Despite the recent editorial in Nature saying that there’s no current connection between the two, NCAR’s Dr. Kenneth Trenberth is going to pitch connections between extreme weather and climate change anyway at an upcoming seminar at the University of New South Wales in Australia. From their website:
Kevin Trenberth public lecture: Extreme weather and its links to climate change
The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is sponsoring a free public lecture at UNSW from 6:30pm, Tuesday, October 16, by internationally recognised climate scientist Dr Kevin Trenberth.
The lecture explores the links between extreme weather events and climate change by one of sciences leading voices who is actively exploring that connection.
With the summer Arctic ice reaching it’s lowest extent during the period of the satellite record in September of this year and a rash of extreme weather events causing billions of dollars damage throughout 2012, the links Dr Trenberth describes in this lecture are of growing importance.
In this public lecture, Dr Trenberth will explain why global warming is occurring and reveal how heating the planet has generated many different kinds of extreme weather events around the world.
As a climate scientist of 40 years, since receiving his degree in meteorology in 1972, Dr Trenberth brings a wealth of experience to the topic.
He is currently a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado and was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr Trenberth also served from 1999 to 2006 on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and chaired the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panel from 2004 to 2010. He now chairs the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) scientific steering group.
During his extensive career, he has published over 480 scientific articles or papers, including 47 books or book chapters and over 213 refereed journal articles and is widely regarded as one of the world leaders in his field.
There is only limited seating for this one-off Sydney lecture, so it is important to RSVP early to COECSS@unsw.edu.au if you want to be a part of the audience.
DETAILS:
Time: 6:30pm sharp
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2012.
Venue: Leighton Hall, The Scientia Building, University of NSW
RSVP: COECSS@unsw.edu.au
h/t to WUWT reader AndyG55
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@John Brooks
Yes it is harder to have these extreme heat events in earlier times when black top hadn’t been invented yet. Or do you mean even earlier times such as 12,000 years ago during the last ice age?
John Brookes, impossible only by ignoring the 1930’s. In theory CO2 warming may add slightly to the extreme heat, but global warming doesn’t start the heat wave, nor end it. U.S. extreme heat will typically come from La Nina, although a strong El Nino can bring heat as well.
John Brookes says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:30 am
I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.
Of course if you think that Leprechauns are causing the warming, don’t let me influence you…
The only thing you achieve at each of your visits here is to ably demostrate what a gold plated pillock you are. In american, that is [trimmed].
[Recommend you re-submit this to clarify what quotes you are (apparently) to ascribe to John Brooks, and which you are assigning to yourself. Mod]
gallopingcamel says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:20 am
One should not need an “Editorial in Nature” to realize that providing “Attributions” that will stand up in court is not likely to be available within anyone’s lifetime.
Oh I don’t know – legal affairs tend to bite back sometimes. I would imagine in the dark of night KT, Flannery and others might awake sweating about the idea that _they_ could be sued for causing the loss of industries due to their totally incorrect advice. Lawyers will be able to point at the papers from ‘deniers’ that show how the climate models were hopelessly wrong, yet KT, Flannery et al continued to advise governments otherwise despite no empirical evidence in support of their claims and significant evidence falsifying their claims. What is the cost of the coal mines in the eastern US being closed to ‘reduce carbon emissions’? What is the cost to airlines worldwide of carbon taxes, what is the impact on Australian mining and heavy industry? What is the cost of desalination plants that aren’t needed and recovery from flood damage due to lack of flood defenses?
Climate ‘scientists’ should be extremely cautious about involving litigation once the genie is out of the bottle it may prove very unfriendly to them.
Neil says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:28 am
OK Neil. You are correct that Nature editorials are NOT “the ultimate authority on this (or anything).” But please show us all how the climate models can be used to reliably and conclusively demonstrate the connection between extreme weather events and climate. You can start with the differential equations for any of the climate models. I know you won’t take me up on this – most CAGW apologists go running for the hills when mention is made of differential equations, boundary conditions, and numerical methods…
Victor, your beliefs aren’t any better than those of who you rail against. Stick to facts related to the topic.
The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
Presumably, ‘excellence’ here is defined as: manipulated data, ability to tell/write scary stories and extreme grant addiction.
I have read through some 1000 years of Climate observations for England from such diverse sources as The Met Office Archives, Exeter Cathedral, Devon records office, Hubert Lamb and Woods.
My cautious observation would be that;
1) Catastrophic climate events were much more common in the past than today and indeed it appears we live in a relatively benign age.
2) Most of the (non volcanic) catastrophic events that can be traced happened durng the LIA, not the warmest periods. This is likely because the energy created during intense cold/intense heat (as ocurred frequently through the LIA) creates more energy-and hence opportunity for notable climate events-than occurs during warm periods which do not have the same fluctuation of warm/cold and do not create high levels of energy.
tonyb
John Brookes says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:30 am
I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.
==============================================================
Then you haven’t examined temperature records.
I’m disgusted that my tax dollars are funding both the visit of this charlatan and the permanent group at the Uni of NSW who, and Gary must check this, are CORRECTLY quoted by Anthony as promoting the vist of “Kevin”. You obviosly did not make the link, Gary!
I don’t know about other types of extreme weather, but I’m betting that the extreme heat events of recent years would have been just about impossible in earlier times.
Summer heat doesn’t tell you anything about the heat gain of the climate system on an annual basis. It doesn’t matter how hot summers get, or how much Arctic ice melts, if that heat is lost in winter. Ignoring the fact temperatures don’t measure heat gain/loss.
And winters have been getting colder.
Welcome to the Little Ice Age mark II.
John Brookes: not a bet you would win. Try a little history like, for example, the great famine of 1315-1317 in Britain and Northern Europe brought on by continuous summer rainfalls which destroyed crops. Try also the droughts of the 1930’s which created the dust bowls of the US. The evidence suggests that during earlier warming periods (the Roman and MWP) climate variability in Northern Europe was somewhat muted compared with the centuries that followed. Pray hard that the current upswing in climate is not short-lived – the alternative, history teaches us – could be extremely nasty.
DirkH says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:16 am
I agree – My point was that KT MAY well be a good scientist but his actions are not those of a good scientist……….and whilst I have no desire to defend him per se, he may well have been suckered like the rest of the sheeple – of course, the main difference being that he forgot the scientific method when he should have known better – so yeah, no defence!
Yes Gary, the Editorial simply continues: “As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming.”
Start here 🙂
Those of you who may own a business or work around a lot of cash have read a statistic that over 90% of those who handle cash or have access to it will steal if given the opportunity. With that in mind, we turn to television, particularly the news hour. The weather report is the most important to viewers interest, that is why it is the last event of the news show. Now then, move to climate scare. It is the easiest of sciences to grab public attention, since we see the weather report everywhere. And with the funneling of billions of dollars into weather (not climate) change, then it is easy for those 90% to dip into the trough to make the best dollar they can out of the weather (not climate) change hoax. CAGW has become less a concern to the public because the claimed predictions do not match the everyday weather we see. Every little odd bit of out of normal weather has been blamed on AGW to the point people now laugh with sarcasm regarding those current acclamations; to the point we blame our flat tire on CAGW, or my milk soured, or my dog died.
Point here is some careers have wondered off the path of ethics in the wash of money surrounding the research which was duped out of our governments by a few scare mongers how relied on their deception over the ignorant. Maybe we can apply the 80 – 20 rule, which has a way of flipping.
gallopingcamel says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:20 am
One should not need an “Editorial in Nature” to realize that providing “Attributions” that will stand up in court is not likely to be available within anyone’s lifetime.
I wish. How did the EPA get a court to allow an endangerment finding for CO2?
Imagine the cartoon where the Trenberth Ostrich visits Australia and is pictured with its head in a hole in the ground while the tail high in the air is being covered with falling snow. The caption says Trenbeerth is looking for the missing heat in Australia.
cRR Kampen says:
October 9, 2012 at 8:00 am
Typical of Kampen to ignore every other post except the one that supports his D-nile.
John Brookes says:
October 9, 2012 at 6:33 am
“Let the legal system stick to what its good at, and stay away from science.”
I find this statement particularly funny.
To be fair its a log way to swim as I sure he will not be flying given that is killing the planet .
But I wonder if someone will ask him why if is his case is so strong he needs to reverse the widely held and long established view on what is the scientific approach of the null hypotheses?
Wait, wait, I think another travesty is approaching:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of increased extreme weather events at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Even despite our relatively short climate record, there have been no unprecedented climate events in Australia for a quite a while.
Everything is still ticking along , in line with NATURAL high climate variablity.
Nothing unusual is happening to the climate.
Attn. Josh!
It’s probably a good time to remember Chris Landsea, the IPCC climate researcher who resigned from his role due to Trenberth making public announcements on the outcome of Landsea’s report, despite Landsea not having produced it yet!
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
cRR Kampen says:
October 9, 2012 at 8:00 am
Yes Gary, the Editorial simply continues: “As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming.”
The prospect of lawsuits by the utterly insane CAGW “science” community is very frightening.