Kevin Trenberth struggles mightily to explain the lack of global warming

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Those pterodactyls must have been dodging tornadoes right and left. –AGF

Mike jarosz

?????

Billy Liar

Travesty Trenberth continues to dance on the head of a pin of ever reducing size.

Kevin Kilty

[A: Trenberth] Of course, tornadoes are very much a weather phenomenon.

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.”

Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air.

Isn’t lapse rate; or the juxtaposition of dry air against moist; or cold and dry against warm and moist the real issue here?

Rhoda R

Is this the first of the “Walking It Back Waltz”?

Mark Bofill

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.)

Does Kevin have something to back this up with, or is he speaking his opinion ex-rectum?

Billy Liar

You’d think that Kevin would know that the ‘key for unstable air’ is lighter air underlying heavier air (for whatever reason).

ruvfsy

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.

Kelvin Vaughan

[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.

Eric H.

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.

Kaboom

He’s like Wile E. Coyote, still running a good while after he’s already over the cliff.

MattN

Pulling (expletive) straight out of his (expletive), again I see….

Nik Marshall-Blank

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%

elftone

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.”?

u.k.(us)

And,
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”

john robertson

I guess his plan is to retreat to NZ and hide amongst the culturally correct.
He is an excellent example of government funded education.

ckb42

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.

Crabalocker

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!

Dave

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.

Latitude

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

James Evans

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

Werner Brozek

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.

Jim S

“Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of over 30 cm per century since 1992….”
lol

george e. smith

Well Kevin Trenberth must know that the answer to his missing heating (verb) is right in front of his face.
Experiment:- Go to any location in the generally inhabited or inhabitable region of the earth; maybe that’s between +/- 60 deg. latitudes or so.
Do this on any day of the year.
Experimental preconditions: clear sky, no clouds above about 30 degrees above the horizon.
Time ; any time within about 3 hours before or after local noon..
Experimental procedure: point your broad band radiometer more or less directly at the sun; which should be visible, and measure the incident irradiance (W/m^2) reaching the earth surface, wherever the hell it is that you went.
NOWHERE will you ever get a measurement, that is within +/- 20% of the stated value that Kevin Trenberth claims you should get (izzat 240 W/m^2 or 250).
There you go Kevin; that’s where your missing heating (verb) is.
If you don’t get a reading of around 1,000 W/m^2, you simply don’t know how to follow instructions.

Jim S

“Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air.” Absolutely no mention that a tornado forms when warm and COOL air meet.
If you’ve ever been in a tornado producing storm, one of the most remarkable things is feeling the temperature drop remarkably fast.

thisisnotgoodtogo

Kev is saying that before 2005 higher solar forcing was responsible for how much of the warming ?

JJ

ckb says:
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.

Why dumbfounded? That actually makes sense.
CO2 is produced by the use of fossil fuels, and produces greater plant growth. Together, these two factors act to produce a larger, wealthier population. The larger the population is, the more likely it is that some part of it will intersect with an extreme weathe event. The wealthier the population is, the greater the value of the stuff that gets knocked over.
See, CO2 is eeeeeevilllllll …

BarryW

But somehow the number of F4/5’s have been decreasing. I guess they’re hiding along with the heat.

philincalifornia

He can’t get anything right can he ?? He even calls people who don’t deny climate change climate change deniers. Has he ever got anything right ??
What a fourth-rate (if that) scientific doofus.
“Who ever told you you could work with men ??” … Ricky Roma, Glengarry, Glen Ross
VERY bad language alert (sorry Mods, please delete if it’s too OTT, but it really is how I feel about this cretin, and it did win a Pulitzer Prize for David Mamet):

NotAGolfer

[snip – policy violation – multiple sockpuppet identities including: Realist2, Gina, Peeved, Realist2, and now “NotAGolfer”, banned, – mod]

NotAGolfer

[snip – policy violation – multiple sockpuppet identities including: Realist2, Gina, Peeved, Realist2, and now “NotAGolfer”, banned, – mod]

DirkH

“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.) ”
This is again a completely baffling stupidity by a key warmist. The energy of wind rises with the third power of its speed. How is the energy contained in a wind related to damage? Under a certain threshold not much at all will happen in terms of damage. Over that threshold your building is likely to be totalled. Yes, it’s nonlinear but that’s the only thing he got right.
These people seem to think the moment they throw a number at a journalist they can from there make up anything they want to.

grumpyoldmanuk

James Evans says:
May 22, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Surely there has to come a point when real scientists actually respond to this kind of nonsense.
When your adversary is digging himself a hole, don’t stop him.

Mac the Knife

When the whole house of AGW collapses, perhaps Trenberth can ‘Take the 5th Amendment’ and refuse to incriminate himself, like the Obama IRS administrations Lois Lerner has just done to preclude her testimony to a Congressional hearing on Obamas IRS targeting political groups opposed to his socialist agenda. Now there is where some real heat is building!
MtK

M Courtney

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.
This may make sense. Consider this:
A The damage is not linearly related to rainfall.
B The systems cannot cope with a 5 to 10% increase in rainfall
C The problem is the damage, not the rainfall
Therefore…
D Adapt the systems as to cope with the rainfall and avoid the damage.
Trenberth may be finding a different route to backtrack here.

David

How are we warming oceans that have about 100000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere with the atmosphere? Most heat rises not sinks to sea level. Even if all the heat fell into the oceans it would take thousands of years to raise their temperatures.

RockyRoad

Kevin Kilty says:
May 22, 2013 at 11:17 am

Isn’t lapse rate; or the juxtaposition of dry air against moist; or cold and dry against warm and moist the real issue here?

Oh yes, and from the temperatures here in Idaho, I can guarantee we’ll be sending more cold dry air toward the Midwest.
Werner Brozek says:
May 22, 2013 at 12:23 pm

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?

He conveniently forgot to tell you that’s the consequence of pulling the plug.
Or I could drop the humor and call Trenberth a doggone out-and-out LIAR!
Has anybody here ever heard of a “climate model projection” from the Warmistas flat-lining for any significant period of time?? I certainly haven’t.

Ian W

“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 only problem with that is the Gulf of Mexico which was the origin for the warm air is very cold for this time of year (click on the ENSO/SST link in the right column –>>> and go to the SST anomalies map). The real reason for the severe instability was that the cold front was also exceptionally cold for this time of year. So both the warm sector and the cold sector were trying to out-do each other in cold anomaly. As is pointed out it is the contrast between the layers and the wind-shear that lead to the severe instability and rotating super-cells. There is no warming here Kevin – move along now.

Mindbuilder

So a 17 year period of warming from 81 (first year to exceed 1944) to 98 is highly significant but a 16 year period of steady temperatures without warming is just “wiggles”. Boy, they better hope there is some warming in the next year or the period of no warming is going to be longer than the period of warming.

Doug

“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.”
What? The sea level was rising at the same rate before 1980 too. How the hell is that a good indicator?

John F. Hultquist

RockyRoad says:
May 22, 2013 at 1:12 pm
“Has anybody here ever heard of a “climate model projection” from the Warmistas flat-lining for any significant period of time?? I certainly haven’t.

I think last year someone suggested that as the temperature plateaued for about the 12th or 13th year the minions [small m] of climate modelers searched through hundreds, maybe thousands, of Monte Carlo simulations and found one or a couple that had “flat periods” of 15 years. Then they must have found one of 16 years because the claim was made that it would take 17 years to confirm a trend. I think they then overclocked their computer to run thousands more simulations hoping to find a longer “flat period” and turned the hardware into ashes. Okay, I made that last part up.

William Astley

It is interesting that Kevin Trentberth is now appealing to the slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle to help explain the lack of warming for the last 16 years.
I wonder how he would explain cooling? If there was cooling would he apologize, admit that 97% of the right thinking climate scientists were not correct. Would he state that he is sorry for the IPCC reports that has been used to justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on green scams that have not significantly reduce the increase in CO2 emissions.
Will he ever admit that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial due to its impact on plant life and the slight warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO is beneficial, as it helps to offset global cooling?
Trentberth may not, however, other climate scientists will if there is cooling.
Trentberth has been on center stage, a lead author for the IPCC, and active in the media for the last 10 years pushing the warmist agenda. An activist losses the independent perspective required to solve scientific problems which helps to explain how the greatest scientific blunder in history appears to have been made.
The logical explanation for the fact that there has been 16 years of no warming is that the majority of the 20th century warming was the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds rather than due to increases in atmospheric CO2.
After 20 years of none stop warmist propaganda, it is difficult to even consider that possibility. Based on what has happened before, if the 20th century warming was a D-O cycle, the same regions that warmed in the 20th century will now experience the most cooling (i.e. Arctic, Greenland ice sheet, and high Northern latitudes.)
It there was cooling; it is interesting to try to imagine how the media and the public would response to the cooling.
What would their response be shown when they are shown the Greenland Ice sheet temperature data for the last 11,000 years?
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are clearly evident in the Greenland ice sheet data. The climatologists accept the Greenland Ice sheet temperature data. The specialists have known about the D-O cycles for at least 15 years.
Why did no one propose that the 20th century warming was the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle? (i.e CO2 warming is not reversible, the forcing mechanism that caused the D-O cycle is reversible which makes it possible for the planet to now cool.)
Why did the warmist scientists not explain that the AGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming should occur in the tropics, not high northern latitudes? The pattern of the 20th century warming does not match the CO2 forcing mechanism.
The observational evidence and related analysis does not support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
The extreme AGW mechanism require that there be tropospheric warming in the tropical region to amplify the CO2 warming. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming. In addition, there is unequivocal analysis that is supported by surface temperature change records and by ocean temperature data that the planet resists forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less short wave radiation off into space.
Did no one notice that the regions of the planet that warmed in the 20th century (Arctic, Greenland Ice sheet, high Northern latitudes) are the same regions that warmed during the past D-O cycles?
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns…. ….Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe. … …..Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

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.)

Trenberth has discovered the Climate Force Multiplier!
Beware the power and size of Trenberth’s Cubes!

Gary Pearse

I note Enso has turned a bit negative now. If Canada’s spring makes any significant contribution to May’s temps, then 2012 is heading for half way in the cool bins. It’s getting close to time for NOAA, the climate fellows in Colorado, HadCRUt et al to stop updating the graphs until they’ve made necessary adjustments and counterclockwise thumbtack rotation of the temp record to account for the coriolus effect that is twisting it downwards. (sarc/off)

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

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%.

Cue Leif Svalgaard … oh, never mind, he’s said it so many times we can just look it up:

February 25, 2013 at 7:34 am

TheHermit says:
It seems you’re in disagreement with the idea that cooling is positively correlated with solar activity as measured by sunspots? IS that correct?

There is no good evidence for that. Solar activity varies too little compared to the regular output from the Sun. Perhaps this plot of TSI as observed [red curve] and the part related to solar activity [blue curve] will help: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE.png . The curves should really start from zero as in this one to get the correct perspective help://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20at%20Earth.png . Yet another way to show the variations is this plot that shows a separate curve for each of 10 years of TSI at a function of time of the year. All these curves fall on top of one another because there is so little variation. The little wiggles show the influence on TSO of solar activity. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
Why show TSI? that is where the energy is. All other solar output is about a million times weaker.

… and numerous repetitions of above.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

So to get fewer tornados we need to reduce the temperature difference between air coming south from Canada and air coming north from the Gulf of Mexico. Now if we got the Canadians and the Mexicans together and said “either Canada has to get warmer or Mexico has to get colder”, which option do you think would more likely win favor with both sides?

Rob Dawg

CAGW proposes warming disproportionate in the coldest regions. Violent weather is driven by temperature differences. Therefor the CAGW models must predict fewer and less intense weather events. Right?