From a story in The Melbourne Age:
Professor Trenberth is a bruised survivor of the so-called ”climategate” scandal, which involved the theft and publication of thousands of emails that had been sent between some of the world’s most influential climate researchers.
While he and his colleagues were cleared by a series of investigations, the people who hacked the email system at Britain’s University of East Anglia have never been caught, and the case was closed, unsolved, earlier this year.
Professor Trenberth believes it had a big impact on public debates about climate science. ”It made an immense difference – the level of vitriol and hate we received,” he said. ”Not only do we have waves of attacks when we publish and it ends up on a denialist website, but it has affected politicians.”
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth, affecting Professor Trenberth’s peers, as a result of online campaigns against climate scientists, he said. He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.
”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
h/t Old Ranga from Oz
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see “it has affected politicians”. They were probably appalled at the amateur quality of the lies, being themselves professionals in the art.
Only slashed by a fifth?
Pity. When the eliminate funding for Trenberth et al we will know we are returning to a normal state of science funding instead of using taxpayer’s money for Scientology pursuits of political activists with advanced degrees.
He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.
VS
”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
Who is inflating the certainty of the models that have missing variables, and whose results miss reality every time?
I don’t see many skeptics attacking the fact that CO2 absorbs IR – Bill Hunter
Climate science has failed to do its work here as well. CO2 in dry air self-absorbs by ~200 ppmV. This is defined as the approach to a steady state emissivity, therefore absorptivity. What’s more, by ~10% RH at ambient, there is no effect of change of concentration of CO2 on emissivity.
So, there can be no CO2-AGW. As for the real reason., it’s quite subtle; the IR emission in that band is switched off, standard heat transfer physics you use once you reject the false trail of ‘black body’ emission from the surface.
Prof Pielke doesn’t see a link between weather & climate.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21752735/climate-spin-is-rampant
“Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.
So if the science is so clear on this subject, why then are companies and campaigners, abetted by a willing media, engaged in spreading misinformation?”
Over to you, Dr T!
Dangit… why’d I have to go and use my good line yesterday?
Suck it up, Kevin. Even if you are right, the proposed remedies would destroy civilization much faster than even the most catastrophic climate change could bring it down.
If you read through the other story linked by Patrick you can see that he still thinks he’s a hurricane expert, data going the opposite way from his conclusions are completely ignored.
Matt r says:
I’m guessing it’s all relative. When you’re used to being treated like a “science god” and having the ear of senior government around the world, ANY questioning of you must seem like “vitriol and hate”.
”An example would be Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, where there was about 11 inches [28 centimetres] of rain. About one inch of that was due to human influence. Maybe that extra inch was enough to cause the levee to break.”
I’m just an average Joe, but in the circles i move anyone saying something like that would be immediately elevated to favourite for the Darwin award.
So humans are now causing 1/11 of the rain. Your right Kevin, the numbers need some more work.
Trenberth: Climategate caused a loss of funding
I do not think that is fair – i want him to refund previous funding because of academic fraud and being made ineligible for future grants
We need to make it fair for the public that paid for this criminal conspiracy to defraud.
Anyone want a RICO investigation
The ONLY way the earth can get rid of heat is by radiation.
Dear Friends,
Does anyone know if Mr. Trenberth is a US citizen? We should know that since he is pushing so strongly the opinions that affect our lives. Why is he referred to as a Professor? As it appears from the Wikipedia page, he doesn’t teach.
“With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work”
Sounds a lot like data manipulation on the horizon, doesn’t it? We have all the data that would be necessary to show any links. There not there, as far as I or anyone else can seen, even the
warmist folks.
There he goes with the “denialist” label again, but it’s Climategate who revealed who the deniers are, they are the ones who deny the medieval warm period, they are the ones who deny the reality of naturally caused climate change.
Well, if he can’t take the heat (IOW, the perceived vitriol and hate), he should get out of the kitchen. Whiny little pr*ck.
As others have noted, I’m eagerly awaiting FOIA’s release of the password. I have the popcorn ready to go…
What?
Is AlecM is familiar with the field of IR Spectroscopy?
.
For those commenting that CO2 absorbs IR (then immediately re-emits it), keep in mind that the so called “heat-trapping” effect is primarily exhausted once the level attains its pre-industrial level of atmospheric concentration, and due to the logarithmic (think inverse of exponential for the math deprived 🙂 ) temperature increase to CO2 increase, the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans has very little, and an ever diminishing effect on, “heat-trapping” capability.
Why do I have to keep pointing this out?
But, commieBob, what of all that ‘convection’, the transport of ‘sensible’ heat to ‘the poles’?
Doesn’t that ‘heat’ somehow just ‘gravitate’ through the polar vortex using an as-yet undiscovered form of energy?
/sarc
.
“Work” the numbers? Gee. I wonder which way. His dissertation committee should be fired. People like Trenbreth do not know the first thing about research protocol, and less about presenting their case. Funding cut? By their own mouths and keyboards, not by anything or anyone else.
”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow.”
A consensus on what? Too slow for what? To get governments to enact policy that fits your political views and environmental advocacy? Maybe I just don’t understand the definition of solid science. I seem to remember large uncertainties in the areas of clouds, feed backs, and personally I don’t understand how a little IR from CO2 is heating the oceans.
Perhaps to gain the consensus you are looking for you should use your political clout to stop the publication of papers that are critical with your position on climate change. Oh wait, you have already tried that…
”An example would be Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, where there was about 11 inches [28 centimetres] of rain. About one inch of that was due to human influence. Maybe that extra inch was enough to cause the levee to break.”
Really . . you couldn’t make it up , oh . . wait a minute …………….
”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
So they know the results in advance of doing the research?
How remarkable and convenient.
AlecM says, 12 Oct2012, at 3:29am:
Trenberth has got himself to blame. His Energy Budget is based on the mistaken belief that a pyrgeometer measures real energy flux when it is actually the vector sum of the Poynting vectors in the detector’s view angle
and at 5:5am:
CO2 in dry air self-absorbs by ~200 ppmV. This is defined as the approach to a steady state emissivity, therefore absorptivity. What’s more, by ~10% RH at ambient, there is no effect of change of concentration of CO2 on emissivity. So, there can be no CO2-AGW. As for the real reason, it’s quite subtle; the IR emission in that band is switched off, standard heat transfer physics you use once you reject the false trail of ‘black body’ emission from the surface.
AlecM you speak like a true specialist. Trouble is I doubt whether many people reading this blog trail, even people who are engineers or physicists really understand and appreciate what you are saying.
Like you I am also strongly of the opinion that added CO2 has no effect whatsoever on global temperature. But my view is strictly empirical, based on the actual instrumental temperature record since 1850 which, to the evident annoyance of the warmists, is still after all these recent years stubbornly failing to demonstrate an alarming warming trend (only 0.41degC per century)
So here’s my challenge.
Contact me via Anthony and we will work together to come up with a cast-iron theoretical explanation based on the radiative properties of gases that is scientifically accurate but nevertheless accessible to a much wider general audience. It can be done!
I look forward to your response.
Notice of potential strawman erection; No denial or contention of the workings of the physics in situ has been made … however, you do look to be alluding to an assertion that the IR path straight-to-space is ‘blocked’ by saturation, but I _don’t_ take it that you _do not_ assert that additional IR flux will not cause nearby CO2 molecules to vibrate at some proportionately higher amplitude?
.
The link by Patrick at 1:22 am has this little gem not in the original at the end:
Edited, no doubt, to include the obligatory alarmist tripe.