Trenberth Debunks Himself

[Abraham3]

Er, so it's freezing cold in the US south because the Pacific Ocean ate all the warming?

It was 10F warmer in Anchorage, Alaska yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.

Warm air is moving north into Alaska as the Pacific ridge noses northward and on the front/eastern side the cold air is streaming southward into the eastern United states. What is the avg over north America??? I'd say probably slightly below normal overall.

And what is the global temperature? Significantly warmer than, say, a 1972-2010 baseline and likely slightly warmer than one year ago.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because when cold air comes down from the Arctic, it is replaced in the Arctic by warmer air.

Previously warmer air, now frigid air.

And by what process does that take place?

The Thetans shoot freez-o-lasers from their eyes into the arctic air.

 

[Abraham3]

A conversation with you is always brimming over with such valuable and noteworthy content.

 

[SSDD]

I do not use the word "proven" when talking about theories of the natural sciences.

I know better.

Guess you don't know the definition of evidence...a word that you toss around liberally.

evidence - n - that which tends to prove or disprove something;

None of your so called evidence proves anything other than that you are easily duped.

Wow. Now that's stupid. Do you not understand what "prove" means in this context?

Whatever word games you want to play, I can certainly say one thing: The evidence that has convinced almost ALL the world's scientists that AGW is a valid theory is far, far better than the evidence that would convince them it is not.

Money, power, and rock star status convinced them....corelative evidence would not convince an actual scientist...corelation would only serve to motivate them to get to the actual cause and that can't happen when the corelative evidence is enough to settle the science.

 

[Abraham3]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

 

[SwimExpert]

A conversation with you is always brimming over with such valuable and noteworthy content.

Right back atchya, big guy!!

 

[SwimExpert]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

Once upon a time many scientists believed it was possible to turn lead into gold.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If the heat isn't going into the ocean then where??? Only aerosols can explain this and that just shows how weak co2 is...

 

[SSDD]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

Your claim of thousands of scientists who accept agw as always, rings false. You say it as if you think they think agw is the same thing you thing agw is. By that metric, I would be among them. I believe we can have an effect on the local or regional climate via land use changes. Your claim that thousands belive in CAGW the same as you is, quite simply, a falsehood.

When the survey goes deeper, we find that few actually believe in anything like a CAGW event in fact think that man's effect on climate is far smaller than "mainstream" climate science. As usual, you must lie and distort in an effort to make a case......that, in and of itself proves the inherent weakness of your case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Er, so it's freezing cold in the US south because the Pacific Ocean ate all the warming?

It was 10F warmer in Anchorage, Alaska yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.

So there's nothing global about global warming

 

[westwall]

It was 10F warmer in Anchorage, Alaska yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.

Yeah? So what? What does that mean if anything. Use your own words and tell us why you think that is significant.

Because when cold air comes down from the Arctic, it is replaced in the Arctic by warmer air. The world did not suddenly grow cold. Air masses have simply moved about the planet. Weather, I think they call it.

Tell us why the Jet Stream has responded the way it has. And how warm is it at the poles?

 

[westwall]

I AM one of the worlds scientists. I'm smarter than some and dumber than some. That's normal. What I am not however is lazy, that is the biggest problem with climate science today. They are lazy.

For one, I don't believe you.

For two, a statement like "they are lazy", directed at a large, heterogenous group such as "climate scientists", tells me I am justified in rejecting your claim.

Believe what you wish. Scientists are like any other body of people. 10% are awesome, 10% are awful, and the rest fall out in a curve in between. What is also known about human behavior is "birds of a feather flock together".

Climatology ahs been infected by a group of lazy scientists who have been pal reviewing (in one famous case the "peer reviewer" was the mans WIFE!, tell us why that is unethical if you please) each others poorly done studies for decades now.

No, I am quite happy with my statement and further it is supportable by both scientific theory and empirical evidence.

 

[westwall]

[For two, a statement like "they are lazy", directed at a large, heterogenous group such as "climate scientists", tells me I am justified in rejecting your claim.

The amusingly ironic thing is how it shows that Westwall is a lazy thinker.

The "avalanche o' crap" tactic here favored by the denialists also reveals that. Cut and paste vast amounts. Demand someone else spend hours on it, even though they themselves only spent a few seconds on it. If they don't drop their whole lives to wade through every single bit of it, declare victory. It's a tactic of the extremely lazy, hence denialists adore it.

The avalanche of crap is from you dudes. Bury them with bullshit is THE preferred MO for the climatologists. And none of it measurable. Which means it ain't science!

 

[westwall]

I AM one of the worlds scientists. I'm smarter than some and dumber than some. That's normal. What I am not however is lazy, that is the biggest problem with climate science today. They are lazy.

For one, I don't believe you.

For two, a statement like "they are lazy", directed at a large, heterogenous group such as "climate scientists", tells me I am justified in rejecting your claim.

Let's just say our understanding of climate is probably around the 1950's in geology. The fact that they're trying to explain where the heat is going is a sign of this.

More like the 1780's. Climatologists haven't even figured out clouds. That would be James Hutton level geology.

 

[westwall]

It was 10F warmer in Anchorage, Alaska yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.

Warm air is moving north into Alaska as the Pacific ridge noses northward and on the front/eastern side the cold air is streaming southward into the eastern United states. What is the avg over north America??? I'd say probably slightly below normal overall.

And what is the global temperature? Significantly warmer than, say, a 1972-2010 baseline and likely slightly warmer than one year ago.

Wrong. At level or slightly below. And still cooler than the 1930's.

 

[westwall]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

You mean the 74 of 79 actually asked? Better get your facts straight.

 

[Abraham3]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

Once upon a time many scientists believed it was possible to turn lead into gold.

Not by any application of the scientific method. What possible relevance do you think that statement has? Do you think today's scientists have the same knowledge set, the same worldview and use the same procedures as were used by alchemists of the middle ages?

You've got a real strong aversion to actually addressing material points. You're a nearly perfect foil for all the bullshit argument strategies deniers have collected to compensate for their lack of evidence or working alternative theories.

 

[Abraham3]

All of these quotes are from the Summary for Policymakers

More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to
2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global
mean surface temperature from 1951–2010.

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C
over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be
between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from
internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C.

It is virtually certain that internal variability alone cannot account for the observed global warming
since 1951.

It is likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by greenhouse gases, have contributed to the warming of the troposphere since 1961 and very likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by the depletion of the ozone layer due to ozone depleting substances, have contributed to the cooling of the lower stratosphere since 1979.

Further evidence has accumulated of the detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on
temperature change in different parts of the world.

Robustness of detection and attribution of global-scale warming is subject to models correctly
simulating internal variability.

The observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as
compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling
contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment,
medium confidence).

It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to upper ocean
warming (above 700 m) observed since the 1970s.

It is very likely that there is a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.

It is very likely that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has resulted in acidification of surface waters which is observed to be between –0.0014 and –0.0024 pH units per year.

New evidence is emerging for an anthropogenic influence on global land precipitation changes, on
precipitation increases in high northern latitudes, and on increases in atmospheric humidity.

It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a discernable contribution to surface and
subsurface oceanic salinity changes since 1960's.

It is likely that human influence has affected the global water cycle since 1960.

Anthropogenic forcings are very likely to have contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979.

Ice sheets and glaciers are melting, and anthropogenic influences are likely to have contributed to the surface melting of Greenland since 1990 and to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s.

It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic component to observed reductions in northern
hemisphere snow cover since 1970.

There has been a strengthening of the evidence for human influence on temperature extremes since
the AR4 and SREX reports.

In land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for assessment, there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century.

There is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings.

It is likely that human influence has altered sea level pressure patterns globally.

Taking a longer term perspective shows the substantial role played by anthropogenic and natural
forcings in driving climate variability on hemispheric scales prior to the twentieth century.

The extended record of observed climate change has allowed a better characterisation of the basic
properties of the climate system that have implications for future warming.

Human influence has been detected in the major assessed components of the climate system. Taken
together, the combined evidence increases the level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate
change, and reduces the uncertainties associated with assessment based on a single climate variable.
From this combined evidence it is virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate
system
*************************************************************
That's what you call ROBUST.

and

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

I do not use the word "proven" when talking about theories of the natural sciences.

I know better.

And all of those "assumptions" were made by a bunch of NGO representatives sitting around a table holding their hands up when asked the questions. Yep....great science being done there!

Perhaps, DOCTOR Westwall, you ought to get your nose out of whatever crap blog in which it likes to hang and do some reading on how the IPCC actually works.

 

[Abraham3]

There has been enough EVIDENCE presented to convince the vast majority of climate scientists, to convince every single national science academy and every other form of science organization of note ON THE FUCKING PLANET.

If a million scientists say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

And who is going to determine its a stupid thing? The people who accept that evidence and the conclusions to which it leads ARE the fucking experts you nitwits.

There IS NO BETTER QUALIFIED GROUP
.

 

[Abraham3]

I guarantee you it has stronger statements then these and they concern larger matters than relationships between the Scandinavian Pattern and the Eastern Quasi-Biennial Oscillation. Would you like to see some?

Your guarantee isn't worth the time it took you to make it. I am skeptical of AGW because I have read the literature...not the altered sanitized, sterilized version you get from skeptical science. There is not a shred of actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing the climate to change. If you believe there is any hard, unequivocal evidence, by all means, lets see it.

I predict you will claim that it has been shown over and over and prove that it hasn't by not providing it once again. Care to prove my prediction wrong?

So, you won't read it because you're skeptical. You've made up your mind it's no good before examining it. There's a name for that practice: PREJUDICE.