think I just called Trenberth a Climate Nazi.
No Sunspots for you Trenberth. Next!

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.

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?

PALSy – Politicians Acting Like Scientists
HAMAS – Human Activists Masquerading As Scientists
POPE – POliticians Playing Experts

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.

I know where Trenberth’s missing energy is going…
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/models/build-pm.htm

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?

Brand name… hmm…
Climatalogical United Nations Taskforce?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

Udar says: . . . “Denier” . . . . a deliberate insult, . . . .
You mean worthy of condemnation . . . like Heritic . .

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.

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…

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.

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.

Frank K. says:
January 27, 2011 at 5:12 am
OK i need to clean my monitor now very funny. 🙂

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

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.

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.

If Trenberth thinks the Queensland floods were the result of AGW then maybe someone who knows his contact details can pass on the following link to him so can educate himself abit on the climate of Queensland ( NB. the paper refered to in the link was written in 2006 )
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/is-it-time-to-listen-to-so-called-deniers/#more-7359

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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/

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.

You’ve heard of the Chewbacca defense?
Now we have the Trenberth Defense: http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/images/lalala.jpg

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?

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.

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!

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?

“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.

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?

kcom:
January 28, 2011 at 5:38 am
Are you referring to “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea”? I think that refers to distance traveled, not depth.

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!

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!

“”””” 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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.