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.
@ur momisuglyLazyTeenager. I Think the point is more can the influence of the radiative properties of CO2 in Scattering IR radiation slow down the emission of energy from the planet any more than it slows down the emission of energy to the planet from the sun?
@ur momisugly commiBob – Sorry, you fail. Consider evaporation of water, the heat is converted first into the energy of vaporisation, then results in the raising of some Billions on Tonnes of H2O some 2-3 km into the atmosphere where it gains potential energy ostensibly from the heat input. The Water then condenses losing the heat of vaporisation and falls to earth as rain. Now what hits the earth is a few billion tonnes of water driven into the planet surface expended as energy into the gravitational system (Every action after all has an equal and opposite reaction) – So I am sorry, you are wrong some 1-6W per m2 of heat input that was used to raise the CO2 to 2-3KM elevation is expended as kinetic / gravitational energy and not radiated to space.
When I think about the past two decades of peoples’ careers ruined for these frauds, it makes me glad to know that eventually each of these despicable [snip] will have to get up in the morning to [snip] the last time. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of [snip] when it does
[Over-the-top name-calling snipped – mod]
It’s possible that many climate scientists simply don’t have adequate multidisciplinary background to work productively on the following:
1. Solar Cycle Length/Frequency, Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST), Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST), & 0.18 Degrees Celsius (°C) / Century:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
2. Solar Cycle Frequency/Length, Antarctic Ice Specific Mass, & Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks:
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
Progress on understanding multidecadal solar-terrestrial-climate waves needs to move rapidly & immediately (set a 1 year deadline and push hard), so some of the funding for climate research needs to be redirected to parties who are more likely to be up to the task, such as those at NASA JPL.
Despite what many of you think of him, I still like Kevin Trenberth. Some of his research gave me key insights into natural climate variations.
NCAR 2013 NSF Budget request (in millions): NCAR
2012 98.6
2013 92.3
-6.4%
Flash this relentlessly on the monitors of all climate & solar scientists:
=
Multidecadal Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Waves …
Solar Cycle Length/Frequency, Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks, Antarctic Ice Specific Mass, Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST), Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST), & 0.18 Degrees Celsius (°C) / Century:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif
=
Their blurred vision must be snapped like a pretzel.
Vitriol and hate?
Obviously he meant to say reasonable criticism and much needed correction
Lazyteenager: ‘The question is, can this dissipative cooling effect be used to do something highly useful like increase the Earth’s average surface temperature? This is like an intelligence test for engineers.
————
I would agree with the application of that intelligence test. Seems like some engineers would fail that test.’
No-one can prove the emissivity of the Earth’s surface is 1 because if it were, you could never get radiative equilibrium. The proof is to imagine two closely spaced parallel plates with insulated backs in a vacuum. If inner-face emissivities did not fall to zero, there could never be zero net radiative heat transport, the definition of radiative equilibrium, and the plates would vapourise..
In the case of the Earth-atmosphere couple, the problem is a bit different in that the second plate has an absorptivity <1, otherwise there would be no 'atmospheric window', its back isn't insulated and there is parallel convective heat transport. However, surface emissivity in GHG band wavelengths must be <1 otherwise you could not get radiative equilibrium in those bands!
[More 'back radiation' would cause more UP IR from the Earth's surface, hence more back radiation and thermal runaway.]
The only way for this to happen is for GHG band thermal emission from the atmosphere to the surface in GHG bands to reduce surface emissivity in those wavelengths. Kirchhoff knew this because his Law of Radiation applies to all wavelength intervals. Read his works.
It's difficult for people indoctrinated by the 'GHG blanket' concept because it depends on emissivity being constant. Once you attack that premise they break into a hissy fit and shout 'denier', or in your case claim without any quantitative argument that I am wrong. Prove it……
LazyTeenager: “The question is, can this dissipative cooling effect be used to do something highly useful like increase the Earth’s average surface temperature? This is like an intelligence test for engineers.”
I answered this but the post seems to have disappeared. You appear to subscribe to the Aarhenius ‘GHG blanket’ idea. However this assumes the emissivity of the Earth’s surface is a constant level of unity. This is impossible because its real level is ~0.7, a near grey body, and at radiative thermal equilibrium between two bodies, de facto emissivity must fall substantially.
You prove this by a thought experiment, two infinite, parallel plates in a vacuum with insulated backs and initially unit emissivity/absorptivity inner faces. If the latter applies at all times and temperature is above absolute zero, radiation from first plate increases the temperature of the second and the 4th power emission in the reverse direction etc. means they’d vaporise.
The standard explanation of this is either the difficult to understand mathematical physics of Claes Johnson or my past attempts to introduce 4 rate equations [2 more with convection!] and statistical thermodynamics, equally impossible for most to understand.
I am now using Poynting vectors. For a plane wave the average is epsilon0.c. E0^2/2 [usual nomenclature, the electric field E0 is a strong function of the temperature of the emitting body] and in the direction of the wave. At the hotter body surface [the Earth], the net radiative energy flux in any wavelength interval is the vector sum of all the PVs at that point in space.
So, GHG thermal emission from the lower atmosphere results in lower net energy flux from the surface in that wavelength interval. This can be interpreted as a much lower de facto emissivity and the total de facto emissivity reduction from all the GHG bands leads to the rise in temperature of the surface, the real GHE. This is obvious to anybody with proper physics, just that the past nomenclature hid it from most.
The physics is complex. The 23 W/m^2 net IR absorbed in the atmosphere [2009 energy budget] is water vapour side bands; these can vary as other GHGs and temperature vary. There is also an increase in IR emission in the ‘atmospheric window’. As for convection, I’m not yet certain..
Please don’t try to justify the Aarhenius’ concept. It’s plain stupid and Bohr and Angstrom told him so at the time. However, it appeals to those like Trenberth with little physics’ understanding and for whom ‘back radiation’ is real energy, not imaginary except for an isolated emitter in a vacuum.
Comment for Paul Vaughan – October 13, 2012 at 2:37 am
Thanks for the interesting graphs. Can you link to a paper or website? What is the scale on your first graph? What are the units on both graphs?
I much prefer the work of Chris Landsea to that of Trenberth et al ( see post from 2011 below).
I urge everyone to read Landsea’s 2005 letter of resignation from IPCC4 (link below), which was caused by the actions of Trenberth. The Landsea letter was written years before the release of the Climategate emails in 2009 – it serves as an early warning of the unscientific, unethical actions of leaders within the IPCC.
Another clear early warning came from Richard Lindzen in a WSJ article on June 11, 2001:
(excerpt)
The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions…
(end of excerpt)
Regards, Allan
________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/02/hurricanes-and-global-warming-opinion-by-chris-landsea/#comment-817571
I’m not commenting on this paper – I haven’t read it.
I’m commenting on Chris Landsea.
I did some independent work on the subject of hurricane frequency and severity a few years ago.
In the course of my work, which included considerable background reading, I concluded that papers by Chris Landsea were logical, well-researched and worthwhile.
Landsea also showed great courage by resigning from IPCC4. Here is his letter of resignation:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
I no longer read anything by Trenberth et al.
We can account for the lack of funding and it’s a travesty that we can.
Jackbill says:
October 12, 2012 at 10:57 pm
well said. I was lucky to go to a grammar school that produced two nobel prize science winners – Cockcroft and Wilkinson (my mates uncle actually) – there was never any hint of psuedo science a few decades ago, it was all about attacking the problem from all sides and seeing who cracked it first and then ultimately PROVED it was right – not some half ar$ed attempt to prove a posited conjecture using a clique group of ‘insiders’ all tweaking each others output to produce the same blinking result!
My belief is that climategate merely highlighted the arrogance and inadequacy of climate scientists as communicators as well as climate science as a study. Had they admitted there was data both good and bad and reported honestly that if you start from a belief in AGW the case for was 100% and if you start from disbelief the case is against is also 100% they might never have got as much in the way of grants in the first place but they would not suffer from the backlash we are already seeing and I hope will see far more intensely soon.
They were never entitled to any credibility the day they claimed the science was settled and from that day should have had a zero budget.
It’s not the result of any “online campaign” (yet another conspiracy theory), but rather the result of budget austerity. Whatever they try to use as an excuse to attack those who they think are responsible for their own problems.
It is really informative to read all of your comments in this thread. I was wondering if, in a different era, someone caught preaching the level of dishonesty we see from the warmists wouldn’t have been tarred and feathered and ridden out if town on a rail. They certainly deserve it.
So Trenberth wants to go from being a climatologicphrenolproctologist to a weatherman?
I’d get better information sticking my head out the window every morning than where his is.
Oh, and /sarc.
What nonsense from Kevin. Every NOAA program other than their precious NPOESS sp? has been cut to fund that beast. NOAA is also in a pinch for funding anything new because that is supposed to take a line in the congressional budget and the Democrat controlled senate has not passed a new budget in 3 years, forcing defaults to Continuing Resolutions of the 2008 or 09 Pelosi/Reid dream budget when Dems controlled both branches of congress+ the WH.
Judith Curry’s “Quote of the week”:
Allan MacRae (October 13, 2012 at 6:09 am)
“Thanks for the interesting graphs. Can you link to a paper or website? What is the scale on your first graph? What are the units on both graphs? […] work of Chris Landsea […]”
Units are normalized to facilitate visualization.
(If you need links to raw data, please feel welcome to ask.)
Thanks Allan. I hadn’t seen this [ http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/index.html ].
Note the match with Tamino’s recent analysis of North American East Coast Sea Level Rate:
Landsea tropical storms: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ts_trend.jpg
Tamino NY(Battery): http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/battery_30yrate2.jpg
Tamino “hotspots”: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/hotnotratedepart.jpg
Above I’ve shown these:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif (slow animation of the following 2 graphs)
= http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
+ http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
Compare with:
Indian Monsoon Rainfall, Japanese Sea Level, Atlantic Hurricanes, Atlantic Cyclone Energy, Solar Cycle Length/Frequency:
http://i40.tinypic.com/16a368w.png (Gaussian smoothing on rainfall, sea level, & hurricanes)
Consider solar cycle deceleration a universal index of integrated zonality vs. meridionality of terrestrial flow. I speculate that comparable structures exist for all star-planet pairs throughout the universe.
I have grossly insufficient time & resources to pursue this formally, but I continue to informally volunteer what I can when I can (at the disappointing snail’s pace that my severely constraining current employment circumstances afford). I request that you and others (including Drs. Trenberth & Landsea) support my efforts to secure local lifelong secure funding + secure pension to accelerate this exploratory work by orders of magnitude well before life clocks me out. Thanks if you & others can do something to help make this happen. I’m reaching out to all parties who appreciate & respect nature’s beauty.
Best Regards.
Perhaps sadly, Trenbreth’s race is almost run. There is only time for raising his voice to higher registers on the-end-is-nigh failed themes. He could never find his way back now. When he famously said in a climategate email to Mann
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
I thought there might be some redemption for this man. Phil Jones, who admitted the climate hadn’t warmed in 15 years (2010), also had an obvious exit that he, like Trenberth passed up on. It makes James Lovelock, inventor of the Theory of Gaia – the earth as an organism, who backed out of the alarmist stance after climategate, a remarkable man at the age of 90 when he switched horses.
Kevin, my boy, its been a further three years of this no warming travesty. Your next opportunity to bow out is looming large – retirement age.
It just goes to show that coming up with complete crap doesn’t have to cost a fortune. You can quite easily do it on a small fortune.
After predicting a 4 C increase in Australia this summer, it snowed here last week. So if that is a warning for you in Northern Hemisphere I wouldn’t be pushing away your Ugg boots for a while?
It even snowed in Adelaide (SA) where snow hadn’t fallen for 100 years, much to the delight of youngsters who had never seen it before. We got it on the NSW Northern Tablelands, and of course our native birds are sitting on their eggs right now, awaiting their babies, so I went out and bought an extra large bag of wild bird seed to feed them and had visitors I had never seen before. It was delightful, the Rosellas were playful, one was hanging off one leg, upside down, looking down on the table where I had left the seed, imitating a sock next door to it.! I wish I had a photo of it! It amazes me the money spent on these so called scientists and the UN CCF for no avail. I hope they trip over running to the bank before the money runs out!
The rats have not even begun to jump off the IPCC cruise ship captained by a piltdown man, and swim away yet. Some merely complain about losing a few perks in first class and are eyeing the lifeboats. They are still in public denial that they have been holed.
“With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
I can answer this one; climate is the average of 30 years of weather.
AlecM says:
October 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
=======================
I hope that you will offer a guest post here on WUWT when you finish your paper.
Thanks in advance.