Trenberth Debunks Himself

[Abraham3]

Those awful models.

Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough in astronomy, pulling together centuries of research and study into a single comprehensible theory. Ptolemy's model offered unprecedented accuracy in predicting the motions of the heavenly bodies, and explained aspects of the motion of the planets that could not be previously understood, and which had long confounded astronomers. Ptolemy's model was so powerful that for more than 1,000 years it was virtually gospel.

However, Ptolemy's was not reality. It was, in fact, drastically different than what the truth actually is.

What was wrong with Ptolemy's hypotheses? His Handy Tables worked. If the planets and the stars actually had been embedded in nested crystal spheres, the universe could have worked just as he conjectured.

Oh, wait, let me guess. You're attempting to draw a parallel between Ptolemy's widespread acceptance and the widespread acceptance of the Greenhouse Effect among the read and the particularly widespread acceptance of AGW among publishing climate scientists. How clever and witty of you.

So I guess a foresighted and open-minded person, such as yourself, will completely withhold judgement on AGW. It will require the passage of a thousand years before we can be certain that some seeming magic will overturn all our foolishly cherished beliefs. Right? And while we're at it, we'd best toss all our trust and belief in EVERYTHING that science has EVER told us.

Your implication here is that we can trust nothing. Does that actually strike you as correct? I've noted this to you before. I guess you missed the gift.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, well, you did say that I needed to get a new signature line.

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, well, you did say that I needed to get a new signature line.

Did you know that you're actually only the second poster here to argue that we can't trust the results of science because their might be magic?

 

[Abraham3]

If the ocean didn't suck the warmth up= global warming really is bs. I'll admit it.

Something is fucked up with the way they're figuring for co2.

See, this is the problem with you guys. Always overreacting to every little jot and tittle.

By the way, this is a misuse of the term "jot and tittle". You seem to be using it as if it mean "iota", "scintilla", "smidgen" or "hint". It does not.

 

[Abraham3]

Westwall, we can carry on...

Regarding the 860 references listed at the end of AR5's Chapter 2, you said that you had read "more than a few of them". I got the impression you were claiming to have read them before I posted the link; certainly possible given the significance of the document and its supporting material. Is that what you meant or were you saying that in response to the post, you had read "more than a few of them"? Just trying to establish some ground here.

Then you said - and I have to assume this was based on your reading - "the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at."

Well, I've posted five of these now. And since I'm looking for studies with broader scope, I AM reading all those titles. And I have to say that I have yet to find a single one that's a meta-analysis (which can still certainly have value) or that did not come from a peer reviewed source. I haven't seen any that appear to have been promulgated by NGOs - again, not that has any impact on their value - but maybe the NGOs do their promulgating from the shadowy sidelines, eh?

The point is, that I have looked at least casually at a dozen of these papers and yet, the characteristics you claim to be in the majority (>50%) have not appeared once. What are the odds? Well, they are greater than 1 in 2^12th (or about 2.44 out of 10,000 for those more decimally minded among us) , that's what they are. That's evidence Professor Westwall and it's evidence that's leading me towards a certain, unpleasant conclusion.

So... have you got any comments on the abstracts I've posted? a MAJORITY of the studies are freely available - we're not restricted to the abstracts. We don't have to chat about all of them. Pick one you like. I'm sorry I couldn't find you a non-peer-reviewed metastudy promulgated by NGOs, but I could keep trying if you really think it would do any good.

Check out the one below. Look at that closing sentence! Now THERE's a statement with some debate potential, eh?


Large-scale changes in observed daily maximum and minimum
temperatures: Creation and analysis of a new gridded data set

John Caesar and Lisa Alexander

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, UK Russell Vose

National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, USA

Received 27 May 2005; revised 16 September 2005; accepted 4 November 2005; published 1 March 2006.

[1] A gridded land-only data set representing near-surface observations of daily
maximum and minimum temperatures (HadGHCND) has been created to allow analysis of
recent changes in climate extremes and for the evaluation of climate model simulations.
Using a global data set of quality-controlled station observations compiled by the U.S.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), daily anomalies were created relative to the
1961–1990 reference period for each contributing station. An angular distance weighting
technique was used to interpolate these observed anomalies onto a 2.5 latitude by
3.75 longitude grid over the period from January 1946 to December 2000. We have used
the data set to examine regional trends in time-varying percentiles. Data over consecutive
5 year periods were used to calculate percentiles which allow us to see how the
distributions of daily maximum and minimum temperature have changed over time.
Changes during the winter and spring periods are larger than in the other seasons,
particularly with respect to increasing temperatures at the lower end of the maximum and
minimum temperature distributions. Regional differences suggest that it is not possible to
infer distributional changes from changes in the mean alone.

 

[SSDD]

Next:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

Int. J. Climatol. 29: 851–862 (2009)
Published online 26 November 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(Wiley Online Library) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1750

Variability in wintertime position and strength of the North
Pacific jet stream as represented by re-analysis data

Neil P. Bartona* and Andrew W. Ellisb, a Center for Climatic Research, Department of Geography, University of Delaware, 216 Pearson Hall, Newark, DE 19716-2541, USA b School of Geographical Sciences, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA

ABSTRACT: The popular National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) re-analysis database was used to create a mean winter seasonal jet stream database for the northern Pacific Ocean region for the period 1948–1949 through 2004–2005. Grids of mean seasonal 300 hPa scalar wind were used to determine the latitudinal position of the primary mid-latitude jet on a longitudinal resolution of 2.5° from eastern Asia to western North America. The position and strength of the jet stream across this region are key determinants of winter precipitation variability downstream across the predominantly arid western region of North America. Results show that the latitudinal position of the jet exhibits greater variance over the eastern half of the northern Pacific Ocean, while the greatest variance in the speed of the seasonal jet occurs across the central northern Pacific Ocean. A statistically significant increase in the speed of the mean seasonal jet occurred over the central area of the northern Pacific Ocean during the last half of the 20th century. A spatially consistent but statistically insignificant trend toward a more southerly position of the jet occurred during the study period. The results do not confirm current theories of a general pole-ward shift in mid-latitude jet streams in association with recent and future climate change, suggesting that such an observed or theoretical hemispheric shift may not necessarily be evident within a particular region or that any shift over the last 50 years has been less than the 2.5° resolution of the NCEP/NCAR dataset. The jet stream data support the connection between the jet and the Pacific-North American atmospheric teleconnection pattern and between the jet and the oscillation of sea surface temperature anomalies in the northern Pacific Ocean known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Copyright
 2008 Royal Meteorological SocietyKEY WORDS jet stream; North Pacific Ocean; winter; climatology
Received 31 July 2007; Revised 24 June 2008; Accepted 28 June 2008

And what do you suppose this proves with regard to your AGW hysteria? This paper looking at natural variations in the jet stream....there is no hint of AGW alarmism.

 

[Abraham3]

It is a discussion concerning the movement of the average latitude of the jet stream as the globe has warmed. I thought you might have noted that it did not find a pole-ward shift as I guess some earlier models predicted warming would cause. There was also a statistically significant increase in jet steam speed but the southward shift, though "spatially consistent", was not statistically significant. It doesn't PROVE anything save that items in that list are actual, scholarly, peer reviewed studies.

The study of the climate and the AGW it is undergoing is a complex effort. That you find no hint of AGW alarmism perhaps ought to tell you something.

And, of course, I was looking to engage Professor Westwall in a discussion of these items. He's the one who specifically asked to do so.

 

[SSDD]

http://www.gewex.org/images/G.Stephens_Feb2010GNews.pdf

and next:

http://herb.atmos.colostate.edu/tristan/publications/2008_FLXHR_lecuyer_jgr.pdf
Impact of clouds on atmospheric heating based on the R04 CloudSat
fluxes and heating rates data set

Tristan S. L’Ecuyer,1 Norman B. Wood,1 Taryn Haladay,1 Graeme L. Stephens,1
and Paul W. Stackhouse Jr.2

Received 11 February 2008; revised 5 June 2008; accepted 26 August 2008; published 6 December 2008.
[1]

Among the largest uncertainties in quantifying the radiative impacts of clouds are
those that arise from the inherent difficulty in precisely specifying the vertical distribution
of cloud optical properties using passive satellite measurements. Motivated by the need
to address this problem, CloudSat was launched in April 2006 carrying into orbit the first
millimeter wavelength cloud radar to be flown in space. Retrieved profiles of liquid and
ice cloud microphysical properties from this Cloud Profiling Radar form the basis of the
CloudSat’s fluxes and heating rates algorithm, 2B-FLXHR, a standard product that
provides high vertical resolution profiles of radiative fluxes and atmospheric heating rates
on the global scale. This paper describes the physical basis of the 2B-FLXHR algorithm
and documents the first year of 2B-FLXHR data in the context of assessing the radiative
impact of clouds on global and regional scales. The analysis confirms that cloud
contributions to atmospheric radiative heating are small on the global scale because of a
cancelation of the much larger regional heating from high clouds in the tropics and cooling
from low clouds at higher latitudes. Preliminary efforts to assess the accuracy of the
2B-FLXHR product using coincident CERES data demonstrate that outgoing longwave
fluxes are better represented than those in the shortwave but both exhibit good agreement
with CERES on scales longer than 5 days and larger than 5
. Colocated CALIPSO
observations of clouds that are undetected by CloudSat further indicate that while thin
cirrus can introduce modest uncertainty in the products, low clouds that are obscured by
ground clutter represent a far more important source of error in the current

How's that search going... the one for the NON-peer reviewed studies among the 860 with which you claimed that list was filled? Eh?

Claims that clouds are a positive feedback? How many published papers would you like to see that say that is not true?

CMIP3 Subtropical Stratocumulus Cloud Feedback Interpreted through a Mixed-Layer Model

Damped summer warming accompanied with cloud cover increase over Eurasia from 1982 to 2009 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere - Allan - 2011 - Meteorological Applications - Wiley Online Library

 

[SSDD]

I thought you might have noted that it did not find a pole-ward shift as I guess some earlier models predicted warming would cause.

Considering the degree to which models have failed, I am frankly surprised that you are still disappointed when their predictions don't come to pass.

 

[Abraham3]

How many would you like to say that it is?

BTW, the abstract says:

The analysis confirms that cloud contributions to atmospheric radiative heating are small on the global scale because of a cancelation of the much larger regional heating from high clouds in the tropics and cooling from low clouds at higher latitudes.

If you want to discuss the points the paper makes, you're going to have to take a more nuanced approach than that.

o Your first paper (which begins: "Large-scale conditions over subtropical marine stratocumulus areas are extracted from global climate models (GCMs) participating in phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3)" doesn't say a word about warming, but about improving coverage factors in cloud modeling in GCMs

o Your second paper discusses different cloud v summer temperature relationships in Europe and Asia and concludes, "Our results suggest that cloud cover may be the important local factor influencing the summer temperature variation in Eurasia while precipitation plays an important role at the middle latitudes". Neither earthshaking, nor a refutation of the AR5-quoted paper.

o Your third paper uses satellite data and numerical forecasts (ie, models) to conclude, " While clouds act to cool the climate system during the daytime, the cloud greenhouse effect heats the climate system at night".

None of these have any significant conflict with the abstract I posted.

 

[SSDD]

Spin till your heart's content abraham....the hoax is coming to an end and perhaps climate pseudoscience will start to do some actual science to learn how earth's systems work.

 

[SwimExpert]

If the ocean didn't suck the warmth up= global warming really is bs. I'll admit it.

Something is fucked up with the way they're figuring for co2.

See, this is the problem with you guys. Always overreacting to every little jot and tittle.

By the way, this is a misuse of the term "jot and tittle". You seem to be using it as if it mean "iota", "scintilla", "smidgen" or "hint". It does not.

Like I said.....

 

[SwimExpert]

I thought you might have noted that it did not find a pole-ward shift as I guess some earlier models predicted warming would cause.

Considering the degree to which models have failed, I am frankly surprised that you are still disappointed when their predictions don't come to pass.

Why would he be disappointed? You think he cares about logic and evidence? You, sir, are mistaken.

 

[Abraham3]

I thought you might have noted that it did not find a pole-ward shift as I guess some earlier models predicted warming would cause.

Considering the degree to which models have failed, I am frankly surprised that you are still disappointed when their predictions don't come to pass.

Why would he be disappointed? You think he cares about logic and evidence? You, sir, are mistaken.

Two of the three studies he tried to give back to me in return used models. That deniers who bad-mouth models frequently post up links to studies that use them is commonplace.


And if you're looking for logic or evidence from poster SSDD, you might ask him why he put up three studies claiming they all found clouds did not cause warming when that wasn't what they said at all. There are some reading comprehension issues on your side that need to get dealt with first dude.

 

[Abraham3]

See, this is the problem with you guys. Always overreacting to every little jot and tittle.

By the way, this is a misuse of the term "jot and tittle". You seem to be using it as if it mean "iota", "scintilla", "smidgen" or "hint". It does not.

Like I said.....

Like what you said? That we overreact to every jot and tittle? That would be another misuse of the term "jot and tittle".

 

[SSDD]

Two of the three studies he tried to give back to me in return used models. That deniers who bad-mouth models frequently post up links to studies that use them is commonplace.

I don't believe the models...any of them. We don't know enough about the movement of energy through the system to create a believable model. The point was to point out your myopia and bias.....you believe models that agree with you but not models that disagree with you when in fact, none of them can be trusted because we are in the infancy of our understanding of the climate and what drives it.

 

[SwimExpert]

By the way, this is a misuse of the term "jot and tittle". You seem to be using it as if it mean "iota", "scintilla", "smidgen" or "hint". It does not.

Like I said.....

Like what you said? That we overreact to ever jot and tittle? That would be another misuse of the term "jot and tittle".

And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

 

[Abraham3]

Two of the three studies he tried to give back to me in return used models. That deniers who bad-mouth models frequently post up links to studies that use them is commonplace.

I don't believe the models...any of them. We don't know enough about the movement of energy through the system to create a believable model. The point was to point out your myopia and bias.....you believe models that agree with you but not models that disagree with you when in fact, none of them can be trusted because we are in the infancy of our understanding of the climate and what drives it.

Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter. You were trying to refute the IPCC's reference. Your challenging references used models. Models are widely used by all manner of researchers. It's the only way to make a prediction. Denier objections to models are unjustified. No one is more aware of their limitations than the folks who create them. No one is less aware of their value than those desperate to find something substantial with which to attack AGW.

 

[Abraham3]

And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

So... you think you're THAT gifted? I don't see any quotation marks around the statement above. Should we take that to mean its yours?

 

[Abraham3]

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

I don't want you to believe me. I want you TO READ SOME OF THE PAPERS YOU ARE SO PROUD OF and then get back to me so we can review them. Do you get it now?

I see you're online here. Any chance you're going to get around to some of these? Tell you what, there's plenty in that list. If there are others there you'd rather discuss, I'm open.