Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A couple days ago, I was given a copy of a most interesting interchange from 2011 between Dr. Kevin Trenberth and a layman asking him a question. The sender of the question recently passed it on to me. I’ve redacted the email addresses and the name of the person asking the question, but otherwise it is totally unaltered.
From: “Kevin Trenberth” <trenbert@XXXXX.edu>
To: “Dr XXXX” <xxx@xxx.xxx>
Sent: January XX, 2011 X:XX PM
Subject: Re: warming
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I’m 62 and now semi-retired. I’d like to bring myself up to speed on global warming, which I read is one of the great catastrophes of our time. You describe rising sea levels as being the evidence for man caused global warming. It had been my understanding that sea levels have been rising steadily for thousands of years and now at a very slow rate. I know there’s been a huge increase in man’s CO2 in the heavy industrialisation since World War 2. How has this increase in man’s CO2 effected sea levels ?
The rates have not been steady and picked up markedly in the mid 20th century and even more since 1990 or so. CO2 has been increasing since 1750 although mainly since 1850.
That was Dr. Trenberth’s entire reply to the question.
Now, I found this interchange quite amazing. Here’s somebody asking for information, and Dr. Trenberth’s response about sea levels is … well … almost fact free.
First, he says that “the rates have not been steady and picked up markedly in the mid 20th century” … there are a couple of well-cited analyses of this question. One is by Jevrejeva et al., and the other by Church and White. Here’s what Jevrejeva et al. said about the rate of change of the global sea level (gsl)
Figure 1. Jevrejeva analysis of global sea level (“gsl”, upper panel), and rate of change of global sea level (“gsl rise, lower panel). Source
As you can see, the idea that the rate of sea level rise “picked up markedly in the mid 20th century” is totally contradicted by the Jevrejeva data.
How about Church and White (C/W)? Here’s their analysis of the situation:
Figure 2. C/W analysis of rate of change of global sea level. Source
Again there is little evidence that the rise “picked up markedly in the mid 20th century”. Instead, it continued to go up and down, even as far as zero.
How about the claim that in the 1990s there has been “even more” rise? Well, there’s nothing like that in the Jevrejeva data, but there is in the C/W data. I suspect that that’s what Trenberth is referring to. Why is there such a jump in the C/W analysis?
It’s because Church and White played fast and loose. They simply spliced the satellite-based sea level data onto the tidal stations data, ignoring the fact that the satellite rise is about 50% higher than the tidal station data. So they just hoisted up the tidal data by that amount, so it would kinda sorta match to the satellite data … and then smoothed the splice with a centered filter. Bad scientists … no cookies.
So yeah, when you go past the splice the rate of rise SEEMS to go up from about 2 mm/yr to 3 mm/yr … which is what Trenberth has reported as fact. But it’s not a fact at all, it’s just a splice.
But wait, it gets worse. In fact, far from increasing as Trenberth claimed, the satellite-measured sea level rise has actually been decreasing, as shown by Cazenave et al. …
Figure 3. ORIGINAL CAPTION: GMSL [global mean sea level] rate over five-year-long moving windows. a, Temporal evolution of the GMSL rate computed over five-year-long moving windows shifted by one year (start date: 1994). Source (paywalled)
I discussed the Cazenave et al. results shown in Figure 3 in a post called Sea Water Level, Fresh Water Tilted. Now Dr. Cazenave’s study was published in 2014, so Trenberth wouldn’t have known of that in 2011. However, I noted the decrease in the satellite data back in 2010 here, so it’s been visible in the raw data for some time. Here’s my graphic from that post:
Figure 4. Variations in the sea level as measured by the TOPEX/JASON satellites.
Since he’s setting himself up to answer questions about sea level, Dr. Trenberth certainly should have known of the decrease.
Here’s my point in all of this. A variety of people, even good honest scientists like Dr. Judith Curry, have been publishing a host of posts and studies claiming that the problem with climate science has something to do with bad communication. Dozens of theories have been advanced to try to explain why Americans are totally unconvinced by climate scientists, why we consistently rank climate as the least of our problems. Why, they ask, are climate scientists unable to get their message across to the American public?
These theories are all about how scientists are not explaining things in the right way, or about how “deniers” have a different mental makeup than the faithful, or how there is a lack of clarity in what the scientists are saying, or how the framing of the message was incorrect … but in nearly every case, the issue is cast as being one of poor communications.
(Let me say in passing that given that the climate alarmists have had the full and enthusiastic backing for several decades of the mainstream media, and of the governments, and of the schools and universities, and of the leaders of various professional societies, and of the jet-setting Hollywood stars, and have been funded to the tune of millions and millions of dollars to try to get their message across, including $300 million from Al Gore, and $74 million from Tom Steyer, and have had lots of advice from expensive media and communications consultants … well, after three decades of that immense pressure, “poor communications” seems the least likely explanation for their failure. But I digress.)
However, this exchange puts the lie to all of that. There is no lack of clarity in Trenberth’s statement that
The rates have not been steady and picked up markedly in the mid 20th century and even more since 1990 or so.
There’s no communication problem there, no murkiness, no poor framing. The problem is that Trenberth is spouting the same old alarmist nonsense about “accelerating sea level rise”, a claim that is demonstrably untrue. Sea level rise hasn’t accelerated. To the contrary, it has slowed down.
I don’t know why Trenberth made those crazy claims, whether he was honestly mistaken, or he knows but doesn’t care, or he actually doesn’t know what the sea level is doing, or he is just pushing an agenda. Be clear that I make no claims about his motives, his knowledge, or his mental state. I truly don’t know why he answered the way he did.
But what I do know is that after decades of being spoon-fed bovine waste products by climate scientists, who the whole while have been confidently assuring us that it’s ice cream … the American public has wised up.
It reminds me of the joke you’ve likely heard …
A kid says to his friend, “What’s that in your hand?”
His friend says “They’re smart pills! They make you smarter. You want one?”
“Sure”, says the kid, and he eats one and makes a terrible face. “These aren’t smart pills,” the kid says, “these are sheep droppings!”
“See?” his friend says. “You’re getting smarter already!”
So yes … thanks to repeated doses of Dr. Trenberth’s Smart Pills being prescribed by far too many climate scientists, the American people are getting smarter already.
My best to all,
w.
De Costumbre: If you disagree with what someone says, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. That way we can all be clear about exactly what you think is incorrect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis
Thanks.
From Cazenave et al 2014, The Supplementary info is available at:
The rate of sea-level rise DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2159
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/extref/nclimate2159-s1.pdf
PS Per your searching for solar cycle impacts, the raw rate of change of sea level data might show it. cf with a 2.75 year lag per David RB Stockwell.
Thanks, David. Stockwell seems entirely unaware of a) the effect of autocorrelation on statistical significance, and b) the difficulties of using the cross-correlation function (CCF) with a highly cyclical dataset. He desperately needs to run the TSI data against random data to give himself a benchmark. I just re-ran the numbers on the data that Stockwell uses … no statistical significance in the slightest.
w.
Thanks – passed it on.
W. There are much larger logical problems with Cazenave’s paper’s physical interpretation. See essay Pseudo Precision in Blowing Smoke. Any feedback gratefully acknowledged in advance.
Rud, a google search doesn’t find “Pseudo Precision in Blowing Smoke” anywhere … PLEASE, folks, INCLUDE LINKS. I don’t take well to being sent on a snipe hunt like this one.
w.
“As you can see, the idea that the rate of sea level rise “picked up markedly in the mid 20th century” is totally contradicted by the Jevrejeva data.”
Looking carefully at fig 1, I would say it picked up from the 1930’s, probably the warm AMO mode. Fig 2 shows the rate of rise generally higher from the 1930’s, but then it gives up a couple times when the AMO is in its cold cold mode from ~1965, except around the sunspot cycle maxima.
Sea level rise is a big deal. Not nit-picking. As RG Brown has pointed out here previously, absence of a recent acceleration of sea level rise is the single observation with most potential to falsify AGW. No surprise then that they send in an attack dog.
Indeed phlogiston. Sea level rise is the exposure. Consider the ‘hottest decade on the record’, glaciers is spiral meltdown, ‘warming oceans’, heat and hot everywhere I tell ya! Yet if the rate of sea level rise does not accelerate then there appears to be a little problem. On this thread there is some evidence for a DECELERATION in the rate of sea level rise. Even if it isn’t, it’s not accelerating. That is a problem. RG Brown hinted at snowfalls. The IPCC projects an increase in snowfall in Antarctica towards the end of this century. Extreme snowfalls have been recorded in East Antarctica. It is complex I have to say.
So, as the heat hides in the deep ocean, the water hides in East Antarctica.
That explains everything!
Yes, I tried to engage some CAGW proponents at Eco Watch about SL rise. The conversation went like this…
Shashumna (me)
There has been no GLOBAL increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme storms
etc. There has been zero acceleration in SL rise, which has continued unabated since the earth came out of the little Ice Age, and has zero to do with CO2. In fact at least 20 peer reviewed studies show a slowing in SL rise.
——————————————————————-
xploit22 > shashumna • 3 hours ago
What space ship did you just crash land in, shash???????
===================================================
shashumna > xploit22 • 2 hours ago
The world of peer reviewed science…http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/11/david-…
Do you wish to see the science on hurricanes droughts etc, or just SL?
————————————————————————————-
Wells > shashumna • 2 days ago
Ignorance is bliss. Nevermind. Have a nice day.
—————————————————————-
shashumna > Wells • 2 days ago
Here are the papers on SL rise. The ignorance is your sir. “In response to roughly 3/4 century of substantial anthropogenically-driven CO2 increases, there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. In fact, some studies have detected small a deceleration (slowing). Here are some papers which have reported the lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise”
Douglas B (1992). Global Sea Level Acceleration. J. Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, No. C8, pp. 12,699-12,706, 1992. doi:10.1029/92JC01133
Douglas B and Peltier W R (2002). The Puzzle of Global Sea-Level Rise. Physics Today 55(3):35-40.
Daly J (2003). Tasmanian Sea Levels: The ‘Isle of the Dead’ Revisited. [Internet].
Daly J (2004). Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels for the Greening Earth Society. [Internet].
Jevrejeva S, et al (2006). Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. J. Geophysical Research, 111, C09012, 2006. doi:10.1029/2005JC003229. (data)
Holgate SJ (2007). On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters. 34, L01602.
Wunsch R, Ponte R and Heimbach P (2007). Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993-2004. Journal of Climatology. 5889-5911.
Woodworth P, et al (2009). Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 777-789, May 2009. doi:10.1002/joc.1771
You ZJ, Lord DB, and Watson PJ (2009). Estimation of Relative Mean Sea Level Rise From Fort Denison Tide Gauge Data. Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Coastal and Ocean Engineering Conference, Wellington, NZ, September 2009.
Wenzel M and Schröter J (2010). Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks. Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans. 115:C08013.
Mörner N-A (2010a). Sea level changes in Bangladesh new observational facts. Energy and Environment. 21(3):235-249.
Mörner N-A (2010b). Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time. Quaternary International. 221(1-2):3-8.
Mörner N-A (2010c). There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! 21st Century Science & Technology. Fall 2010:7-17.
Houston JR and Dean RG (2011a). Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. 27:409-417.
Houston JR and Dean RG (2011b). J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean (2011) Reply to: Rahmstorf, S. and Vermeer, M., 2011. Discussion of: Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. Volume 27, Issue 4: pp. 788-790. doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1
Watson PJ (2011). Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research. 27:368-377.
Modra B and Hesse S (2011), NSW Ocean Water Level. 21st NSW Coastal Conference. (or here)
Mörner N-A, (2011a). Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes by exploring past geological sea level records. Chapter 6 of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3.
Mörner N-A, (2011b). The Maldives: A measure of sea level changes and sea level ethics. Chapter 7 of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3.
Boretti A (2012a). Short Term Comparison of Climate Model Predictions and Satellite Altimeter Measurements of Sea Levels. Coastal Engineering, 60, pp. 319-322. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.10.005. (Also, an article about this paper.)
Boretti A (2012b). Is there any support in the long term tide gauge data to the claims that parts of Sydney will be swamped by rising sea levels? Coastal Engineering, 64, pp. 161-167. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.01.006
Hughes W (2012), Continued existence of Maori canals near Blenheim in New Zealand indicates a stable relative sea level over 200 years. [Internet].
Boretti A and Watson T (2012). The inconvenient truth: Ocean Levels are not accelerating in Australia. Energy & Environment. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.23.5.801
Burton D (2012). Comments on “Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island, New York,” by Shepard, et al. Natural Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8
Lüning S and Vahrenholt F (2012). Fallstudien aus aller Welt belegen: Keine Beschleunigung des Meeresspiegelanstiegs während der letzten 30 Jahre. (Case studies from around the world: no evidence of accelerating sea level rise over the last 30 years – English translation.)
Homewood P (2012). Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating? [Internet].
Schmith T, et al (2012), Statistical analysis of global surface temperature and sea level using cointegration methods. Journal of Climate, 2012, American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00598.1 (or draft)
Mörner N-A and Parker A (2013). Present-to-future sea level changes: The Australian case, Environmental Science, An Indian Journal, ESAIJ, 8(2), 2013 [43-51]
Scafetta N (2013a). Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1771-3 (In press; preprint here.)
Scafetta, N (2013b). Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics. 1, 37-57, 2013. doi:10.5194/prp-1-37-2013.
http://www.populartechnology.n…
==============================================
Wells > shashumna • a day ago
Good for you. You’ve learned how to cut-and-paste. For your next lesson, try collecting a scrapbook of other things that are interesting TO YOU, though they have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
==============================================
shashumna > Wells • 9 hours ago
I make a comment asserting no acceleration of SL rise. You call me ignorant.
I show you a list of peer reviewed papers in support of my assertion that SL rise has shown no acceleration in the CO2 era, and in fact there is evidence of a slow down. I also give you a link.
You make the inane claim that my comment and link to the peer reviewed literature is not cogent.
Weird, just really weird.
===============================
This is typical, but I think reasonable skeptics should post more at CAGW sites.
rgbatduke that was an excellent post about Antarctica and why warming may be taking place in some places .
If sea level rise is the issue, we could flood the Qattara depression for the price of “a large canal or tunnel being excavated of about 55 to 80 kilometres (34 to 50 mi) depending on the route chosen” (from wikipedia) and lower the sea level by about 3 mm (one or two years worth of rise). An 80 km canal would not be cheap but it would be more efficacious than the same money spent on windmills. There would also be geopolitical and regional climatic benefits. I’m not saying we should do it I’m just saying it would be better than windmills.
Never heard of this geoengineering idea before. It’s very good.
No problem. Lots of old nukes laying around. Use them.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Operation_Plowshare?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
The IPCC projects an increase in snowfall in Antarctica towards the end of this century. From Jimbo.
My reply
The IPCC’S climate basic climate premise is WRONG therefore any other conclusions they may make are essentially meaningless.
Oh I agree. The references I gave show evidence of extreme snowfalls in East Antarctica in more recent times.
The IPCC also projects a decrease in Antarctica’s sea ice extent this century, in contrast to the record extents on the satellite record.
Let me add and restate.
Oh I agree. The references I gave show evidence of extreme snowfalls in East Antarctica in more recent times as opposed to their projection towards the end of the century. A failure to project the extreme snowfalls now on the IPCC’s part I think.
Most of the posts seem to miss the key point here. Trenberth was asked “what is the key evidence for MAN CAUSED warming”. This was his best shot – sea levels. Even if sea levels did have a sudden spurt, which obviously they haven’t, how could this be directly attributed to man?
If Trenberth and the IPCC still can’t find a shred of evidence to support the catastrophic man caused warming theory, why hasn’t the nonsense been put to bed?
Too much money is at stake, that’s why.
New carbon emission taxes promised an endless gravy train of money to redistribute by the political class.
Green energy subsidies, social spending, votes to be bought with other peoples money. Carbon taxes for the Greens was the environmentalist’s dream tool to slow down and eventually choke-off industrialization, mining and oil and mineral resource extraction.
Socrates November 16, 2014 at 12:26 am
Socrates, I don’t have to try to make Trenberth look incompetent. He’s done that quite well on his own, inter alia through things like this answer. Nor did I offer a “straw man conjecture” as you state. To the contrary, I said clearly that I was making no claims about his motives and reasons
As to why he answered that way, I didn’t write him because I don’t care in the slightest why he is spreading misinformation. His motives make no difference. He could have said “I don’t know” in response to the question, but instead he has set himself up to answer the question, and he has a responsibility to answer it accurately. He has the information available to him to answer it accurately. Instead, he spreads misinformation … why? I couldn’t care less why he does it. I’m discussing the effect of the constant spreading of misinformation, for whatever reason, by those who are leading alarmist climate scientists.
Don’t forget, Trenberth is the man who futilely tried to reverse the null hypothesis … meaning that the null hypothesis would henceforth be that human-caused global warming is happening, and it would be the skeptic’s job to show it’s not happening. This was a blatant attempt to change the scientific rules when he saw his side unable to meet the burden of proof.
After a man tries that totally anti-scientific trick, Socrates, I fear he has no scientific credibility left … so no, there’s no need for me to “try to make him look incompetent”. He’s already been there and done that most effectively.
As to whether revealing Trenberth’s answer is a “betrayal of trust”, say what? This was a supposedly scientific answer to a scientific question, not private details about his life.
Regards,
w.
Seconded.
And he has succeeded in the minds of certain Guardian commenters. The damage he has done to the UK’s intellectual life is incalculable, immeasurable but yet still immense,
Trenberth knew the science was a travesty and chose to push it as truth regardless. He is not a hero of science.
Don’t forget Trenberth’s role in encouraging editor Wagner to quit in protest of Roy Spencer’s article, and T’s rubbishing of the same.
Below is another classic example of Trenberth’s AGW alarmist exaggerations when speaking about an El Nino for 2014 in a two part interview earlier this year.
In it, among other things, he forecasts during this year’s El Nino “we will go up, you know, 2 or 3 tenths of a degree Celsius to a next level and maybe we won’t come down again”. He also claims that NOAA underestimated the extent of this year’s El Nino… and on and on.
At the end of the interview, Trenberth suggests that if his predictions don’t come true that he and interviewer John Sinclair could bury the interview. The both then just laughed at that.
As it turns out, there has been no El Nino in 2014, let alone the Super El Nino Trenberth warns us about.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Martin November 16, 2014 at 12:35 am
Thanks for the question, Martin. As I pointed out in the head post (but obviously not clearly enough), the satellite data on sea level is about one mm/year higher than the tidal gauge data. Jevrejeva used tidal gauge data. UColorado is reporting satellite data. It’s that simple.
This does NOT mean that sea level rise has increased or that it is accelerating. It means that the satellite data doesn’t agree with the tidal gauge data, and it never has.
This is why splicing the two datasets together, as happens all the time in the alarmist world, is bogus. It is also the reason that Trenberth is claiming (falsely) that sea level rise accelerated in the 1990s.
Finally, it is not just my claim that sea level rise has slowed. I linked to a discussion of the Cazenave paper regarding the slowdown in the head post, it’s worth reading.
w.
Concluding from the Cazenave paper(fig.03) the slowdown of the sealevel rise is synchronised with the temperature hiatus. Meanwhile there is a claim that the heat during the hiatus is in the ocean what should mean thermal expansion still continues and should show up. However this is not the case Can the claim be put ad acta?
Thanks Willis, I read the papers you linked to and have more questions.:)
From the Jevrejeva et al paper it says:
“Our global sea level trend estimate of 2.4 ± 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 is comparable with the 2.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise calculated from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter measurements.”
So going by that satellite data on sea level is not one mm/year higher than the tidal gauge data. Both datasets are in close agreement. Which makes sense cos the satellites are calibrated against the tidal gauges.
From the Cazenave et al paper it says:
“Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming.
Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming.
The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water.
We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1)”
So going by that your claim that sea level rise has slowed down is not correct. The paper directly contradicts what you said! Tis madness!
Thanks, Martin. The early returns from the satellites were indeed about 2.6 ± 0.7 mm/year, but after more data came in and earlier figures were adjusted, the new trend was about 3.4 mm/year.
Next, did you read my analysis of the Cazenave paper? Her desperate attempt to erase the decrease in observed sea level is based on very weak evidence.
Finally, you and many others seem to be missing the point. It’s not whether the rate of sea level rise has decreased. It’s whether the rate of rise has accelerated.
There has been no statistically significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, either in the tidal data or the satellite data, no matter how much handwaving Cazenave has done. The alarmists have been predicting such an acceleration for decades now … but despite increasing CO2, there is no significant evidence for the claimed acceleration.
w.
Martin, there is a rather complete refutation of Cazenove’s physical explanation in essay Pseudo Precision. Read it, and then get back. Maybe you know something about the Amazon and Congo river basins that no one else, including Cazenove, does… But probably not.
Any reason why Nils-Axel Mörner “sea level rise expert using DATA” is not quoted in regards to rate of SLR?
Is he considered to be “credible” here at WUWT? I myself tend to believe his figures, based on his data.
http://www.as-se.org/gpg/paperInfo.aspx?ID=16723
Actually eustatically adjusted data. What do you conclude from this “data” J. Peterson ?
I conclude, not from just this data, but from his life’s work, that the rate of sea level rise is closer to 1mm/yr than 3mm/year. I think his study of the Maldives and other Pacific Islands deserve more respect. I assume you know about the famous tree in the Maldives that was removed by “scientists” to try to disprove his studies that there has been no SLR in the Maldives.
He (Axel Mörner) has done more hands-on research than you or Dr. Kevin Trenberth has done on the subject. Do you refute that?
Thanks. yes I’m painfully familiar with this tree incident, not as familiar with these particular studies. I hadn’t, and still haven’t read the full pdf and frankly thought you were about to push some CAGW “study”.
Thanks for the link and new info which is always welcome.
Willis I responded to your commentary about you saying you do not believe any one who thinks he has an answer to what the climate may be do. I did it under the topic :warmest oceans ever recorded.
I presented my case right or wrong and the why behind it. I think every single one of us has a conclusion. Your conclusion is there is no good conclusion for example. CORRECT? Which I respect and welcome believe it or not.
Nevertheless you will see I have many questions at the end of what I say which means I am by no means sure about my conclusions only that I have a conclusion.
Trenbeth is Grubering
Thanks, Willis. Very good data analysis.
Socrates,
Why don’t you fetch Trenberth here so that he can speak for himself. That way, he can explain what he meant in his EMA.
Why don’t you do that, because we would all like to know.
EMA=email
Jai Mitchell November 16, 2014 at 11:13 am Edit
Dear heavens, Jai, you truly are out of touch. We’ve discussed this “HELP! MY ATOLL IS SINKING, GIVE ME MONEY!” nonsense here on WUWT several times.
Start by reading Floating Islands, which discusses why some atolls are in trouble. SPOILER … it’s not CO2 or sea level rise.
Then segue to “The Irony, It Burns“, which shows that most Pacific atolls (~80%) have either been stable or gained land area in the last 50 years … just as Charles Darwin explained so many years ago.
Then, if you disagree with anything in those two posts, please come back and let us know.
Best regards,
w.
Someone tell Trenberth he can clear up some attacks on him by simply posting a response at WUWT.
Jimbo November 16, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Thanks for that, Jimbo. I do so love a paper whose abstract contains the following two statements:
and
Say what?
Sadly, it’s paywalled, so I can’t determine what they mean by “significant oscillation” … but given the second statement, it can’t be all that significant. Nor is that a surprise, given that we have few tidal records that are much longer than 150 years … which is only two and a half 60-year cycles. Hang on, let me look …
OK. We have two tidal datasets over 180 years, and only 9 from 150-180 years. As a result, when someone claims that there is a “significant” 60-year cycle from seeing only two or two and a half cycles, I just laugh. Nature is naturally deceptive about cycles, they appear and disappear. For example, sea level from about 1960 to 1990 agrees well with the sunspot data … but before and after that period, the correlation vanishes. My rule of thumb is that I need to see four cycles to even begin to draw conclusions, and even then I’ve been fooled.
So claiming a 60-year swing in sea level based mostly on seeing only two cycles or so is a joke.
w.
“So claiming a 60-year swing in sea level based mostly on seeing only two cycles or so is a joke.” — the instrumental observation data started around 150 years then study of that data is joke then read WMO (1966) “Climate Change” manual written by top meteorologists of the world. We every other day a truncated data of an observed cycle, two different groups are coming to different conclusions. Both the papers are published and media highlighting them. Even CO2 data measurements started around 1956 but we are discussing on this day in day out spending billions of US$.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Willis they conclude as follow:
“Until we understand whether the multi decadal variations in sea level reflect distinct inflexion points or a 60-year oscillation and whether there is a GMSL signature, one should be cautious about computations of acceleration in sea level records unless they are longer than two cycles of the oscillation or at least account for the possibility of a 60-year oscillation in their model. This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record of from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges.”
They attribute some of the apparent oscillations to local wind variation: “It is likely that a significant fraction of the multi decadal fluctuations in local and regional sea level represent dynamical adjustments to winds, and resulting fluctuations in the strength of the circulation, propagation of Rossby and/or Kelvin waves, or other effects that when averaged globally do not cause a significant amplitude in GMSL. “
Thanks, Phil. Their idea that we don’t have to be cautious if we have say three cycles of the oscillation just reveals that they haven’t looked at enough natural datasets. For example, from about 1940 to 1980 there are four sunspot cycles that line up kinda well with sea levels.
But when we look at the longer record, the correlation disappears entirely.
So no, three or even four cycles of a given oscillation may mean exactly nothing. It’s a recurring problem with looking for possible natural cycles—they can persist for a surprisingly long time, and then vanish entirely.
w.
I think this is just a case of selection bias. Dr Trenberth clearly believes and owns the AGW meme. That being the case he will naturally select those data that support his belief. There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to human beings and science conducted by human beings.
I do the same thing myself all the time except in the opposite direction. In my case if I see a particularly damming study that supports CAGW I naturally assume it must be faulty. Not because I have read the paper, but because I believe that the weight of evidence indicates CAGW to be faulty and therefore by association this paper must be faulty too.
Goldie, there is a difference between selection bias (ignoring inconvenient counter stuff) and plain old prevarication. Trenberth (main thread) prevaricated. Period. Proven by W. and by many more.
Never trust a liar. Which was the main point of the “communications issue” of this thread.
Rud Istvan November 16, 2014 at 5:40 pm Edit
NO, NO, NO. I have not established that Dr. Trenberth “prevaricated”, which is a fancy term for “lied”. I thought I’d put this issue to bed in the head post, but I guess some folks didn’t see it, so let me repeat it:
I do NOT say Trenberth lied (prevaricated), absolutely not. I made no claims about why he what he did. For all I know, it could be he just doesn’t know, as I said.
w.
W. You are far too polite, or afraid. You up thread proved that he (Trenberth) lied to the commentator, and then denied that you did that out of what?? When is written above thread?
Come on, W. War is hell. Mix it in.
Yes, prevarication is a fancy word for lied. And what the hey was the point of your original post upthread, other than to point out that Trenberth had originally prevaricated on SLR? Oh, if that does not suffice, please see essays Missing Heat and An Awkward Pause in the new ebook forward from Judith Curry.
It is about time to call liars “liars”. And to let the resulting chips fall where they may.
Highest regards to one who could do so, but here has not…
Rud
Rud Istvan November 16, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Absolutely not. It is not a question of either politeness or being afraid. It is a question of lack of knowledge.
The fact is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone but Kevin Trenberth knows why he wrote what he wrote … and maybe not even him. I’m often unaware of my own deeper motives until after the fact, if then.
If I were forced to guess, I’d guess that the words of the song apply here:
I’d guess that Trenberth heard what he wanted to hear about sea level, disregarded the rest, and never checked the facts. I’d guess that he honestly thinks he’s telling the truth.
But I don’t know that, any more than you know that he lied. You have no way at all to determine if he’s lying, mistaken, playing a prank, recalling something incorrectly, or believes he is telling the truth.
Rud, I do my best to avoid speculating on motives. In my youth, accusing a man of lying was something that wasn’t done unless you had ironclad proof in your hand when you made the accusation. It was taken very seriously, and in my opinion rightly so.
In fact, my thread proved nothing about whether he lied, and I personally doubt that he did. But since I have no knowledge about that, as I said clearly in the head post, I take no position at all on his motives or the beliefs behind his actions. We have no evidence regarding his inner mental state, so speculations on the question are meaningless.
w.
Yeah, for all you know, maybe he was just trying to blow the guy off, so he gave the guy a sentence or two. If the Dr. was a layman as the article emphasized, why would Trenberth want to waste his scientific time with the hoi polloi? An important man like Trenberth? Wouldn’t he view his time as far too valuable?
I suspect he believes he is right and the data is wrong, but based on good theoretical grounds, the data will eventually be cleaned up and vindicate what he always knew must be true.
What constantly amazes me about these climate “scientists” who evidently love to fabricate data is that they actually seem to believe that they won’t get caught. Evidently because they keep doing it!
They are like Putin who claims to that his forces are not in the Ukraine. They fabricate even though they know we know they are fabricating. They just can’t help themselves.
rgbatduke,
Thank you for your discussion re: Antartica and the tectonic “hot spots”. Can you offer a reference where I could read more fully?
Especially regarding the last paragraph:
“The point being that once again, the Earth-Ocean system is a highly complex one. Increased CO_2 almost certainly warms the earth, and is almost certainly responsible for a substantial fraction of the post 1850 warming observed. It is very difficult indeed, however, to attribute precisely what fraction, nor is it possible to assert any sort of high probability prediction for future climate in the Earth’s chaotic climate system. What one can say with some certainty is that there is little evidence for substantial positive feedback on top of the carbon dioxide linked warming, and moderate evidence that natural climate variation is likely to be responsible for a substantial fraction of the warming observed in (say) the mid-1980s and early 1990s.”
This, in summary is what I’ve perceived and yet have so far been unable to find addressed as succinctly as you’ve done so here. I could copy and paste but attribution is important so if that belongs to you I can use your offering as presented.
I’ve found the natural climate variation to be lacking in the AGW side of the discussion and when I’ve asked for it directly no offerings have been provided.
I just do not have the scientific background (yet, but hopefully?) to tease this out for myself.
As your likely aware, wearing the shoes of the “unknowing” in sites such as these one can become “raw meat”. No matter which side one asks. Even bringing up the possibility that the answer lies somewhere in the middle becomes becomes a suggestion of weakness and the “piling on” begins.
rgbatduke November 16, 2014 at 7:56 am
Doctor Robert, thanks as usual for your detailed and always fascinating comments. I was with you right to the end, where you said:
I fear I don’t understand where your certitude comes from. As far as I know, we have good evidence that increased CO2 increases the amount of upwelling radiation absorbed by the atmosphere.
However, that’s very different from saying that increased CO2 “warms the earth”. This is one of the things that people have been trying to establish for 30 years, with very little success … so what evidence makes you “almost certain” that increasing CO2 warms the planet?
And even if such evidence existed, saying that “CO2 warms the earth” is very different establishing to a near certainty that such an increase is “responsible for a substantial fraction of the post 1850 warming observed”. Again, people have been looking for evidence for this claim for decades, and I certainly haven’t seen enough evidence to make me even “vaguely convinced”, much less “almost certain”, that CO2 is a major player in the post-1850 warming.
I mean, as far as we know from the ice cores, the CO2 level didn’t vary much in the thousand years prior to about 1850. As a result, CO2 was NOT a major or even a minor player in the pre-1850 warmings and coolings, (LIA, MWP, etc) … given that we have good evidence that such large temperature swings happen without CO2, what makes you “almost certain” CO2 is not just a player but a major player in the modern warming?
As a result, I’m curious … what is the evidence upon which you base those two “almost certain” comments?
My best to you as always,
w.
Even the consensus view is that there was not enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere to be detectable until at least 1950. The 1850 claim is clearly nonsense based on wishful thinking and lack of understanding of the actual scientific theories…
If that doesn’t get a laugh out of everyone, nothing will! Do I have to show this to you again?
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg
The claim that CO2 started to measurably warm the atmosphere comes out of the IPCC reports. You may find the claim funny, but to be honest, I doubt very few people care what amuses you. Note, that doesn’t mean the claim is necessarily accurate. But to attempt to refute the claim by posting a graph that shows temperature fluctuations versus CO2 over millions of years is clearly futile. For example, Pangaea existed 300 million years ago. It would have totally altered the climate of the planet at that time. I’m a sceptic, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to use a very silly argument like that.
Willis – I doubt the fellow who passed his email exchange with Trenberth thought it would lead to a comment string this long!
You know when Al Gore made his predictions that the seas would rise by 12 feet by 2012. I was a little concerned. I live beside the ocean and my dock would have been under 6 feet of water as of 2 years ago by Al’s prediction. What to do? Well I attached a 3 FT stainless steel ruler to the piling and made some observations as to the height of the seas as to where in relation it was to the height of my dock. I reasoned that if there was a sharp rise in the overall level then I would have to move the dock upward to be able to still use it before the seas closed over it. Well my dock is still in its original place and as far as I can see the overall height of the water is about where it was 12 years ago. The funny thing about my little experiment is it did not cost much about $22.00 for the ruler and .60 for the screws. Unfortunately the data points were written down on a board beside the shed door and we painted over them after we found no real change as my shed needed painting. So I am not a scientist but if I can see the results of a long term experiment (12 years) and it does not agree with a learned scientist like Dr Trenberth then I guess I am a denier then.