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 The term “ClimateGate” should have been replaced by “swiftboating”.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
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.
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?
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
PALSy – Politicians Acting Like Scientists
HAMAS – Human Activists Masquerading As Scientists
POPE – POliticians Playing Experts
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
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.
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!
I know where Trenberth’s missing energy is going…
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/models/build-pm.htm
If you can’t stand (up) the warming, stay out of the bitchin’.
(tm Snotrocket) 🙂
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?
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”.
Brand name… hmm…
Climatalogical United Nations Taskforce?
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.
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.
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.
Can I be the first to say this? I think the missing heat is being sequestered in ocean water below 2,000 meters.
To FS: Don’t you see this? There is a teleconnection between atmospheric CO2 and deep ocean water.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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
Udar says: . . . “Denier” . . . . a deliberate insult, . . . .
You mean worthy of condemnation . . . like Heritic . .
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.