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.
Trenberth cannot understand the lack of heating because his models are wrong based on a theory that is wrong.
Back to the drawing board Kevin.
Larry Kirk says:
May 22, 2013 at 8:37 pm
======================
Sorry Larry. I’ve been in such anti-Trenberth vitriol mode that I probably came across as too harsh on you – even though I wasn’t trying to be.
The “when did you stop beating your wife question” referred to the fact that you ask about
“missing heat” as if it’s a fact that (and I assumed you were referring to “Trenberth’s missing heat”) exists. That’s all. The better explanation is to be found in the null hypothesis, which would, if he was a credible scientist, direct Trenberth to look at the data and then come to a conclusion rather than make a conclusion and then not be able to figure out what happened to any data supporting that conclusion (which is a feature common to not only him, but also a lot of the warmists who post on here). This is really bad science.
I read papers on polar ice volume several months, maybe even years ago, but I don’t go around looking for them any more because, quite frankly, I don’t believe much of anything that comes out of a climatologist model, so I won’t actually learn anything other than the product of a pack of lies and/or the bad science mentioned above, i.e. they will feel that they are being good little old planet-savers if the conclusion says that there’s less ice and make the models fit their preconceived purported, and probably wrong, “planet-saving” conclusion. So I directed you to the sidebar for ice extent only. I might look around later for some ice volume references if I get time, but others might be able to help.
‘Whether that translates into a supercell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather’.
Chance?
Spare a little sympathy for the people who do the donkey work of programming these models. Were I a programmer, one of the world’s best, thoroughly versed in logic and highly skilled in humouring those to whom I answer and a will to give of my best, how on earth would I go about factoring in the perfidy of pure chance answering to no known paradigm?
@ur momisugly philincalifornia
That’s fine.. I did use the term ‘missing heat’ rather sloppily, simply having picked it out from the above. I haven’t actually dug my way too deeply into and out of the Trenberth thing, as I am more interested in the physical evidence and the hard science that derives from it. Those sort of political who-said-what and who is right or wrong controversies tend to make my eyes glaze over..
The use of satellite radar altimetry in the remote sensing of oceans and ice is fascinating tool, which maps the surface of these two global terrains in great detail and at very precise vertical resolution, and the ocean surface is far from flat, thanks to gravity anomalies over ocean floor topographic features and varying rock types, and to the lateral slope across north/south ocean surface currents due to the coriolis effect).
When I was first introduced to it back in 1985, all we had was the Seasat data, from a fantastically powerful active radar satellite, powered by a small nuclear plant, which mapped the earth’s oceans many times over in about three months but then unfortunately self-destructed. Since then, its successor, Cryosat-1, was destroyed during launch about 10 years ago. But Cryosat-2 was launched successfully a couple of years ago and is now fully commissioned and in active mode. I am sure it has acquired a huge amount of data by now, and we are already starting to see some of the results of this coming out earlier this year. It’s good science. Money far from wasted. One to watch out for.
With regards,
LK
He really doesn’t have a clue, does he..?
When I read babble like Trenberth’s I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…
The only recourse for me is to apply some humor – so without further ado…
HOW TO TALK “SCIENCE” WITH KEVIN TENBERTH
“Warming” really means heating, except when it’s not, then it’s cooling. Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation, except the temperatures aren’t rising now – but forget that, it doesn’t matter anyway!
Melting Arctic sea ice is another. So is melting of glaciers and other land ice that contribute to rising sea levels. In fact, we at NCAR have calculated that if all the ice in every glass of ice tea on this planet melted completely, it would raise the sea level by 10 feet world wide. Ice tea melt is a major problem that my group is currently addressing.
Another prominent source of natural variability is sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle. We have, in fact, determined from our research that if we had no sun, it would NOT be very good for our planet. Also too much sun is no good…so use lots of suncreen, people!
Human induced global warming really kicked in during the 1970s when I first got my degree. Lucky me – lots of cash for my chosen profession! And warming has been pretty steady since then…especially in the summer. I’m sure most people have felt warmer in the summer than the winter – that’s global warming! If it feels like it’s getting cooler, it’s really not – that’s all in your head.
Focusing on the wiggles in global warming and ignoring the bigger picture is foolhardy, something promoted by Koch-head, frack-loving rednecks of the denial-sphere! Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of over 30 cm per century since 1992, and that is perhaps a better indicator that global warming continues unabated. In fact, I’m so freaked out about sea level rise that I wear a life vest at all times now…
THANK YOU KEVIN! JOIN US AGAIN NEXT TIME FOR ANOTHER EPISODE OF HOW TO TALK A “SCIENCE” WITH KEVEN TRENBERTH…
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”
So, melting Arctic sea ice is a manifestation of heating but increases in Antarctic sea ice isn’t a manifestation of cooling?
Land ice has been retreating and sea level increasing since the last glaciation. It really is a long term trend from way back before anthropologic influences could have possibly mattered.
What does “increasing the water cycle” mean? Is there water in places there wasn’t water before? Does water move through the cycle faster? Is there more water in the cycle? Or more water in parts of the cycle? Is there any evidence for any of this?
Since storms are driven by temperature differentials how exactly does warming invigorate storms? If warmer and wetter really meant more tornadoes then why doesn’t Brazil have as many Tornadoes as the US?
Denial that your hypothesis is wrong can be manifested in many ways. Making more and more elaborate and absurd excuses for the failed hypothesis is one. Avoiding public debate of the merits of the hypothesis, creating pseudo-consensuses, deriding critics, employing logical fallacies, and hiding declines are others.
Dave says:
May 22, 2013 at 11:57 am
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.
__________________________________________________________________________
Oh yes, we both reached for
The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun
Did anyone else see Amanpour interview CNN’s climate guy who, asked if the tornado was the result of global warming, told her, “No.” He also went on to point out that very particular conditions were necessary including a large mass of cold air, a large mass of warm moist air and just the right topography.
They showed a map of the world where tornados are common and none of the sites featured only-hot conditions.
Trenberth is essentially saying this is not true. It was nice to hear someone on a major network say straight out that devastating tornados ‘are not caused by global warming’.
For anyine unfamiliar with the CFACT website, I strongly recommend visiting it – there are some really good articles there by Paul Driessen, Marc Morano and others. Their billboards are classic (check out the one on polar bears).
“””””…..Larry Kirk says:
May 22, 2013 at 6:14 pm
A purely agnostic question here for anybody who might have enough information to make a stab at the calculation: is it possible that a significant portion of the ‘missing heat’ has actually been utilised melting of ice?
To turn H2O from ice at 0 degrees centigrade to water at 0 degrees centigrade requires latent heat. Specifically it requires 334 kilojoules of heat to melt a kilogram of ice without actually raising its temperature. …..”””””
Larry, I prefer to think of the latent heat energy of fusion of ice, as being 80 calories per gram.
Yes I know a calorie is actually a quantity of food; but let’s ignore that.
So at 80 calories per gram, melting ice consumes enough heat energy, to raise the Temperature of that ice water, all the way up to 80 deg. C ( if you put it into already melted water.)
That puts the magnitude of it in perspective.
Even more impressive, is the latent heat energy of evaporation, which I believe is about 590 calories per gram for water at 100 deg. C. So it takes almost six times the heat energy to evaporate the water, as it does to raise it from ice Temperature to boiling Temperature.
Conversely, when you get 100 deg. C steam on your skin, it is going to dump 590 calories per gram of latent heat energy plus another 63 calories per gram, to bring that water down to normal body Temperature (37 deg. C).
That is why steam is so lethal.
PS “heat” is a verb; a process; unless it is “heat energy”, in which case, it is an adjective. “heat” is not a noun.
The guy has no choice like Mad Mann , his professional career and personel standard rest on AGW , it that goes he is toast . So all he can do is double down and hope .
But like Mann his rantings does much good work for the very people and ideas he hates . His another that when he falls we will be surpised to find who lines up to kick him on the way down, its just a shame they have to wait until then to do it .
The so-called warming of the last 150+ years is just another “wiggle”. It certainly isn’t global, by any stretch of the imagination. Kevvy is very selective in his wiggle-matching.
Jeff Alberts points out this Kevin Trenberth nonsense:
“Focusing on the wiggles and ignoring the bigger picture of unabated warming is foolhardy, but one promoted by climate change deniers.”
If I ever have the opportunity, I will ask Trenberth: what, exactly, is a “climate change denier”?
Because the only folks who fit that description are Michael Mann’s acolytes; those who accept Mann’s Hockey Stick chart — a chart which clearly shows that global temperatures had never changed much, prior to the industrial revolution.
Of course, Mann could only fabricate that chart by censoring [selectively cherry-picking] the data he used. Now Mann and Trenberth label anyone who disagrees with their catastrophic global warming narrative as ‘climate change deniers’. That rhetorical tactic is certainly a lot easier than explaining the questionable data sets that Mann used.
I guess you can’t stand the heat.
“””””…..Jeff Alberts says:
May 23, 2013 at 8:47 pm
PS “heat” is a verb; a process; unless it is “heat energy”, in which case, it is an adjective. “heat” is not a noun.
I guess you can’t stand the heat…….”””””
It’s actually the EM radiation that gets to me. My body then makes all the “heat energy” I need.
@ur momisugly George E Smith
Thanks George. I do appreciate that ‘heat’ can be a verb. It is also a noun though, and commonly used as such in physics, as in ‘latent heat of fusion’, which you rightly point out is rather large for the ice-water transition, relative to the specific heat capacity of the resulting water as you then increase its temperature by a further degree centigrade. ‘Heat’ is also noun in common usage in expressions such as: ‘He sheltered from the heat of the day in a small cave; ‘In the heat of the moment, she said something that she would later regret..’, etc. You can check the OED.
When I say appreciate though, I really do mean it. One part of me is as mindful of the sanctity of correctly written and spoken English as any other grammar school and university educated Brit. But having spent the last thirty five years in another country, where many of the inhabitants say and write things such as: “I wouldn’t of done that mate..” or “I took the dog, tied him up out the back an shot him.”, and where a lot of them grew up in homes where English was not the first language, I have learned to be a more pragmatic (except when replying to the text messages and emails of our children!)
Your point about the value of the latent heat of fusion of ice, relative to the specific heat capacity of water is exactly the one that is currently interesting me. I am not even sure who this Trenberth person is, and judging from the comments here it is probably not worth me finding out. But if it’s the reality of physics we are interested in: yes, you can lose an awful lot of potential temperature rise of water simply in melting a significant quantity of ice. So when WUWT has an article about someone or other’s ‘missing heat’, I can’t help but start to wonder about the physics.
But talking of WUWT, I think I must delete it from my favourites list once again. It is far too distracting for the undisciplined when they are trying to work alone from home!
Lysenko would have been delighted. This is exactly how science should NOT be conducted: Insist on the correctness of a hypothesis (AGW) and then sort the data into two categories – that which falsifies or conflicts with the hypothesis, and is to be ignored, and that which can, in some fashion, be construed as to be consistent with the hypothesis which, of course, is to be accepted as the relevant data. In other words, we are now to ignore the temperature record, the previous gold standard for AGW advocates, and measure the hypothesis in terms of other kinds of data that have a far less demonstrable connection to climate trends. To paraphrase Dan Rather, the issue is the importance of the hypothesis itself, not its validity.
“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.”
There is a difference where surface temperatures show the overall trend in energy changes only in the atmosphere. Arctic ice and glaciers whether melting or not are local changes and happen regarding whatever the overall atmosphere energy does. Local environments unlike on the global scale are affected by the change in distribution of energy within the system and a warming is not required for this to occur. Arctic ice and glaciers have been melting since the Little Ice Age, no warming in surface temperatures over recent years just concludes that the ice has not reached equilibrium from the the LIA. A very short window of melting in summer means it takes many decades just to reach equilibrium. Arctic ice has been declining during a long period where there has been no increasing global temperatures.
The difference between global surface temperatures with Arctic ice and glaciers are that a change in distribution of energy in the system doesn’t support warming or heating. Only a heating of overall energy supports a warming and so no it can’t be manifested in many ways because a change in energy flow within the system is not the same as heating.
Let’s not forgot the glaciers which are not melting and Antarctica that is not affected in the same way as the Arctic with a change in the distribution of energy via the ocean.
Canada has just two seasonal national sports:
Winter — hockey
Summer — waiting for hockey