Tom Nelson captures this delicious irony, apparently it isn’t a travesty any more, it’s the sun.
Has Global Warming Stalled? | Royal Meteorological Society
[Trenberth] “Warming” really means heating, and so it can be manifested in many ways. Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation. Melting Arctic sea ice is another. So is melting of glaciers and other land ice that contribute to rising sea levels. Increasing the water cycle and invigorating storms is yet another…Another prominent source of natural variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance is changes in the sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle. From 2005 to 2010 the sun went into a quiet phase and the warming energy imbalance is estimated to have dropped by about 10 to 15%.
…Human induced global warming really kicked in during the 1970s, and warming has been pretty steady since then…Focusing on the wiggles and ignoring the bigger picture of unabated warming is foolhardy, but one promoted by climate change deniers. Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of over 30 cm per century since 1992 (when global measurements via altimetry on satellites were made possible), and that is perhaps a better indicator that global warming continues unabated.
Kevin Trenberth’s REAL travesty | Climate Sanity
[Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009] 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.
Uncertainty about “invigorating storms” must be the new unaccountable travesty.
From an interview after the Moore, OK tornado in Scientific American:
[Q:] I know this kind of extreme weather is part of the territory in the middle of the country, but is climate change going to make such extreme weather more likely or more powerful?
[A: Trenberth] Of course, tornadoes are very much a weather phenomenon. They come from certain thunderstorms, usually supercell thunderstorms that are in a wind shear environment that promotes rotation. That environment is most common in spring across the U.S. when the storm track is just the right distance from the Gulf [of Mexico] and other sources of moisture.
The main climate change connection is via the basic instability of the low-level air that creates the convection and thunderstorms in the first place. Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air. The oceans are warmer because of climate change.
The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10 percent effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 33 percent effect in terms of damage. (It is highly nonlinear, for 10 percent it is 1.1 to the power of three = 1.33.) So there is a chain of events, and climate change mainly affects the first link: the basic buoyancy of the air is increased. Whether that translates into a supercell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those pterodactyls must have been dodging tornadoes right and left. –AGF
?????
Travesty Trenberth continues to dance on the head of a pin of ever reducing size.
Q: Are tornado much more a weather phenomenon than are gentle breezes, gentle rain, late snowstorms, and a thousand other observations?
I suggest a “weather phenomenon scale”, like the Fujita scale that measures how much the phenomenon is like weather…so a warm summer day with fair weather cumulus is a WP0, an unusually cold spring and late thaw is a WP1, a warm winter with an early thaw is a WP4, and a tropical storm that strikes a heavily populated, and badly planned section of coastline coincident with high tide is a WP5. You get the idea, a WP5 is a “real weather phenomenon.”
Isn’t lapse rate; or the juxtaposition of dry air against moist; or cold and dry against warm and moist the real issue here?
Is this the first of the “Walking It Back Waltz”?
Does Kevin have something to back this up with, or is he speaking his opinion ex-rectum?
You’d think that Kevin would know that the ‘key for unstable air’ is lighter air underlying heavier air (for whatever reason).
So when it is warming, the sun is irrelevant. A laughable proposition.
While not warming, the sun is right back in fashion.
Classic.
The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10 percent effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 33 percent effect in terms of damage. (It is highly nonlinear, for 10 percent it is 1.1 to the power of three = 1.33.)
That 10% (from where?) with a power of three (from where?) cuts both ways.
If what he says is true, the we should see 33% increases in tornadic and hurricane activity.
We see nothing of the sort.
So work it backwards. What IF we see a 10% increase in activity? By Trenberth’s algebra climate change can only be (1.1^(1/3))-1) or 3% of instability.
We don’t even see a 10% increase in major storms. There is evidence and theory that there has been a decrease in such weather events.
[Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009] 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.
Don’t fool yourself, you can’t even account for the warming.
11 years of data and we know that in 100 years that seas will be 30cm higher? I wish mutual funds worked the same way.
He’s like Wile E. Coyote, still running a good while after he’s already over the cliff.
Pulling (expletive) straight out of his (expletive), again I see….
So “Another prominent source of natural variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance is changes in the sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle. From 2005 to 2010 the sun went into a quiet phase and the warming energy imbalance is estimated to have dropped by about 10 to 15%.”
What are the other sources of natural variability? Maybe if we can find them all they will add up to 100%
Good grief… that made my eyes cross. From where on earth did this creep into the sunlight:
It is highly nonlinear, for 10 percent it is 1.1 to the power of three = 1.33.
Is this a new attempt to say, “Look, we know AGW is tiny compared to what we said it would be back when you believed us implicitly, but it really punches above its weight. Trust me.”?
And,
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”
I guess his plan is to retreat to NZ and hide amongst the culturally correct.
He is an excellent example of government funded education.
Absolutely astounding someone so accomplished could talk this way. It’s like he is completely in a fabricated model world and takes no heed of real-world data with those tornado statements.
I have to assume by “damage” – a pure-science climate term if there ever was one – he is using the tried and true climate measurement of DOLLARS. Because, indeed, the only place where you can find an increasing graph related to tornadoes is that one. So the graphs that say the strength and frequency of tornadoes are not increasing are irrelevant but the amount of damage they do, that’s up, and CO2 is the cause.
Dumbfounded.
So when it is warming, the sun is irrelevant. A laughable proposition.
While not warming, the sun is right back in fashion.
Classic.
———————————————————————————————–
Great statement.
And Gleick and the likes have the gall to say that so called ‘Skeptics’ cherry pick what they want. They are cartoon masters: Gleick-ity-Gleik …… barba trick!
Don’t ask me why, but when I read what he said, images of a top hat, cane, and tap shoes came to my mind.
the irony is they finally came up with a gimmick to elevate their science from laughing stock…
….weathermen to climate scientist…to something that at least sounds credible
and ended up making bigger fools of themselves
Surely there has to come a point when real scientists actually respond to this kind of nonsense.
Another prominent source of natural variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance is changes in the sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle.
Next thing he has to learn is how to calculate the Natural Variability and how it works
Here is the graphic illustration:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NaturalVariability.htm
NOAA:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Kevin Trenberth:
“We find exactly the same sort of flat periods in climate model projections, lasting easily up to 15years in length.”
What am I missing?
SST is going down so his argument falls in the water.it is the cooling from the top causing the increased differential between poles and equator.