Update: At the suggestion of one of the readers at the cross post at WUWT, I’ve rewritten the second paragraph after Figure 3. Thanks, richard verney.
########
In response to the May 19, 2013 op-ed Overheated rhetoric on climate change doesn’t make for good policies by Lamar Smith (Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology), the Washington Post published an op-ed by Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth on June 6, 2013. The Oppenheimer and Trenberth op-ed was titled Climate science tells us the alarm bells are ringing. Oddly, it is chock full of overheated rhetoric, which Representative Smith was cautioning against. Unfortunately, the Oppenheimer and Trenberth op-ed is typical of the responses by many climate alarmists to Representative Smith’s op-ed, as discussed in Judith Curry’s blog post Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change.
In addition, a couple of things caught my eye in the Oppenheimer and Trenberth op-ed.
It failed to mention Balmaseda et al (2013) Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content, of which Kevin Trenberth was co-author. Instead, they linked a couple of other recent papers and webpages. Their op-ed reads:
Much has been made of a short-term reduction in the rate of atmospheric warming. But “global” warming requires looking at the entire planet. While the increase in atmospheric temperature has slowed, ocean warming rose dramatically after 2000. Excess heat is being trapped in Earth’s climate system, and observations of the Global Climate Observing System and others are increasingly able to locate it. Simplistic interpretations of cherry-picked data hide the realities.
Specifically, Oppenheimer and Trenberth linked Lyman et al (2010) Robust warming of the global upper ocean, and they linked a webpage that introduced Loeb et al (2012) Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.
Balmaseda et al (2013) is a newer paper. It was published in May 2013. Kevin Trenberth is a coauthor, yet Oppenheimer and Trenberth chose not to include it as a reference in their op-ed. Curious.
Note: After a few preliminary discussions, the uncertainties and difficulties with the Balmaseda et al (2013) paper were presented in detail in the blog post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”. Refer also to the cross post at WattsUpWithThat. There is also a pdf copy of the post here. The discussions including and following the heading of NORTHERN HEMISPHERE OCEAN HEAT CONTENT DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT BALMASEDA ET AL should also apply to Lyman et al (2010) and Loeb et al (2012).
Oppenheimer and Trenberth continued with more heated rhetoric (my boldface):
Contrary to Smith’s assertions, there is conclusive evidence that climate change worsened the damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. Sea levels in New York City harbors have risen by more than a foot since the beginning of the 20th century. Had the storm surge not been riding on higher seas, there would have been less flooding and less damage. Warmer air also allows storms such as Sandy to hold more moisture and dump more rainfall, exacerbating flooding.
Earlier, Oppenheimer and Trenberth complained about “cherry-picked data”, but they presented a rise in sea level since the beginning of the 20th Century. They should know very well that the IPCC claims their climate models cannot simulate the rate of warming for the last 30+ years without being forced by manmade greenhouse gases—implying that manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming during the last 30+ years, while Mother Nature is responsible for the warming before then. That was the intent of Figure 9.5 in their 4th Assessment Report. Refer to Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, under Heading of “9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century”, where the IPCC wrote:
“Figure 9.5 shows that simulations that incorporate anthropogenic forcings, including increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and the effects of aerosols, and that also incorporate natural external forcings provide a consistent explanation of the observed temperature record, whereas simulations that include only natural forcings do not simulate the warming observed over the last three decades.”
It appears that Oppenheimer and Trenberth presented the 12-inch-plus rise in sea level since 1900 at The Battery simply to make the assumed anthropogenic impacts appear greater. They must have felt the 6.5 inch rise in sea level since 1975 at The Battery (reference here) versus Sandy’s storm surge there of 13.88 feet or 166 inches (reference here) was not significant enough. The sea level rise of 6.5 inches since 1975 is only about 4% of the storm surge so they must’ve believed they needed to exaggerate the supposed influence of manmade global warming.
Also, a major portion of sea level rise comes from thermal expansion, but ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data both indicate the oceans warmed naturally. Refer to my illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB].
Wisely, Oppenheimer and Trenberth avoided the subject of sea surface temperatures along Sandy’s path. The sea surface temperatures of extratropical portion of Sandy’s storm track have actually cooled since the New England Hurricane of 1938. Figure 1 is Figure 4 from the post October 2012 Sea Surface Temperatures and Anomalies Along Sandy’s Path Were NOT Unusual. I published that post within weeks of Sandy. It’s difficult for alarmists to claim manmade greenhouse gases caused the warming of the sea surface temperatures of the extratropical portion of Sandy’s storm track, when the sea surface temperatures there have cooled over the past 70+ years.
Figure 1
But Oppenheimer and Trenberth did make a statement with respect to hurricane Sandy that we can check with data. They wrote, “Warmer air also allows storms such as Sandy to hold more moisture and dump more rainfall, exacerbating flooding.” We’ll use RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly data for Sandy’s storm track. It’s available on a gridded basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer. For those new to lower troposphere temperature data, they represent the temperature at about 3000 meters above sea level, as calculated from satellite measurements. Based on the linear trend, the lower troposphere temperature anomalies for Sandy’s full storm track (12N-40N, 80W-70W) haven’t warmed since 1990. See Figure 2. And for the extratropical portion (24N-40N, 80W-70W), they haven’t warmed since 1985, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2
#########
Figure 3
Note, the upward spikes in Figures 2 and 3 at January 2013 occurred after Sandy. The sharp drops occurred in November 2012. The October anomalies, leading up to Sandy, were not extraordinary. For Sandy’s full storm track, they were about 0.32 deg C. And for the extratropical portion they were approximately 0.56 deg C. Those values had been exceeded regularly before then.
If the lower troposphere temperature anomalies haven’t warmed in 2 to almost 3 decades, it’s difficult to claim “Warmer air also allows storms such as Sandy to hold more moisture and dump more rainfall, exacerbating flooding.” But, obviously, alarmists are more than willing to make claims that aren’t supported by data.
Granted, Oppenheimer and Trenberth did not state that manmade greenhouse gases caused the atmosphere to be warmer above Sandy’s storm track, when they wrote, “Warmer air also allows storms such as Sandy to hold more moisture and dump more rainfall, exacerbating flooding.” But they implied it. If the lower troposphere temperature anomalies above Sandy’s storm track haven’t warmed in 2 to almost 3 decades, it was pointless for Oppenheimer and Trenberth to write, “Warmer air also allows storms such as Sandy to hold more moisture and dump more rainfall, exacerbating flooding,” unless they wanted their readers to believe the atmosphere above was warmer.
Of course, Oppenheimer and Trenberth mentioned moisture in the air, so we need to address that as well. We’ll use the Specific Humidity and Precipitable Water from the NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2, which are available through the NOAA NOMADS website. And we’ll use the coordinates of the extratropical portion of Sandy’s storm track (24N-40N, 80W-70W). Specific humidity in Figure 4 represents the ratio of water vapor to dry air and is expressed in kilograms of water vapor per kilogram of dry air—at 2 meters above the surface. Based on the linear trend, it hasn’t increased since 1990. The Precipitable Water in Figure 5 is the amount of water in the column of atmosphere if all the water in that column were to be precipitated as rain, and it is presented in kg per square meter. It shows no trend since 1985 for the extratropical portion of Sandy’s storm track.
Figure 4
#########
Figure 5
The NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 outputs do not agree with the claims made by Oppenheimer and Trenberth. No surprise there.
CLOSING
Oppenheimer and Trenberth made claims of “conclusive evidence” about Hurricane Sandy that are not supported by data and by the NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2. They also complain about cherry-picking but don’t hesitate to cherry-pick a start year when it suits their needs. And I found it odd that they did not cite Balmaseda et al (2013), a paper that Kevin Trenberth coauthored. Please feel free to point out other inconsistencies or curiosities in their op-ed.
For your viewing pleasure, I just came across a YouTube video titled “Trenberth on Ocean Heat and Climate Sensitivity”.
“Because University faculty and leaders are not voted in, there is only one recourse open to us. Funding.” Gray
Could not agree more. I’ve posted ( probably to much) of former Tennessee Senator and White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker’s decades long involvement with the corruption of science for the benefit of East Tennessee’s premium employer: ORNL and all things nuclear. Although long since retired and living in North Carolina with his wife, former Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum he maintains an active role in the Howard Baker Center for Public Policy. Al Gore being a board member.
Hiding in plain site Baker, Gore, et al have for many decades lavished federal funds on NCAR and others in pursuit of evidence that fossil fuel burning was causing catastrophic climate change. Their goal is simple: more nuclear powered electricity generation for Baker and more “alternatives” for Gore. Pulling this Thing into the light of day for de-funding isn’t going to be easy. Another board member is John Siegenthaler who’s Christmas Card list includes most of the senior people in the MSM.
The Skeptic camp has fought courageously and well on the science. We have yet to muster the political will to de-construct the bipartisan sludge that is keeping the Thing going.
“Kevin Trenberth is a coauthor, yet Oppenheimer and Trenberth chose not to include it as a reference in their op-ed. Curious.”
Heh. More cherry-picking. We’ll have to set up a Twelve Step program for these folks.
“My name is Kevin and I’m a data cherry-picker.”
[Support group] “Hi, Kevin …”
The so called “Super Storm Sandy” was little more than a disintegrating tropical depression when it made landfall. Was is unusual? No… The area has seen these before over and over again every 60-100+ years.
I find it ODD that they would use a weather pattern which has repeated itself over and over to make their point of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming. The fact that the sheep were unprepared is a government failure and a community failure. The ignorance of history is damming all by itself,,
But they use the uninformed public’s ignorance to further a lie and agenda.. The people who believe the bunk are as PT Barnum noted “there are suckers born every minute”. We are over due for a major storm to pass through Texas too. I wonder how many remember the 1900 hurricane season? Galveston had better remember as many of the same flows and warm water patterns have again emerged.
Fossil water, mined for drinking or irrigation from deep aquifers that get little or no recharge, all ends up in the sea.
It appears to be responsible for roughly a quarter of the observed sea level rise,
Also, one may speculate that land subsidence because of this pumping may give false sea level readings in some involved areas.
Pamela Gray’s (June 9, 2013 at 7:56 am) comment
“Because University faculty and leaders are not voted in, there is only one recourse open to us. Funding” does point out that science has become a business where, in many cases, profit and loss are as important as the quality of the product. It does make one wonder whether organizations such as the Royal Society and the American Physical Society are primarily marketing department for their members. The biggest tragedy may be that science has lost it’s way and in the process its credibility.
Bob, would it be possible for you to distill your response to Oppenheimer/Trenberth into a length and format suitable for a letter to the editor at the WaPo?
What about the Norfolk and Long Island hurricane of 1821? It has brought a 13 feet storm surge to Battery Park, at low tide, flooding lower Manhattan completely up to Canal Street. Should a similar disaster struck today, at high tide, as tropical storm Sandy did, it would be some 18 feet high, well above the less than 14 feet level experienced last year.
Anyway, for the fine folks of that distant time it must have felt like an anticipatory punishment for abominable carbon sins of their late progeny.
Robert Oppenheimer- “We knew the world would not be the same. Few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.”
Out of the same event which inspired this famous quote has grown the corrupting influence known as anthropogenic global warming and it’s many branches. If the good of the nuclear industry has to go with the bad then let it be on the heads of it’s proponents who chose this path. For to long those profiting from the corruption of science have played us for fools with our own money. Mounting a serious challenge to one of their grandees, Lamar Alexander would be a good place to start the political rollback. Think we’ll call it The Vishnu Project.
John Moore says:
June 9, 2013 at 7:42 am
The report does not mention the state of the tide at New York harbour when the storm struck. If it was at exactly the time of high tide it could conceivably have made a difference but at any other level none whatsoever. And was it a Spring or Neap tide? An answer would be interesting — can anyone from NY provide the information from the tide tables please?
=======================
The surge peaked at high tide and a full moon. The so called 13.88 feet storm surge was measured from the point of mean low tide. Only in this case/instance has such a thing been done. The reality is that the high tide level and the full moon would have accounted for about for about 8 feet of this supposedly 13.88 foot surge by this dubious measuring system. By their reasoning there would have been an almost 8 foot surge if no storm and dead calm winds! I believe that about 3 feet was actual storm surge due to low atmospheric pressure and another 2 feet due wind pushing seas into a narrow funnel at The Battery. The so called 13.88 foot storm surge is a flat out lie. I can find the graph and be much more precise by reviewing the graphs when I have more time if need be.
To Bob Tinsdale, if you wish to verify these facts please have Anthony contact me through email and I will send screen cap of my source of info.
And how well did he do?
and it gets better:
Elrich and Oppenheim are like two peas in a pod. The more they fail the more they want to fail.
What aggravates me is that mongrels like Trenberth spew their utter nonsense all the while believing that us unwashed plebs will fall for it. He believes we are dumb enough to do so.
Take his bullchit about heat going missing in the deep ocean. SO WHAT IF IT HAS? That deep ocean is less than 4DegC. Whenever and wherever it might surface, it will always cool the surface. It can never be reconcentrated to manifest itself in higher temps than the surface.
e.g. If I boil a kettle of water and pour it into a swimming pool, once that hot water mixes with the cooler pool water, that energy from the boiling water can never be reconcentrated to be boiling again.
So, energy going missing in the deep oceans is a good thing. It’ll take many tens of thousands of years of missing energy accumulation to make a skerrick of difference to surface temperatures.
the globe has been warming for over ten thousand years. In all that time, the deep ocean has reached the grand max of 4DegC. No matter what changes humans make to the composition of the atmosphere, the resulting postulated changes in deep ocean temps will always be irrelevant.
that’s my understanding until convinced otherwise.
Correction to my post at 11:07am
The second last sentence should begin “Since the last full on ice age, the globe has been warming etc”.
Here is the lowdown on the activist in cheif Micael Oppenheimer.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/01/the-case-of-michael-oppenheimer/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/01/04/un-ipccs-michael-oppenheimer-an-activist-first-a-scientist-a-distant-second-scientific-work-roundly-trashed-even-by-fellow-warmists/
“Oppenheimer and Trenberth” … It is sad to see two names that were once respected become the cue to shake one’s head in disbelief and a certain amount of sadness. I guess it is hard for those sitting on the deck of a ship with a hole in it to do anything but keep steaming toward their original berth even if another is at hand since it takes time to change all that inertia and overcome the disbelief that your invincible ship could be struck.
(OT) Richard M “The planet will continue to cool with the PDO …“. Willis’ last post was about the PDO, and its usefulness or otherwise as a predictor. I noted that while Willis’ graph of cumulative [PDO] pressure generally correlated well with global temperature, it was way out from 1910-1925. Many think we’re headed for cooling and that the PDO is a factor, but IMHO we’re going to have to wait and see.
I have uploaded an image from an archived web page of the Sandy Tide Gauges for
Battery, NY and Kings Point, NY as of 10/29/2012 21:42 EDT
Chart starts from 10/28/2012 00:00 with predicted tide levels through 10/30/2012 23:59
Battery, NY: Predicted high tide: 4.52 ft (the weaker peak of the spring tide, about a foot lower than the stronger high tide at 09:00). Recorded high tide: 13.63 ft, Residual (surge): 9.11 ft.
The image is from what appears to be peak water level
Kings Point, NY. The tide at Kings Point at this time is at 5.03 ft, rising to a predicted ~7.8 ft at about 10/30 00:45 +/- 0:15. Noteable here is that the greatest residual happened at about 10/29 19:00 near the LOW tide, predicted 0.0 ft, observed about 12.5 ft, so at 19:00 there is a residual of 12.5 ft. But by 21:42, the observed tide rose another two feet to 14.18 ft, but the predicted tide was 5.03 ft on the way to 7.8 ft. So at 21:42, the residual dropped to 9.15 ft.
Image http://i44.tinypic.com/2qdcwg7.jpg
There is still the live page for the Eastern seaboard Tide Gauges for Sandy:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/quicklook/data/SANDY.html
The page is a bit of a mess. It say it is as of 10/30/2012 12:00 EDT.
Many tide gauges are, however, from 6/6/2013 00:00 with 6/8/2013 00:00 and predictions through 6/9/2013 00:00. (TS Andrea)
The following stations are still showing Sandy from 10/29/2012 12:00
Bishops Head, MD
Philadelphia, PA
The Battery, NY
Kings Point, NY
New Haven, CT
New London, CT
Providence, RI
Boston, MA
Wells, ME
Stephen Rasey, thanks for the links to the tide graphs.
Bob
If Trenberth said “While the increase in atmospheric temperature has slowed, ocean warming rose dramatically after 2000.”
W.Brozek recently reported on June 9th in his post ARE WE IN A PAUSE OR DECLINE
“For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to April 30, 2013).”
Stephen Rasey says:
June 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Thank you for the summary and the link to the tide chart for The Battery, NY. You are correct the expected tide level should be about 4 1/2 feet and not 8 feet as I noted in an earlier comment. I have a screen copy of a different graphic than the one I liked below that come from NOAA or the NHC and showed different levels and was current as of 10:00 pm on 10/30/2012 which was about 14 hours after Sandy’s max surge. I made a quick internet search and found the link below. Not going to bother with it now.
I wrote the earlier post from memory and just now had time to dig it up. The main point I was making is that the talking points of a nearly 14 foot storm surge is misleading at best. Surge should be expressed as that above the expected tide level at the time. To be more realistic the surge level would be expressed as that above high tide level but that is another animal.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/cgi-bin-mp/data_plot.cgi?mins=&datum=6&unit=1&stn=8518750&bdate=20121028&edate=20121103&data_type=wl&relative=&type=Historic%20Tide%20Data&shift=g&plot_size=large&relative=&wl_sensor_hist=W2&plot_backup=
From my comment above:
“To be more realistic the surge level would be expressed as that above high tide level but that is another animal.” This type of surge level reporting would be best for general media reporting, not technical analysis. When the media reports a given storm surge that happens to occur at low tide and people escape flooding and the next storm is reporting the same or less surge but occurs at high tide some of those people are going to get caught in a flood. The general population ain’t very bright and shouldn’t have to review the tide tables to decipher the forecast surge.
herkimer says: “If Trenberth said ‘While the increase in atmospheric temperature has slowed, ocean warming rose dramatically after 2000.'”
Trenberth acknowledges that the warming of sea surface temperatures and the oceans at depths to 700 meters has slowed to a crawl. He’s claiming that the warming is taking place below 700 meters.