[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Mostly wrong on warming

Wednesday, October 24 at 12:01 AM

By Kevin Trenberth

In commenting on “Al Gore’s ignoble Nobel” (Oct. 19), Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Rosen failed to recognize that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change and Al Gore (in that order). As a scientist who has played a major role in IPCC for 20 years, Mike Rosen’s comments are not only offensive, they are mostly wrong.

No, most of the warming since 1900 was not from 1900 to 1940, but after 1970, when we can prove — using climate models — that it is due to human influences changing the atmospheric composition of the atmosphere: mainly increases of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

No, “the impact of human activity” does not continue “to be overwhelmed by myriad other variables.” Instead, the IPCC intergovernmental meeting in Paris of over 100 governments in late January agreed on language that global warming is “unequivocal” owing to overwhelming evidence of warming in many variables, ranging from rising surface and above-surface atmospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level, drought and heat waves; and decreases in snow cover, snowpack and sea ice, glaciers and low temperatures. These are accompanied in well-understood ways by increases in water vapor, heavy rain- and snowfalls, hurricane intensity and changes in precipitation patterns. The effects are already far-reaching and profound, even if not obvious to everyone.

No, water vapor does not account for 95 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; rather, water vapor accounts for about 60 percent of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide accounts for 26 percent, with ozone (8 percent), methane and nitrous oxide making up most of the rest. Human-induced warming has, however, increased water vapor over the global oceans by 4 percent since 1970 and over land by 2 percent to 3 percent, providing fuel for more powerful storms and an increased greenhouse effect.

Yes, “climate change is a natural and age-old phenomenon on this planet” but it has not happened at current rates for thousands of years. Ice ages have indeed come and gone (the last was 20,000 years ago), and they were mainly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.

No, solar activity does not dwarf all other factors. We have measured the output from the sun from satellites since 1979 and the changes are so tiny (less than 0.1 percent as part of the 11-year sunspot cycle) as to be of no consequence. In contrast, the changed greenhouse effect is about 1 percent of the sun’s energy entering the Earth system.

To suggest that we will adapt to climate change as we have in the past is to grossly underestimate the rates and magnitudes of changes expected in the next century. Of course we will adapt, but with how much loss of life and hardship brought on by climate change? At least we should plan for the coming changes and currently we are not.

The IPCC process is very open and the reports are thoroughly reviewed. In fact, most of the so-called “deniers” participate and their comments are fully taken into account. Gore’s statement that ice sheets melting in Greenland or the west Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time frame on this for it to happen. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, should be viewed by all schoolchildren; I recommend it.

The shallow analysis by Rosen does him no credit. In contrast to his prediction that when future generations look back and regard Al Gore’s 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as “even more preposterous than Yasser Arafat’s Nobel for bringing peace to the Middle East,” I predict they will lament the wasted time in not getting our use of nonrenewable resources under control, and especially despise ignorant commentators who encouraged others not to take action.

Kevin E. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

READER COMMENTS

Thank you Hank, for proving that climate change deniers are all in it for the schadenfreude.

Posted by Ferruge on November 16, 2007 06:18 PM

brain:

CL, MY SOURCE OF INFO IS PARTLY WHAT YOU OFFERED HERE AS I STATED; APPARENTLY YOU DON'T READ DETAILS? GREAT REBUTTAL " I don't know and really don't care about what Al Gore says or does.
ROSEN'S COLUMN WAS ABOUT AL GORE GETTING THE IGNOBLE NOBEL; WHY RESPOND TO MY POST IF YOU DON'T CARE?

I do read details and I also understand that certain details matter more than others.

In saying that I "don't care", you are mistakenly broadening what I actually said - that I don't care what Gore says or does.

Sure Rosen's column was about Gore getting the Nobel, but take another look at the title of this thread:
"Mostly wrong on warming"
So here we are getting into the science of GW.

My response to your post was very specific - you wrote:

After all Monckton has no "credentials" or isn't a scientist ? Oh yeah, Al doesn't or isn't either.

to which I responded:

Which is a very good reason for not relying on either for your source of information.

Why is that not a direct, relevant and on topic response? It is also in line with my statement that I don't care what Gore says or does.

WHAT IS AL AND KEVIN SO AFRAID OF IF CHRISTOPHER AND MIKE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?

I can't speak for "Kevin", but what makes you think he's afraid, because Monckton and Rosen say so? Using your reasoning, why are Mokton and Rosen are so afraid to publish in the science journals?

You are clearly confusing science and politics and how they operate. Science does not operate in the realm of talk radio, newspaper columns or punditry documentaries (and for very good reasons).

What do you or anyone else with some ideas propose us humans do to stop global warming?

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are proposals out there. However, if one does not understand the science behind it (which is my main arguement) then one has no hope of guaging the potential effectiveness and ramifications of the specific proposals. This is especially important to keep in mind because many proposals are and will be driven by motivations, ideologies and agendas that use the issue of GW to further goals other than addressing the problem of GW.

A case in point - GW is used as a reason for getting rid of the dreaded SUVs, mostly by folks who wanted to get rid of SUVs before GW was much of an issue. However, if you don't understand the science of GW then how can you possibly evaluate the effectiveness of getting rid of SUVs will be in addressing GW? (the answer, BTW, is not very)

Neither Gore, Monckton or Rosen contribute to the science of GW, they are commentors and politicians. The fallicy is relying on any of them to understand the science and is in fact ass-backwards of how one should approach the issue.

Posted by CL on November 1, 2007 11:00 AM

CL, MY SOURCE OF INFO IS PARTLY WHAT YOU OFFERED HERE AS I STATED; APPARENTLY YOU DON'T READ DETAILS?
GREAT REBUTTAL " I don't know and really don't care about what Al Gore says or does."

ROSEN'S COLUMN WAS ABOUT AL GORE GETTING THE IGNOBLE NOBEL; WHY RESPOND TO MY POST IF YOU DON'T CARE?
WHAT IS AL AND KEVIN SO AFRAID OF IF CHRISTOPHER AND MIKE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?

What do you or anyone else with some ideas propose us humans do to stop global warming?

Posted by brain on October 31, 2007 08:09 PM

aliciala -

It's not disputed that the climate has varied throughout the earth's history. However, we have been able to work out what the climate was like going back over 1/2 million years (mainly from ice cores)and see what the pattern of change was like over that period. That combined with what we have learned about the external influences to the earth's climate (ie solar and orbital variations) have led many of the scientists to conclude that the current situation is not part of the normal pattern of climate variability.

And how can they be drilling for fossil fuels under the antarctic ice?

In a nutshell, Plate Tectonics.
http://geology.com/pangea.htm
The continents where in radically different locations when the deposits were first laid down than they are today.

Posted by CL on October 31, 2007 12:18 PM

I wonder how many SUV's it took to melt the glaciers that caused the Great Lakes. And how can they be drilling for fossil fuels under the antarctic ice? Wouldn't that mean there was once life and vegitation there, only to be covered by ice and snow? Just as we change from summer to winter seasons, the earth goes through more prolonged changes.

Posted by aliciala on October 31, 2007 11:54 AM

brain:

Why won't Al Gore debate Monckton?

I don't know and really don't care about what Al Gore says or does.

If Monckton is such an expert and his arguments are so well founded, why doesn't he publish them in the science journals Could it be he knows they won't hold up under the scrutiny of the scientists most familiar with the subjects?

After all Monckton has no "credentials" or isn't a scientist ? Oh yeah, Al doesn't or isn't either.

Which is a very good reason for not relying on either for your source of information.

Posted by CL on October 31, 2007 09:59 AM

Wm. L. Hyde

CL...why are you denying the facts? Simply twisting what Monckton has said does not constitute a rebuttal.

Well Mr. Hyde, why don't you explain how the chart from the National Climate Data supports what Monckton said.

I posted a link to the very data from the very source Monckton was referring to - how is that denial of the facts? Your posts contain nothing more than "bleating" assertions with no evidence to support them and fail to address the facts that have been presented - so who is in denial here?

Try paying attention to reality more, and less to the obvious propaganda of the AGW and Big Enironmentalism Lobbies.

And of course you have nothing to support this baseless assertion. I've cited the very scientists that worked with the satellite & radiosonde data and the very data that Monckton referred to which you totally ignored - so who is paying attention to reality here?

Your posts support the very argument I first put forward:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people claim to know so much about why GW is bogus, yet their own claims show they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Now, if you have such a firm grasp on reality and the facts as you claim, then you should have no problem countering that with facts and well founded logic. Care to give it a try?

Posted by CL on October 31, 2007 09:46 AM

Lots of great info available here on both sides of this debate, which leads me to believe that there is no proof we are just forcasting.

Why won't Al Gore debate Monckton? After all Monckton has no "credentials" or isn't a scientist ?
Oh yeah, Al doesn't or isn't either.

Kevin, why did you refuse to go on Rosen's show and discuss your letter?

Posted by brain on October 30, 2007 08:01 PM

CL...why are you denying the facts? Simply twisting what Monckton has said does not constitute a rebuttal. Try paying attention to reality more, and less to the obvious propaganda of the AGW and Big Enironmentalism Lobbies. Try to think logically and you will soon see through the whole thing. Good luck with your inner journey!
Cheers.....theoldhogger

Posted by Wm. L. Hyde on October 30, 2007 06:32 PM

ROBERT R. PRUDHOMME:

by Christopher Monckton (Advisor to Margaret Thatcher and a Climate Expert ).

A climate expert? And I'm really good looking too - (its true - cause I said so).

Mr. Prudhomme then proceeds that he's really good at cutting & pasting from some unspecified web site
Hint - its from the Science & Public Policy Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)
which repotedly got $100,000 from Exxon in 2002 and $50,00 a year after that...

I could follow Mr. Prudhomme's example, and cut & paste from some unspecified web site that says bad things about Monckton, but rather than do that
I'll take a crack at a couple of Monckton's claims:

First he opens with this:

Trenberth ... makes 23 scientific mistakes, each of which falls in the direction of magnifying the unjustifiable alarm stoked by panicky politicians and extravagantly-funded environmentalists in cahoots with silly scientists.

But then he turns around and says:

Error 1:
... he has appeared on a public platform opposing the consistent findings of the IPCC that there is no reason to suppose that hurricanes have become or will become more frequent as a result of "global warming?", and little reason to imagine that they will become more intense.

Here I thought the "direction of magnifying the unjustifiable alarm stoked by panicky politicians and extravagantly-funded environmentalists" was towards more hurricanes with greater intensity?
Sounds like "Error 1:" contradicts Monckton's opening paragraph.

Error 2. Trenberth says most recent warming was "not from 1900 to 1940, but after 1970." In fact, the land and sea temperature records of the National Climate Data Center the rate of warming in the 1920s and 1930s, before humankind had much influence on climate, was as great as it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Monckton is simply wrong (as is Rosen) and Trenberth is correct. Here's the National Climate Data Center's own chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

Well the first 2 are a load of crap, so I'm not going to waste my time with the other 21. I have better things to do with my time than respond to Mr. Prudhomme's lazy cut & pasting.

Posted by CL on October 29, 2007 02:00 PM

Wm. L. Hyde:

If the nails went into the coffin on August 20/2005, why haven't they lowered it into the ground yet? The Believer bleatings get more desperate every day! As deniers of reality go, this poster takes the prize!

Mr Hyde - did you forget to enter your rebuttal before pressing Post or are you simply "bleating"?
When skeptics like Rosen quite making the argument and remove it from their website as well, its a pretty good indication that it is has indeed been lowed into the ground.

Posted by CL on October 29, 2007 01:57 PM

by Christopher Monckton (Advisor to Margaret Thatcher and a Climate Expert ).

Twenty-three scientific errors
by a "major" IPCC scientist
in one short article

Kevin Trenberth (Rocky Mountain News, October 24), commenting on Mike
Rosen's article expressing legitimate doubts about the award of the Nobel
Peace Prize to Al Gore, makes 23 scientific mistakes, each of which falls in
the direction of magnifying the unjustifiable alarm stoked by panicky
politicians and extravagantly-funded environmentalists in cahoots with silly
scientists.

Error 1. Trenberth says he has played "a major role" in the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 20 years, implying that he is
part of the scientific mainstream on climate change. However, he has
appeared on a public platform opposing the consistent findings of the IPCC
that there is no reason to suppose that hurricanes have become or will
become more frequent as a result of "global warming?", and little reason to
imagine that they will become more intense. His misconduct led to objections
by Dr. Chris Landsea, who resigned as lead author for the IPCC on hurricanes
when the bureaucracy failed to act on his objections.

Error 2. Trenberth says most recent warming was "not from 1900 to 1940, but
after 1970." In fact, the land and sea temperature records of the National
Climate Data Center the rate of warming in the 1920s and 1930s, before
humankind had much influence on climate, was as great as it was in the 1980s
and 1990s. Since the IPCC's previous report in 2001, there has been no
statistically-significant "global warming" at all.

Error 3. Trenberth says, "We can prove ' using climate models ' that it is
due to human influences changing the composition of the atmosphere". One
cannot prove anything with numerical forecasting models: Lorenz (1963)
demonstrated, in his landmark paper that founded chaos theory, that climate
forecasting for more than a few weeks ahead is altogether impossible.
Computer models are merely expensive forms of elaborate guesswork, to which
the foolish cling in the near-total absence of any analytical basis in
theoretical physics for the absurdly exaggerated effects of insignificant
increases in the atmospheric content of trace gases on temperature that are
imagined by the IPCC.

Error 4. Trenberth says that most recent warming ?" is due to human
influences". However, even the IPCC says the recent warming cannot be
definitively attributed to anthropogenic influences, reflecting numerous
peer-reviewed scientific papers such as Buentgen et al. (2006), who
conclude, "The 20th-century contribution of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosol remains insecure," or Zhen-Shan
and Xian (2007), who say, "The CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate
change ? could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to
reconsider the trend of global climate changes."

Error 5. Trenberth says the impact of human activity "does not continue to
be overwhelmed by myriad other variables," on the ground that the IPCC?s
2007 report says it is "unequivocal" that the climate is warming. Here, he
commits the common logical solecism of assuming that the fact of recent
warming tells us its cause. In fact, the model-predicted "fingerprint" of
anthropogenic as opposed to natural warming ? a rate of increase in
temperature over the decades that is two or three times greater six miles up
in the tropical troposphere than at the surface ? is almost entirely absent
from the observed records of the past half century.

Error 6. Trenberth says the effects of warming "are already far-reaching and
profound". Since the warming itself has not yet brought global temperatures
to the levels seen in the mediaeval warm period, when we were growing
wine-grapes in Scotland and our Viking cousins were farming parts of
south-western Greenland that remain under permafrost today, and since the
warming has now ceased, it is nonsensical to suggest that the effects of
that warming are anything other than insignificant and generally beneficial.

Error 7. Trenberth says water vapor accounts for just three-fifths of the
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, though water vapor accounts for
about three-fifths of the "greenhouse effect," the peer-reviewed literature
suggests that its atmospheric concentration accounts for two-thirds to
nine-tenths of the concentration of greenhouse gases. Interestingly, there
is still no clear agreement among scientists about this important consideration.

Error 8. Trenberth says, "Human-induced warming has, however, increased
water vapor over the global oceans by 4 per cent since 1970 and over land by
2-3%." By the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, the space occupied by the
atmosphere is capable of carrying near-exponentially more water vapor as
temperature rises. However, Trenberth is again illogical in assuming that the
fact of warming and of its consequences reveals the cause. Natural warming
increases the atmospheric concentration of water vapor just as anthropogenic
warming does.

Error 9. Trenberth says the "human-induced warming provides fuel for more
powerful storms". It does no such thing. It is a matter of record that the mean
annual number and intensity of severe hurricanes shows no change in 100 years,
while tropical cyclones and typhoons have actually fallen in number. Several
peer-reviewed papers attest to the influence of wind-shear in moderating what
might otherwise be stronger storms. Outside the tropics, it is widely accepted
that warmer weather will mean fewer and milder storms.

Error 10. Trenberth says additional water vapor caused by "human-induced"
warming will provide "an increased greenhouse effect". In fact, any warming,
whether natural or anthropogenic, will cause the sea to outgas carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere, causing what is known as the "CO2 feedback". However, the IPCC
has no idea what the extent of this feedback will be ? its high-end estimate is
800% larger than its low-end estimate.

Error 11. Trenberth says climate change "has not happened at current rates
for thousands of years". In fact, one need only go back to the 18th century
to find that in central England between 1700 and 1735 the mean atmospheric
temperature rose by 2.2 degrees Celsius in a third of a century compared
with 0.8 Celsius, most of it natural, in the 20th century. The mediaeval, Roman
and Bronze Age warm periods were warmer than the present, as were each of the
last four ice ages. The temporal resolution of the ice-cores upon which
"thousands of years" of temperature reconstructions are based is insufficient to
allow us to draw any conclusions whatsoever as to the rates
at which temperatures changed during previous ice ages.

Error 12. Trenberth says, "Solar activity does not dwarf all other factors."
There is insufficient data to draw this conclusion. Solanki et al. (2005),
say, "The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional.
The previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years
ago -- During the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10%
of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity. Almost all of
the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

Error 13. Trenberth says the changes in solar activity are "tiny (less than
0.1% as part of the 11-year sunspot cycle". However, the great astronomer
William Herschel, as far back as 1801, noticed an inverse correlation
between the number of sunspots in the 11-year cycle and the price of grain
on Earth as published in a table by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations. The
more sunspots, the finer the weather, and the finer the weather the more the
grain grows, and the more the grain grows the lower the price. Trenberth's
implication that even the small fluctuations between the 11-year solar minima
and maxima are insignificant is accordingly long-proven incorrect. It was, after
all, the Sun that caused the 2.2 degree C rise in temperature in just a third of
a century a couple of hundred years back.

Error 14. Trenberth says "the changed greenhouse effect is about 1% of the
sun's energy entering the Earth system". However, the IPCC admits that the
level of scientific understanding of most of the anthropogenic forcings and all
of the climate feedbacks that together make up our effect on the climate is low.
Numerous scientists have concluded, by different methods, that the IPCC's
estimate of the influence of CO2 on the flux of radiant energy in the
Earth/troposphere system is exaggerated twofold or even threefold.

Error 15. Trenberth says, "To suggest that we will adapt to climate change as we
have in the past is to grossly underestimate the rates and magnitudes of changes
expected in the next century." Given that "global warming" has stopped for
almost a decade - and a decade in which the IPCC says the "CO2 radiative forcing
has increased by 20%" - Trenberth ought perhaps to have been more cautious in
believing the extreme forecasts which he and others have been circulating. Cold
kills far more people than warmth.(7 times)

Error 16. Trenberth says, "Of course we will adapt, but with how much loss of
life and hardship brought on by climate change?" Though the IPCC fatuously
estimates that 150,000 people a year are being killed by "global warming" - a
"global warming" that is not in fact happening " the truth is
that warmer weather kills fewer people than cooler weather, which is why in the
US alone it is estimated that thanks to warmer weather 174,000 fewer people a
year are dying because of cold.

Error 17. Trenberth says, "At least we should plan for the coming changes."
The "precautionary principle" -- plan against a danger even if the scientific
basis for it is unsound or incomplete -killed 30 to 50 million people from
malaria when the environmental movement succeeded in getting DDT banned
worldwide. Before the ban, 30 years ago, just 50,000 people a year were killed
by malaria. After the ban, the mean annual death-rate rose to 1 million. On 15
September 2006, the World Health Organization at last lifted this murderous ban,
caused by needless and heedless "planning". Its spokesman said that science and
the data had to replace politics in future. Trenberth, please note.

Error 18. Trenberth says we are not currently planning for "the coming
changes". Not so. In the UK we have built the Thames Barrier, though it is not
used any more often now than when it was built a quarter of a century ago. In
the Netherlands a sea wall has been built along the entire coastline. These are
sensible adaptations - though of course Al Gore's suggestion that sea level will
imminently rise by 20 feet is almost a
10,000% exaggeration of the combined total of just 2.5 inches of sea-level
rise from melting the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that IPCC expects
between now and 2100.

Error 19. Trenberth says, "The IPCC process is very open." It is not. The IPCC
tends to deselect scientists known to disagree with its alarmist viewpoint. For
instance, Paul Reiter, nominated by the US to assist the IPCC with the 2007
report because he is the world's foremost expert on malaria,
was passed over in favour of two non-experts who had published only one
peer-reviewed paper on malaria between them, but had each published alarmist
reports in conjunction with the green movement. When Reiter asked why these
two were chosen over him, the IPCC lied to the effect that he had not been
nominated. He checked with the US Government, and he had indeed been
nominated.

Error 20. Trenberth says the IPCC?s reports "are thoroughly reviewed". They
are not. The crucial chapter in which the IPCC blames climate change on humanity
was reviewed by only 40 people chosen by the IPCC itself. The authors of the
IPCC's chapter decided to reject more than half of the reviewers' comments (and
very nearly all of the comments that were
critical). This is not peer-review in the accepted sense. Only a tiny handful
even of the hand-picked "reviewers" explicitly agreed with the IPCC's conclusion
that humankind is chiefly responsible for recent warming of the climate.

Error 21. Trenberth says, "Most of the so-called 'deniers participate" in
the IPCC process, "and their comments are fully taken into account". This is
known to be untrue. For instance, Paul Reiter pointed out during discussions on
the draft 2001 report that the ban on DDT had done far more to spread malaria
than "global warming," that the malaria mosquito does not need temperatures any
higher than 15 degrees C and is not therefore tropical, and that the largest
recent outbreak of malaria was in Siberia in the1920s and
1930s, when 13 million were infected and 600,000 died, 30,000 of them at
Archangelsk on the Arctic Circle. All his comments were rejected in favour
of a nonsensical statement to the effect that "global warming" would spread
malaria. It will not. When Paul Reiter asked for his comments to be taken into
account, the IPCC refused. He resigned, and then had to threaten to sue before
the IPCC would take his name off the defective chapter on the imagined ill
effects of "global warming" on human health.

Error 22. Trenberth says, "Gore's statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland
or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it
was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.? Though Trenberth
"played a major part" in the IPCC process, he somehow failed to
point out that the IPCC itself has said that temperatures would have to remain
5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today's for several millennia before the
Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice. The Greenland ice sheet has
in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year - a total of 20 inches in 10
years (Johannesen et al., 2005).

Error 23. Trenberth says that Al Gore's climate change movie "should be viewed
by all children. I recommend it." However, only weeks ago a High Court Judge in
the UK found nine serious departures from the scientific mainstream in the film,
which he referred to as "errors", and said that if
the UK Government had not agreed to send to each school a list of corrections to
the movie he would have found its distribution of the movie to all UK schools to
be unlawful. There are in fact some 35 serious scientific errors in the movie,
which ought not to be shown to any child.

Trenberth's shallow analysis discredits both him and the IPCC in which he
plays "a major part". The likelihood that Trenberth, in a short article, would
have made as many as 23 errors all falling in the direction of undue alarmism
and flagrant exaggeration by mere accident is less than 1 in 8 million. Sir John
Houghton, the first chairman of the IPCC, in which Trenberth plays ?"a major
part", wrote in 1994 that "Unless we announce
disasters, no one will listen." If Trenberth and the IPCC, in which he plays
"a major part", go on announcing disasters when none are in truth at all
likely, then indeed no one will listen, and no one should. From now on, we
want honest, unbiased science. No more lies. Tell us the unvarnished,
unexaggerated truth. Then, and only then, we will listen.

Posted by ROBERT R. PRUDHOMME on October 28, 2007 06:21 PM

If the nails went into the coffin on August 20/2005, why haven't they lowered it into the ground yet? The Believer bleatings get more desperate every day! As deniers of reality go, this poster takes the prize! Or maybe it should be a Nobel! LOL!!!
Cheers...theoldhogger

Posted by Wm. L. Hyde on October 28, 2007 02:18 AM

An Engineer:

I'm heading out for the weekend, so I'm not going to spend much time on this today so I'll be brief. If need be, I'll go into more depth later if needed.

Unfortunately, the actual data does not support your claim or the report you cited. Follow this link to a discussion of the many data sets available on the subject.
[http://]www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/JS-response060503.html

In summary, several sets of temperature data records, even when adjusted, show that the climate models are not correctly predicting what is actually being measured in the atmosphere. There is no other way to state it.

(Because RNM limits me to 2 links before holding a post for review, you'll need to cut & paste some URLs).

So junkscience.com is unhappy - big whoop.

Yes there are other data sets, and they have their problems too. For example the balloon data see:
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115640v1?rbfvrToken=5ea9496b9834443b3721a6b59bbd5d40fcdc2304

The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations. Several characteristics of this trend indicate that it is an artifact of systematic reductions over time in the uncorrected error due to daytime solar heating of the instrument, and should be absent from accurate climate records. Although other problems may exist, this effect alone is of sufficient magnitude to reconcile radiosonde tropospheric temperature trends and surface trends during the late 20th century.

There's more to the MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) data than junkscience lets on. The data comes from several satellites each with their individual calibration issues and piecing each satellite's data into a single data source has been problematic. An indication of just how problematic this has been, the two main groups working on the data (Christy & Spencer of UAH and Mears & Wentz of RSS) come up with different temperature trends. Junkscience uses the UAH derived results which are conveniently lower than those produced by RSS.

From the CCS report Chapter 4
"What is our understanding of the contribution made by observational or methodological uncertainties to the previously reported vertical differences in temperature trends?"
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap4.pdf

While all data sets indicate that the troposphere has warmed over both the radiosonde era and the satellite era, uncertainties in the tropospheric data make it difficult to determine whether the troposphere has warmed more than or less than the surface. Some tropospheric data sets indicate that the troposphere has warmed more than the surface, while others indicate the opposite.
- It is very likely that errors remain in the adjusted radiosonde data sets in the troposphere since the methods used to produce them are only able to detect and remove the more obvious errors, and involve many subjective decisions. It is likely that a net spurious cooling corrupts the area-averaged adjusted radiosonde data in the tropical troposphere in at least one and probably both of the data sets, causing the data to indicate less warming than has actually occurred.
- For tropospheric satellite data (T2 and T2LT), the primary cause of trend discrepancies between different versions of the data sets is differences in how the data from the different satellites are merged together.
- A secondary contribution to the differences between these data sets is the difference between the diurnal adjustments that are used to account for drifting measurement times. These differences in the diurnal adjustment are more important for regional trends than for global trends, though regional trend differences are also partly influenced by differences in merging methods.

Note that Mears of RSS is the Convening Lead Author and Spencer & Christy of UAH are lead & contributing authors.

Chapter 2
"What kinds of atmospheric temperature variations can the current observing systems measure and what are their strengths and limitations, both spatially and temporally?"
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap2.pdf
reports (among other things)

- Adjustments to the land surface temperature record have been sufficiently successful that trends are reasonably similar on large (e.g., continental) scales, despite the fact that spatial sampling is uneven and some errors undoubtedly remain. This conclusion holds to a lesser extent for the ocean surface record, which suffers from more serious sampling problems and changes in observing practice.
- Adjustments for changing instrumentation are most challenging for upper-air data sets. While these show promise for trend analysis, and it is very likely that current upper-air climate records give reliable indications of directions of change (e.g., warming of the troposphere, cooling of the stratosphere), some questions remain regarding the accuracy of the measurements.
- Upper-air data sets have been subjected to less scrutiny than surface data sets.
- Adjustments are complicated, sometimes as large as the trend itself, involve expert judgments, and cannot be stringently evaluated because of lack of traceable standards.

Note that the Christy of UAH is the Convening Lead Author and Mears of RSS is a contributing author.

I'll also point out that Christy is a favorite climatologist among those opposed to GW.

Finally, I'll mention this article:
"Sceptics forced into climate climb-down"
from NewScientist.com
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725134.400-sceptics-forced-into-climate-climbdown.html

AS NAILS in the coffin go, they don't get much bigger: three independent studies have shown that climate sceptics who claim that Earth is not warming have been using faulty data to make their point.

So...

Thus, CL are your other responses of the same accuracy as this one???

I'll stick with the accuracy of this one, thank you.

Posted by CL on October 27, 2007 07:28 AM

In reference to the “CL” comment on my post:

"This is an old argument that almost nobody makes anymore (Rosen used to, but doesn't anymore). The reason is the original calculations were off and have since been corrected.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf"

Unfortunately, the actual data does not support your claim or the report you cited. Follow this link to a discussion of the many data sets available on the subject.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/JS-response060503.html

In summary, several sets of temperature data records, even when adjusted, show that the climate models are not correctly predicting what is actually being measured in the atmosphere. There is no other way to state it.

Thus, “CL” are your other responses of the same accuracy as this one???

Posted by An Engineer on October 26, 2007 06:02 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how many people claim to know so much about why GW is bogus, yet their own claims show they don't have a clue what they are talking about. Examples from this thread:

Tim:

I haven't heard of a single "climate model" that gives a known result when inputing known historical data.

"Modeling Past Atmospheric CO2: Results of a Challenge"
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/EPICA-challenge.pdf

Not when there are other, equilly likely natural causes that haven't been eliminated yet.

And what natural causes haven't been eliminated? Are you familiar with the ones that have been eliminated like solar activity and the earth's orbital variations and why they have been eliminated?

Ultimately, I've been curious about how much work is being done to ignore solar activity as part of the global warming issue since it's such a key part of the green house effect. At it's most basic form, the greenhouse effect lets solar energy in, and doesn't let it out. So shouldn't any effective change in solar output from the sun be a big deal to the greenhouse effect? Yes, a 0.1% increase seems small, but how much energy is that in real numbers? The percentage is worthless if not backed by the real numbers it represents.

"work being done to ignore solar activity" - that's like asking if you've stopped beating your wife. Much has been learned about solar activity, both in understanding how the sun operates, what drives the 11 year cycle (differential rotation tangles up the magnetic field lines) and the how much the sun's output varies over these known cycles (and they are small). Also, temperature data derived from ice cores and other sources going back hundreds of thousands of years show a distinct, repeating pattern. These patterns match known variations in the earths orbit quite well, but they do not show any significant correlation to the know cycles of solar activity.

DrGeol :

It was demonstrated recently that 1939 was the hottest year this century, not 2006.

Only for North America, global temperature records do not show 1939 as the hottest this century.

Steve:

The more I read Kevin's statement of "facts" the more I question them. How do you know the rate of temperature change 1000 years ago?

From ice core data. See:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_isotope.html
if you want to get some of the data (Vostok) yourself. You'll have to cut & paste the URL - RMN only allows 2 links before they hold a post for review.

An Engineer:

Climate models predict greenhouse warming should cause the lower troposphere (the lowest portion of the atmosphere) to warm more rapidly than the Earth’s surface. But just the opposite is occurring. Data from satellites and weather balloons show that the surface is warming more quickly than the lower troposphere.

This is an old argument that almost nobody makes anymore (Rosen used to, but doesn't anymore). The reason is the original calculations were off and have since been corrected.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Posted by CL on October 26, 2007 11:42 AM

this person does believe that the seas are going to rise 20 feet and our little pacific islands wil be under water?? I have news for you...Doctor Nils-Axel Morner the worlds leading expert on sea-levels wil tell you that you do not know what you are talking about (check out www.mitosyfraudes.org/calen7/morner.eng he will tell you that the IPPC report had 22 authors, but none of them-none-were-sea--level specialists..take special note of what he has to say Tuvalu/Maldives!! I will never take the IPPC reports seriously again..

Posted by trevor collins on October 25, 2007 10:59 PM

Trenberth states, "His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, should be viewed by all schoolchildren; I recommend it."

Not all the IPCC people would agree.

John Christy of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize) responds to questions by CNN anchor Miles O'Brien:

O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You going to renounce it in some way?

CHRISTY: Well, as a scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I always thought that -- I may sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas here -- that prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities.

And, when I look at the world, I see that the carbon dioxide rate is increasing, and energy demand, of course, is increasing. And that's because, without energy, life is brutal and short. So, I don't see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy, when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society.

O'BRIEN: So, what about the movie ["An Inconvenient Truth"]; do you take issue with, then, Dr. Christy?

CHRISTY: Well, there's any number of things.

I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is -- well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.

O'BRIEN: But you just got through saying that the carbon dioxide levels are up. Temperatures are going up. There is a certain degree of certainty that goes along with that, right?

CHRISTY: Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So, we're fortunate it's not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing. And when we build -- and I'm one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets -- we don't see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place.

Posted by Jim on October 25, 2007 03:47 PM

most of the warming since 1900 was not from 1900 to 1940, but after 1970, when we can prove — using climate models —

Trenberth loses all credibility when he states that he can use climate models to prove anything! In fact the errors in the climate models overwhelm the changes the AGW proponents claim is caused by man.

Posted by Jim on October 25, 2007 03:37 PM

- I haven't heard of a single "climate model" that gives a known result when inputing known historical data. Yet we are suppose to believe these same models for future events when they can't provide accurate information for test data. The Models that seem to be used as proof for Manmade global warming seem to come with a very high error in it's calculations. In most cases, the error is higher then the projected results.

- IPCC is a political body that voted that global warming is man made, of course based on those prevously mentioned climate models. Then you say it is “unequivocal' owing to overwhelming evidence ..." but where is the evidence? Measurements of warming is not the same as evidence of Manmade warming. As an example, my coffee cooled to room temperature today, does that mean that it was a manmade cooling or another outside event? Just because there is a measured event, doesn't mean it is absolutely one possible cause. Not when there are other, equilly likely natural causes that haven't been eliminated yet.

- The problem with water vapor is that all the studies I've seen disagree with a 60% effect and seem to agree more with the 90-95% effective green house gas. Putting aside the disagreement on how much it does, again, you assume that it's manmade warming increasing the total water vapor content in the air, when the only apparent evidence is that warming is causing the increase.

- "Ice ages have come and gone.." but to suggest that one may be occuring now, or ending now, is impossible? Unlikely? The remote chance that a known, repeating event in earth's history is not likely to repeat itself? Not too long ago, we were worried about global cooling. If we were actually cooling then, isn't it possible that we are warming now from that cooling phase? If that was due to some change in the earth's orbit, nobody has told me recently they felt the earth move.

- Ultimately, I've been curious about how much work is being done to ignore solar activity as part of the global warming issue since it's such a key part of the green house effect. At it's most basic form, the greenhouse effect lets solar energy in, and doesn't let it out. So shouldn't any effective change in solar output from the sun be a big deal to the greenhouse effect? Yes, a 0.1% increase seems small, but how much energy is that in real numbers? The percentage is worthless if not backed by the real numbers it represents. If I had to go to the bathroom, I would prefer to wait for 0.1% of my family to get done, rather than 0.1% of the world's population...

Posted by Tim on October 25, 2007 03:36 PM

In his own weblog in July this year, Trenbeth wrote:
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond."
Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by V.causey on October 25, 2007 02:35 PM

"why not try listening to the arguments made by someone who actually knows something about climate science"
Laughable! Google Chris Landsea and find out how much Trenberth "knows" about climate science. (Why do they call it "Science", anyway?)
"I strongly believe peer reviewed good science is a no-brainer"
This is a good belief, but "inconveniently", it doesn't apply to that inbred cadre of scammers who are involved in Climate "Science".
Computer models? Oh please! Pathetic!
Cheers....theoldhogger

Posted by Wm. L. Hyde on October 25, 2007 01:52 PM

"No, most of the warming since 1900 was not from 1900 to 1940, but after 1970, when we can prove — using climate models — that it is due to human influences changing the atmospheric composition of the atmosphere: mainly increases of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels."

This first comment alone should cause everyone to toss out anything else Mr. Trenberth has to say simply because it is not only idiotic....but incorrect. It was demonstrated recently that 1939 was the hottest year this century, not 2006. From the turn of the century temperatures gradually increased to the level they are at now, after which they fell considerably into that period where everyone was worried about the approaching ice age. From that point to now temperatures have been increasing. So let's see 40 years of warming in the first part of the century followed by cooling and then 25 years of warming in the second part. Perhaps math skills weren't necessary to participate on the IPCC panel?
As to using modeling to predict anything, please help me up from the floor. The latest IPCC report (I'm assuming Trenberth might have actually read some of the chapters he wasn't invovled in rather than the summary for political hacks that everyone seems to quote) was adamant that there was poor understanding in many aspects of climate science including water vapor and solar/cosmic ray effects. The lack of understanding of potential negative feedback mechanisms alone invalidates hard application of the models and the ole "law of the unknown variable" (the most important variable in any given equation is usually the one you don't know about) comes into play as well.

Posted by DrGeol on October 25, 2007 01:08 PM

"Climate Models" Let me guess - these are programmed by the very scientists that are preaching Human caused global warming as fact. They have an agenda which spilled over into the programming of the so called "models" Just like the models used to forecast our weather - how accurate are those long term?
Just like a political or opinion poll these "models" can be molded to get the desired results. I'm sure I could program my financial software to tell me how rich I am as well when facts show that to not be the case.

Posted by Jack Bauer on October 25, 2007 12:16 PM

Oh and by the way Grim there have been actual surveys of actual scientists on this issue. The numbers are nothing like you suggest. Many show skeptics in the absolute majority. Careful phrasing that avoids labeling it as catastrophic and human caused can produce a significant majority that warming is occuring. Your 3000:1 claim shows you have no idea.

Posted by Wondering Aloud on October 25, 2007 11:52 AM

I can't believe any scientist would make the statement "we can prove — using climate models".

How embarassing. This is the kind of statement that would earn a freshman a failing grade on a lab report.

Scientific Method... Use it.

Posted by Wondering Aloud on October 25, 2007 11:46 AM

From junkscience.com, the one site I trust:

"What a dodgy bit of refutation you have engaged in.

Depending on which data set is employed some different results are available but the bottom line is that the mere inclusion of the 1997/98 El Niño response differentiates the estimated warming of the first half of the 20th Century from the second and even then you need extrapolate the warming trend over a century to distinguish by 0.1 K (something we have no hope of measuring, as you are well aware). Moreover, climate model output is not data and constitutes no proof. Goodness! The ensemble chosen for the intercomparison project can't agree over a 5 K range just what the baseline temperature of the planet might be. Parenthetically, many of them produce as much warming as is estimated to have occurred since the Industrial Revolution in their unforced control run state.
Yes, the net impact of anthropogenic forcing is absolutely overwhelmed by natural forcings at ~1.5 Wm-2 (IPCC WG1 AR4, fig 2.20) when incoming solar is evaluated at 342 Wm-2 and "back radiation" (greenhouse effect) of 324 Wm-2 according to, um... Kiehl and Trenberth actually (surely you were not unaware of this research?).
Climate might be changing (it usually does) but humans are most assuredly not the major drivers of global climate.
Actually, water vapor has a variable effect with altitude and latitude but no one has refuted: "Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor." (S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264.)
Carbon dioxide is capable of trapping >35% of Earth's OLR (Outbound Longwave Radiation) but manages less than one-third its potential due to absorption by water vapor and clouds.
Some models suggest increases in atmospheric water vapor but research has found no increase in net precipitation (and what goes up as evaporation comes down as precipitation), making that model-generated 'data' suspect. At best the situation is unresolved and lacking evidentiary support.
Ice ages might be caused by Milankovic Cycles although there are competing hypotheses and this, too, remains unresolved. Current rate of change is really barely detectable at 0.6 ± 0.2 K since the latter 19th Century, always providing that is actual rather than a measurement artifact (tropospheric measures do not agree with Hansen's bizarre method of extrapolating 1200 Km from recording points).
The calculated expected temperature of the Earth is 288 K while "the most trusted models" suggest Earth's temperature is 14 °C (287.15 K), according to Hansen, meaning model-estimated mean temperature plus published anomaly figures remain below the expected 288 K figure. We are still not certain whether this is a "warming" or an incomplete recovery.
We are only just untangling solar effects but yes, it does appear solar variation is highly significant, particularly via both positive and negative amplification being investigated by Svensmark and others.
On the whole, Dr Trenberth, your rebuttal appears a pretty disingenuous attempt to browbeat a columnist from authority and some might be tempted to say you're not even wrong. Surely you haven't enhanced NCAR's standing with such a grubby little piece of bullying."

Posted by impartial observer on October 25, 2007 10:36 AM

From junkscience.com, the one site I trust in to give the truth:

"What a dodgy bit of refutation you have engaged in.

Posted by impartial observer on October 25, 2007 10:33 AM

Al Bore is the only one responsible for globull whining. What a moron.

Posted by CHGRBILL on October 25, 2007 03:28 AM

I suspect that the believers in global warming may be hyping their case. Do I believe that weather is cyclical? Sure, but - I do believe that the pollutants put in the air by people could well be adding to the problem. And - studies by both JAMA & Lancet seem to indicate that lung problems like asthma are increasing not because of 2nd hand smoke these days but because of vehicular pollution - from exhaust to tire smut. Anybody who has lived in the metro Denver area for any length of time can tell you the brown haze hangs over the city virtually year round - and if you don't think that's messing with your lungs (and heart by the way) think again.

So - the worst thing that trying to clean up what we dump in the air could result in is lowering of lung problems. And - if the global warming alarmists are right, we might fend off or at least lessen some natural disasters.

Posted by Mary on October 24, 2007 06:04 PM

I find it interesting that some of the people critical of Trenberth's column choose to attack the UN, government funding, and even past Nobel Peace Prize winners -- in other words everything but the science. I agree with one of the commenters who suggested that people actually read the recent IPCC report. You may learn a thing or two. Then again, maybe not.

Posted by jerseycorn on October 24, 2007 05:07 PM

Mr. Trenberth's criticism of Rosen's article was undeserved(Rocky Mountain News, speakout, 10/24/07. Rosen's attack on Gore, the peace prize and global warning is supposed to be taken at face value by his intended audience. Trenberth's use of facts and real data to refute Rosen is unfair since Rosen doesn't use these any of these dirty tricks to make his arguments. Mr. Trenberth, I feel a little bad pointing out that Mr. Trenberth just didn't get the joke. When you read Rosen, you do it for the chuckles, not the information.

Posted by Sam D on October 24, 2007 01:45 PM

The more I read Kevin's statement of "facts" the more I question them. How do you know the rate of temperatur change 1000 years ago? You can't even accurately guess the temperature in 1200 AD, let alone the rate of change! It must be your precious models (based on your assumptions) that generate this bologna. How many category 5 hurricanes were there in 1200 AD? Oh I fogot, that data doesn't even go back 100 years, a mere instant in geological time. Why don't you save all your grant money so you can pay it back to the american people when your ideas prove false and alarmist. That would be justice. The fools that predicted the global cooling in the 70's didn't have any fallout, apparently they all just changed their minds (to follow the money) and ignored their earlier comments. And really it is not the earth that is in peril, it is humans. The rock called earth will continue to orbit the sun, but the makeup of creatures may be different. Hey, we don't have dinosaurs any more either!! Maybe global warming is bad for people, but good for lizards!! I hope everyone in america sues NOAA for this crap in the future to reclaim wasted funds...

Posted by Steve on October 24, 2007 01:34 PM

nice post hank,
and to exhoosier,
Here is the approximate ratio of scientists who concur that global warming is going on and is primarily caused by human activty to those who steadfastly deny it is human caused: 3,000 to 1.
Of those scientists who constitute the 3000, how many would lose their government or U.N. funding if there wasn't a "global warming" crisis
answer 2999

Posted by grim on October 24, 2007 10:55 AM

SEN. HARRY REID (D) BLAMES CAL FIRES ON "GLOBAL WARMING."

That's right, right on the Senate floor--politicizing a natural disaster and trivalizing human misery. How about the Sierra Club forever fighting the clearing of dead timber, Harry?

CASE CLOSED: Global warming is nothing but liberal "feel good" politics dishing-out intellectual sasquatch for the gulibile.

Posted by Hank on October 24, 2007 10:45 AM

This is sure exciting. But it is really quite simple. It was warmer when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It was colder during the ice age. In fact there was more than one ice age, so the earth must have warmed up to cool once again. Who decided the temperature of the earth must stay constant, and more so that we are in a state of "crisis"? Also remember many of the climatogologists are right here in Boulder, the failed idealism capital of the world.
When science mixes with politics it must be treated like terrorism, follow the money! No crisis, no political power and no funding. And all you liberals remember that Clinton didn't sign Kyoto either, so shut up about Bush not signing it. We already debunked the hockey stick model (deniers??) and the rest of the alarmist models don't work either. If a model cannot predict it is not correct. Period. PBS (probably accidently) ran back to back specials a couple of years ago about fuzzy envirohippies at the pole. One tent (camp, school) was concerned about global warming, and had the data to prove it. A half an hour of alarmist science. The very next half hour had a different group of alarmist envirohippies (different ten, camp, school) in the SAME LOCATION worried about global cooling. They also had science and data to support their view. I suddently felt much better, one group of alarmists predicting global warming, the other global cooling. Maybe nothing significant will happen after all.

Posted by Steve on October 24, 2007 10:29 AM

Author is "offended"????
Ain't that a shame?
I'm offended by the terms that so many "true believers" use to vilify anyone who has even a smidgen of concern that the hype is a bit overdone.
But that's OK, isn't it?
I'm just a "moron".

Posted by Jim in Erie on October 24, 2007 10:21 AM

Here is the approximate ratio of scientists who concur that global warming is going on and is primarily caused by human activty to those who steadfastly deny it is human caused: 3,000 to 1. Of those scientists who constitute the 1 over 75% of them are funded by oil, gas and coal company think tanks.
The right-wingers that continue to deny global warming and it's associated human causation are deluded or outright vicious liars. Rosen falls into both categories.
The previous letters in this string contain erroneous information that has been systematically and demonstrably shown to be false including the data on the warming of the troposphere vs the surface. If the se folks would actually READ the IPCC report they would find that all of these arguments against human causation have been investigated and alternative causes disproved to the point of scientific certainty of over 99%.
Sorry, but there is no other term for global warming deniers except moronic.

Posted by Exhoosier24 on October 24, 2007 09:26 AM

How do we know that computer climate models have anything to do with reality? A computer model is simply an idea that is too complicated to work out on paper. Anyone who has done any programming knows that even the good computer models are at least somewhat imperfect because they can't take every variable into account. The bad computer models are laughably wrong. In order to do scientific testing, you need a control, which would be another planet. Obviously we don't have that.

There are reports that some of the people quoted by the IPCC complained that they were misquoted.

While I am not an expert, there are quotes from NASA indicating that global warming is occurring on Mars right now. I'm not concluding who is correct, I'm just saying that there isn't a consensus among experts.

300 years ago we know that the bovine population of the world was much nigher probably by an order of magnitude or more, especially around Denver, presumably they were just as flatulent as modern cows are. Lightning cause forest fires burned much more than they do today, producing considerable particulate pollution and incomplete combustion. Have those issues been modeled?

While modern fuels create some particulate pollution, it is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of American and European history that particulate pollution was worse by at least an order of magnitude in the early part of the 20th century because of coal burning. In fact, the switch from coal to oil was done in part to reduce pollution. The famous London fogs were as much pollution as water vapor. The world got colder. This data produced predictions of a new ice age caused by human activity.

I specifically remember that when the original prediction was made that by the time a sea passage was open across the north pole (it happened this year), that New York would be flooded. That is obviously not true. Can you produce a prediction more than 10 years old that came true?

The use of spokespersons with obvious political agendas to argue in favor of human caused climate change weakens your image. Al Gore's father was a wealthy politician, as is Gore himself. The obvious leftist/anti-American political agenda of the Kyoto accords, the obvious hypocrisy of "carbon credits," and the determined refusal by global warming activists to pressure large scale Asian polluters, bespeaks a political agenda that raises doubts about the honesty of your compatriots. Equally disturbing are the reports of professional pressure on "nonbelievers," and the frequent attacks on Bush which tend to be mixed in with scientifc statements.

I am not supporting Rosen. He is not a scientist. But some of your comments raise questions also. Your statement "Gore’s statement that ice sheets melting in Greenland or the west Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct," is confusing.

Since ice has more volume than the equivalent amount of low temperature water, and it has a fair amount of air in it, and since both ice sheets have significant percentages of their bulk under water, why won't the melting ice produce lowered sea levels? Secondly your statement is sloppy. It indicates that if EITHER sheet melts that levels would rise by 20ft. If both melt, would it rise 40ft?

My final question has to do with the placement of "official" thermometers. When many of NOAA's thermometers around the state were placed, they were outside of urban areas. Now they are inside which means that they are less representative of the bulk the the state than they were. Compounding this is the use of air conditioning near those thermometers. Air conditioning does not create cold. It just pumps heat from inside the building to outside. Ignoring energy use for a moment, the average temperature is still the same. Simplistically, Instead of the whole area being 80 degrees, outside is now 90 and inside is now 70. Adding to this the energy use of air conditioners which further raise the heat outdoors in cities only, this makes the use of thermometers in an urban area highly suspect. Yet much of the data that worries you comes from these thermometers. And the rise in temperature which you and others quote as happening within the last 35 years, correlates with the rise in use of air conditioning.

But my worst complaint is a political one. I don't see answers to these questions in the news. I see that the "deniers" who raise these issues are simply called names and accused of bias. My rule of thumb is that when people will not answer questions but rely on name calling and ad homine attacks, it is an admission of error.

I apologize for the length of this but your article needed to be answered and I cannot find people who will answer my questions.

Posted by Yaakov Watkins on October 24, 2007 08:25 AM

I've been a Republican all my life...my first job as a political volunteer was for Barry Goldwater's Presidential run. But it's extraordinary how right wingers look at ignorance as a virtue...and that's made the party I have always loved look not just dumb but silly and irrelevant (which, of course, voters have clearly recognized). Kevin has provided a factual, well argued column countering the inanity of Mike Rosen's piece. I strongly believe peer reviewed good science is a no-brainer to be encouraged by both conservatives and liberals. But conservatives like "Hank" don't seem to share that view and so they continue to embarass themselves and fellow conservatives every time they open their mouths.

Posted by Martin Williams on October 24, 2007 08:19 AM

Mr. Trenberth, what say you to the following analysis of climate model predictions...

Climate models predict greenhouse warming should cause the lower troposphere (the lowest portion of the atmosphere) to warm more rapidly than the Earth’s surface. But just the opposite is occurring. Data from satellites and weather balloons show that the surface is warming more quickly than the lower troposphere.

Climate models predict greenhouse warming should be most pronounced toward the poles. However, temperature trends in many polar regions are inconsistent with this expectation. Greenland warmed rapidly in the 1920s, when humans had emitted few greenhouse gases, then cooled from about 1930 to the early 1990s, despite rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Greenland warmed 50 percent faster from 1920 to 30 than it did from 1995 to 2005.

Alaska experienced net warming from 1949 to 2001. However, most of the warming occurred in one jump in 1976—an event now known as the Pacific Climate Shift. Alaska actually cooled for decades, both before and after this one-time temperature jump.

The Arctic was warmer during the 1930s than during the late 1990s and cooled about 2˚F between 1935 to 1965, before temperatures began rising again. Almost all of Antarctica has been cooling during the last two decades and snowfall has been decreasing. Both trends are just the opposite of what climate models predict for the effects of greenhouse warming.

In its 2007 assessment, the IPCC predicts, based on climate models, that the Earth will warm anywhere from about 1.8˚C to 4˚C (3.2˚F to 7.2˚F) between the late 20th and late 21st centuries. As noted above, the overall pattern of climate trends is not consistent with predictions based on greenhouse warming, suggesting that these climate-model results should be taken with a large chunk of salt. However, even if we assume the models are accurate, we still should expect warming to be at the low end of the IPCC’s range.

First, the highest amounts of model-predicted warming require greenhouse gas levels to increase much faster than what is actually observed in the atmosphere. For example, in the real atmosphere, the concentration of methane has barely budged since 1999 and a recent study concluded “it is questionable whether human activities can cause methane concentrations to increase greatly in the future.” Yet the IPCC’s predictions of substantial greenhouse warming depend in part on large increases in methane during the 21st century. The IPCC’s warmest scenario assumes atmospheric methane nearly doubles between 2000 and 2100. Even the IPCC’s lowest warming scenario assumes methane increases nearly 25 percent between 2000 and 2030.

Second, climate models predict a linear (straight line) warming trend if atmospheric CO2 increases by a constant percentage each year. Since CO2 has been rising at about 0.5 percent per year, we should therefore get a pretty good idea of the amount of warming during the 21st century by just extrapolating the current trend. When we go through this exercise, we end up with at most about 1.8˚C (3.2˚F) of warming, which is at the bottom of the IPCC’s range.

Posted by An Engineer on October 24, 2007 08:08 AM

From the IPCC website:

"...the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
-----
The IPCC was established by the very same crowd (the United Nations' UNEP) that ran the "oil for food" scam, the hoax that involved bribes and kickbacks. Scam, hoax, bribes, kickbacks...how Soros and Hansen! How global warming. This time it was "money for data."

Posted by Hank on October 24, 2007 07:55 AM

Google this latest G-W hoax. It all over the net and appeared in Investors Business Daily a few weeks ago:

"The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many liberal democrats) has given as much as $720,000 to NASA's James Hansen, a leading climate modeling expert who is mentioned in several of Soros' financial documents, to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media.

$720,000 buys a lot of doctored data that you can stuff into any climate model. If you have enough money, then you can pick your own results.

Garbage in, garbage out!

Posted by Hank on October 24, 2007 07:36 AM

Hank, why not try listening to the arguments made by someone who actually knows something about climate science, instead of resorting to your usual childish name-calling?

Posted by Romulus on October 24, 2007 07:34 AM

Quite simply, show the scientific proof of a causal relationship between carbon dioxide and changes in temperature. In other words, demonstrate that all other factors that change temperatures are less than the effect of carbon dioxide. And, by demonstrate, I do not mean by using a "climate model". I mean by utilizing data derived and verified by the scientific method.

You are familar with the concept of empirical data derived by the scientific method, are you not?

Posted by An Engineer on October 24, 2007 07:32 AM

Hey Kevin:

You wouldn't happen to be a member of the very same "scientific" community who gave us "The Coming Ice Age" only 35-years ago? What happened, I'm still waiting? Did you simply run out of funding and adopt a new fear mongering gig? Why didn't you just do what NASA's Hansen did and take George Soros' bribe money and cook the data?

Kevin, most real scientists know that models are not proof--(remember the phony NASA data?). Until you can prove your position, I suggest that both you and Al stuff your global warming where the sun never shines.

Posted by Hank on October 24, 2007 06:44 AM

THE KISS OF DEATH:

A glance at how the causes of some recent prizewinners have fared may prove enlightening.

* In 2005, the prize went to Mohamed elBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for his efforts in discouraging nuclear proliferation. Evidently, the word hasn't reached Iran, North Korea, Syria, or Pakistan yet.

* In 2004, the winner was Wangari Maathai, for her efforts on behalf of "sustainable development, democracy, and peace", which appears to amount to planting trees in Kenya. Last year Prof. Maathai began a campaign against the menace of plastic bags. Good for her, I say.

* The 2003 winner was Shirin Ebadi, "for her efforts for democracy and human rights". Everywhere but her home country of Iran. She'll get around to it eventually, though.

* For 2002, it was our own Jimmy Carter, for peace, democracy, human rights, and I don't know what all. Two weeks ago, Jimmy was given the bum's rush by a pack of Sudanese security thugs. I guess they hadn't heard about his Nobel.

* The 2001 prize went to Kofi Annan. Kofi has more or less dropped out of sight after leaving the UN. I wonder why?

* In 1997, it was Jody Williams of the International Campaign to ban Landmines. Haven't heard of them recently either. Did they dig ‘em all up?

* And in 1988, the nod went to the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. You didn't know there was a Nobel for well-run whorehouses, did you?

It's clear from this list that not a single cause -- from nonproliferation to land mine clearance -- has prospered recently since the major figure involved won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's hope that Al Gore (aka Elmer Gantry) and his global warming nonsense enjoy the very same fate.

Posted by Hank on October 24, 2007 06:31 AM