Posts Tagged ‘Trenberth’

Climate Models Fail

Friday, August 5th, 2011
Source:  Climate Change Reconsidered
by Craig Idso
Reference
Vecchi, G.A. and Knutson, T.R. 2011. Estimating annual numbers of Atlantic hurricanes missing from the HURDAT database (1878-1965) using ship track density. Journal of Climate 24: 1736-1746.

In a recent paper published in Climate Research, Trenberth (2011) compares the projections of state-of-the-art climate models with what is known about the real world with respect to extreme meteorological events related to atmospheric moisture, such as precipitation and various types of storm systems, as well as subsequent extreme consequences such as droughts, floods and wind damage. So what does he find? (more…)

What happened to the ‘warmest year on record’: The truth is global warming has halted

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

Source:  UK Mail

A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, ‘is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record’ – a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.

World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: ‘Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far – 1998.’

Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits – an ambition that was not to be met.

Drivers and pedestrians battle through blizzards in Kent last  week
Winter’s icy grip: Drivers and pedestrians battle through blizzards in Kent last week

Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again. (more…)

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Source:  UK Guardian

by Fred Pearce

A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and tribalism

Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN’s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (more…)

Are the Polar Ice Caps Melting?

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Source:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2871-are-the-ice-caps-melting

by Rebecca Terrell

“The entire polar ice cap … could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years.” So claimed global-warming magnate Al Gore at last December’s UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

The scientist he referenced, Dr. Wieslav Maslowski, is a Department of Oceanography professor with the U.S. Naval Post-Graduate School. Maslowski denied making the prediction in an interview with the U.K. Times Online. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.” A shamefaced Gore admitted gleaning the “ballpark figure” from a conversation he had with Maslowski several years ago. Yet only days before Gore’s Copenhagen speech, the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) published a report of Maslowski’s research. It read, “Should the present trend of sea ice melt continue, some models suggest that the Arctic Ocean could become near ice free in the summer time within one decade.”

To further confuse things, DMI records show practically identical total sea ice area measurements in the Arctic for the past five years. However, DMI qualifies its data, noting that the age and thickness of Arctic ice is changing dramatically and citing research from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Colorado that Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade. The NSIDC explains that more ice than usual has been melting in summer months during recent years. New ice cover is relatively thin, weak, and more vulnerable to melting. Remarking on the data, NSIDC Director Mark Serreze said, “We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.” (more…)

Climate science Q&A: warmest decade on record?

Saturday, December 12th, 2009

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

We are happy to answer this query from a reader about recent global temperature trends.

Dear Lord Monckton, – The UK Meteorological Office has just issued a statement that the past decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Is this true?

Dear Enquirer, - Yes, it is true - assuming that we can any longer believe the surface global temperature record, which we now know to have been so widely tampered with by the compilers of all of the major terrestrial-temperature datasets that, in particular, we do not really know whether the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s worldwide: they certainly were in the US.

It is also worth pointing out that for nine full years, since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. This cooling follows a very sharp upward step-change in global temperatures between 1997 and 2000, which may have something to do with the Great El Nino of 1998, the first in the instrumental-temperature era. Of this cooling, one of the key players in the Climategate email scandal had this to say -

 

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

 

So the conspirators are privately admitting we’ve been right all along about global cooling, and that it’s a travesty they can’t explain it, while publicly proclaiming that this decade’s temperatures are the warmest in 150 years and that this is because of “global warming”.

 

Finally, I recently sat at the feet of Professor Fred Singer, to whose attention I had drawn an interesting paper by Lindzen and Choi (2009), demonstrating that the radiation escaping from the Earth to space, as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is not being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere to cause warming down here, to anything like the extent that the models predict.

 

The Professor looked very closely at the diagram showing the anomalies in short-wave and, separately, in long-wave radiation, and noticed that, though both had run level until 1997 (and, indeed, there had been no “global warming” from 1980 to 1997), they had been sharply dislocated until 2000, when short-wave radiation ran level at a new and lesser flux, while long-wave radiation ran level at a new and greater flux.

 

The significance of the Professor’s sharp-eyued observations is this. First, the sudden step-change upward in global temperature between 1997 and 2000 is the only warming since the satellite record began in 1980. Before it, there was no warming: after it, there was rapid cooling. It is important to understand that this non-uniform pattern of warming is entirely inconsistent with the steadily-increasing radiative-forcing effect of CO2 concentrations increasing at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade, and cannot, therefore, have been caused by it, for lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation.

 

Secondly, the diminished short-wave radiation after 2000 indicates a reduction in cloud cover, for the clouds reflect short-wave radiation harmlessly back to space. The reduction in cloud cover (whose cause is not clear, for we know exasperatingly little about cloud formation, and this on its own introduces an uncertainty into all climate calculations that renders the claim that “the science is settled” laughable) allows more of the visible and hence high-energy solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, where it is displaced to the long-wave and can then interact with greenhouse gases on its way out. This sudden increase in long-wave radiation, attributable to the sudden loss of cloud cover indicated by the loss of short-wave radiation reaching the satellite, is quite enough to explain why temperatures have been higher since 2000 than before.

 

The bottom line: careful attention to the observational data provides explanations for the pattern of temperature change that are much less incomplete and more satisfying than CO2, CO2, CO2. The Professor and I differ on the extent to which phenomena such as changes in cloud cover are deterministic: he looks for a climate in which all influences are eventually explained and understood as causative sequences, while I go with Edward Lorenz (1963), who said that because the climate is mathematically chaotic the reliable long-term prediction of what will happen next in the climate is unobtainable by any method.

 

However, the Professor and I are at one that the warming of the past 300 years, during 280 of which we could not have been in any way responsible, is all or very nearly all natural. Both of us will be doing more work on why there was a step-change upward in temperature from 1997-2000; but, even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2′s warming effect, CO2 cannot – repeat cannot – have been to blame.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they would have been having conversations of this kind, rather than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2. – Monckton of Brenchley