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.

Reading that response, the big increase in CO2 did occur about 1990, and the comments were NOT about rising sea levels, but correcting the assumption that CO2 been steady rising. The “big” increase and upticks start around 1990. Did I miss something here? Read the response again – the context and statement is pointing out that CO2 has NOT been rising steady – no one made or make a claim that sea levels started rising significantly after 1990, but anyone following the CO2 levels would most certainly correct to make such a claim.
I fail to see how this is a false statement. It is false to claim that CO2 been steady rising and the response seems rather clear and correct in that context. How did 200+ posts fail to read this correctly?
Regards,
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Just like in the post about the bees there were many posters claiming that the paper referred to was wrong about the behavior of the different sexes of bees based on what they knew about honeybees. Despite it being pointed out multiple times that the paper was not about honeybees! Some people don’t read the posts.
albertkallal,
I see in the email only ONE question being asked of Mr. Trenberth. It is a question about SLR.
Are you telling us that Mr. Trenberth simply chose NOT to answer the ONE question asked by this gentleman, but instead chose to randomly address something else entirely ?
Now that’s a bit odd to say the least, don’t you think ?
I 100% agree the question is about sea level rise. The answer simple stated that CO2 has not risen steady, but only really took off in about 1990. If the claim here is that the sea level rise question was not answer and not address? Yes, I 100% agree. And one might argue this is “deflection” on the part of the answer. The answer given fails to address sea level rise and DOES NOT address nor answer the question of sea level rise. In fact the answer given does NOT EVEN address the question correctly.
So while everyone is reading the context of rising sea levels (and that includes the question), the answer is “open ended” as it states nothing about sea level rise. The simple issue is the answer does not claim that sea level rise started appreciably in 1990, but ONLY stats that CO2 starting rising significantly around 1990.
So while the answer given is NOT an answer to the question, the answer SIMPLY clarifies what is a simple fact (that being CO2 started to rise However in the given context).
We can lament that no answer about sea level rise was given.
We can lament the fact that the question was not addressed.
We can lament the fact that the answer was a dodge.
However the statement made is benign and the poster should have then followed up with:
So you stating that CO2 only appreciably started rising around 1990, hoes does then correlate to sea level rise then?
So again, it rather clear to me the question was not answer, and perhaps one can consider the answer a “dodge”. However I cannot fathom in ANY WAY that the answer and the context of 1990 refers to sea level rise – it does not, and could have not, and the answer does not claim as such. I admit that such kinds of answers are ambiguous or this is simply a person attempting to correct and answer “part” of the question.
I fully admit that someone who does not have a good answer would MOST LIKELY resort to correcting the person asking the question. This is exactly what occurred. You can always win points in a debate by correcting the assumptions made in the question.
It is STILL WRONG to post and assume the answer given was about sea levels rising in 1990, it was not. For me this is clear as day. I have no intention supporting such a clown, but I VERY MUCH dislike someone’s context being taken out of context to bash someone.
This is like the widely reported claim that Lord Monckton claimed he had a cure for AIDS. He NEVER EVER made such a statement – the statement Monckton made was taken out of context – VERY MUCH like what is occurring here. As much as I despise these scoundrels, this thread is based on WRONGLY taking something out of context.
Wrong is wrong – even when I don’t like who we are bashing here!
Regards,
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
The original question mentions “steadily” in the context of sea level rise — “It had been my understanding that sea levels have been rising steadily for thousands of years” — and concludes by asking, “How has this increase in man’s CO2 effected [sic] sea levels ?”
The question is about sea levels, plural, and “steady” refers to sea levels’ (plural again) increasing.
Dr. T replies, “The rates” (plural) have not been steady. Then he states that “CO2 has been increasing” — singular.
I can see how you might read the exchange as OP asking about sea level and Dr T ignoring that to reply only about CO2 — but I do dispute that that is in any way the “correct” reading.
Since “sea levels” and “The rates” are both plural, and since “steady”/”steadily” is attached to “sea levels” in the original question, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret Dr T’s ambiguous “The rates” as referring to sea levels, plural, and not to his singular CO2.
Gee, can you please be MORE convoluted on the way to your cryptic point. And who are addressing mellyrn ?
You are making stuff up, that has nothing to do with the article. Start your own blog about the evils of skeptics.
Meanwhile this article points out Trenberth was asked and gave a specific answer Trenberth cast as fact, but was actually an opinion outside the evidence. The question in this article “Why Trenberth made those crazy claims”. is rhetorical. There is no good answer to being deceptive.
Trenberth like many climate scientists have dual careers, one in scientce and one in propaganda. He obvioulsy had his propaganda hat on for his reply to the email.
Also:
“It had been my understanding that sea levels have been rising steadily for thousands of years and now at a very slow rate” is the quote from the gentlemans email.
Please tell me how that equates to : “It is false to claim that CO2 been steady rising and the response seems rather clear and correct in that context. How did 200+ posts fail to read this correctly?”
I’d say nice try, but it really wasn’t, was it ?
The above reply is for albertkallal, the bad placement is mine, sorry.
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
LMAO. Not even worth a serious reply at this point, but thanks for the chuckle Elpis.
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
Willis,
Really? According to the graph, in 1950 the rate was 2 mm/year. In 1850 it was -2 mm/year.
Again, really? Note that in the C/W graph prior to 1950 there are several years between 0 and -1, whereas after 1950 it only flirts with zero in 1963, and briefly dips below in 1985. Draw a regression line in either chart, and ponder the meaning of a positive slope of such a line against a plot showing rate of change.
Yah. From 2009. The most recent data are here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
My plot of it, showing rate of change over a trailing 61 month sampling period: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSYTk0MW1GX251TXc
Dunno, I’m not a mind-reader. But I think it would be good of you to think about such things the next time you make claims about short-term trends based on a 5 year old graph … such trends have a tricky way of reversing themselves in that amount of time.
Brandon Gates November 17, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Brandon, thanks for your detailed response.
Yes … and it “picked up markedly” from the 1850 value, but it did so around 1900, fell, rose again, fell again, and rose again. To describe this by saying that the rate “picked up markedly in the mid 20th century” is a very poor description of what actually happened … and one that fits the AGW narrative. When you read that it “picked up markedly in the mid 20th century”, you certainly don’t imagine it immediately dropping again, but that’s what happened. And that doesn’t fit the narrative at all.
Did you not read the head post? C/W spliced the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, and then smoothed the splice. You do that and you can get any result you want.
2009? Say what?? The Cazenave study was published in 2014, it’s not from 2009.
A five year old graph? My friend, I think it would be good of you to look at the dates of the graphs before you start foolishly lecturing me. The Cazenave paper was published in 2014, it’s not even a year old. The graph I showed contains the results of a 5-year centered average, so the graph contains data up to 2011. Elsewhere, the Cazenave paper comments on sea levels up to 2013.

Since this is well after the 2011 date of Trenberth’s email, the deceleration was happening at that time, as your graph clearly demonstrates.
So I fear that at the time of Trenberth’s email, yes, sea level was indeed decelerating, and had been doing so for about nine years … but gosh, somehow he failed to mention that.
Finally, you’ve made an error in your calculations for your graph. The trend of the 61-month trailing UColorado data actually looks like this:
Note that unlike in your graph, the trend has NOT recovered to what it was before the drop, much less exceeded it as your graph shows. Also note that had Trenberth done this calculation in 2011, it would have shown a clear decrease in the rate, as both your and my graphs show.
I suspect that the error in your graph lies in the fact that there are different numbers of observations each year, with the 61-month observation totals ranging from 169 to 187 observations. As a result, you have to put in an adjustment for that in your worksheet calculations.
Short answer? If you want to disagree with me, as I surely encourage people to do, “it would be good of you” to get your facts straight first, and to make sure that your graphs don’t have errors …
w.
What you should have used for your Figure 3 is Casenave et al Figure 2b — which corrects for natural variability, and shows almost no trend in SL (just a very slight decline that I suspect isn’t statistically significant). Figure 2a does not correct for NV. There was a big La Nina in 2008, hence the temporary decline in SL.
The trend of your Figure 2 is obviously upward. The rate of SLR is increasing. That’s a positive acceleration of the level of the sea over the long-term.
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
Epiphron Elpis November 17, 2014 at 10:05 pm Edit
Thanks, Epiphron. So your explanation is that the large La Nina in 2008 caused the drop in the rate of rise that started in 2002?
In any case, I used the actual data above. You can make any kind of claims that you want as to WHY the sea level decreased … but neither Trenberth nor I were talking about anything but the variations in the actual observations.
I went through and identified the problems with their analysis step by step, start to finish. Read my paper again (linked above), and if you have an objection, bring it up. There are a number of problems, each one enough to sink their analysis.
Finally, “natural variability” is just climatespeak for “we have no clue about the cause”. It is not possible to remove from the data something for which we have no idea about the cause.
Are you truly not reading? I just discussed this question in the comment you are replying to, saying:
In addition, Trenberth’s claim is that CO2 is the cause of the sea level rise … and since there was little change in CO2 until 1900 or later, I fear that the gradual increase since the 1800’s is not relevant.
w.
PS—Jevrejeva provides error estimates on his results. Church and White can’t be bothered … which is another reason their results are useless.
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
Willis,
Numbers speak for themselves:
1800-1899: -0.08 mm/yr
1900-2009: 1.92 mm/yr
There were no satellites in the 19th century.
The caption says nothing about a centered average: “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).”
Ok, what does it say about sea levels up to 2013?
And yet in 2011 when Kevin allegedly wrote his note, the rate of sea level rise well north of 2 mm/yr. 1800-1899: -0.08 mm/yr. 2011: 2 mm/yr. Today it stands at 4 mm/yr, as my graph clearly demonstrates.
My calcs say 4.6 mm/yr in 2003, 1.9 in 2010, 2.6 in 2011, 2.0 in 2012, 4.1 in 2014, just like your graph.
My graph does not show a “recovery” to the 4.6 mm/yr peak in 2003 any more than yours does because it’s the exact same plot.
Which number represents the highest rate of positive change: 2.0 or -0.8?
This has probably appeared on WUWT previously,but from the far side of the world and for what it’s worth: http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/
Of course the Tasmanian government, like other governments, has the usual number of warmists working for them.