🚀 go-pugleaf

Surfer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:33:21 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
> <gillard_lies@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> The AGWers were initially blessed with the fortune of increasing
>>>> temperatures to support (not prove) their hypothesis. Since that time
>>>> they have been at great pains to cling to their mantra, as temperatures
>>>> fail to follow the cataclysmic trajectory their "science" predicts.
>>>>
>>> On the contrary:
>>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> No. Not "on the contrary". If that were the case, why would Kevin
>> Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center
>> for Atmospheric Research, say to Michael Mann, the director of the Earth
>> System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University:
>>
>> "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".
>>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
> 
> <Start extract>
> 
> Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for
> climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the
> planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but
> that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods.
> This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that
> our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy
> flow through the climate system.
> 
> This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate
> scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming
> really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a
> little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing,
> his meaning becomes clear.
> 
> If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually
> informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently
> published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
> global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's
> energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and
> where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to
> track energy flow in and out of our climate system.
> 
> Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating
> due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small
> 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m^2 over the
> 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite
> data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from
> 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously
> accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.
> 
> Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't
> surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural
> variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual
> physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the
> energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being
> sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Nina rearrange the
> configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants
> answers!
> 
> So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy
> budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the
> climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2 means the planet is
> accumulating 145 x 10^20 joules per year. The following list gives the
> amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004
> to 2008 period:
> 
>     *
>       Land:   2 x  10^20 joules per year
>     *
>       Arctic sea Ice:   1 x 10^20 joules per year
>     *
>       Ice sheets:   1.4 x 10^20 joules per year
>     *
>       Total land ice:   between 2 to 3 x 10^20 joules per year
>     *
>       Ocean:   between 20 to 95 x 10^20 joules per year
>     *
>       Sun:   16 x 10^20 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)
> 
> These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 10^20 joules per
> year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 10^20 joules per year
> (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration
> that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy.
> It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has
> continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our
> observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy
> flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.
> 
> So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only
> goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being
> sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a
> later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to
> calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the
> world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m^2.
> This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up
> more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance.
> However, von Schuckmann's results were published after Trenberth's
> paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays out in future papers.
> 
> So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
> 
> "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." 
> 
> After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that
> what he meant was this:
> 
> "Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating
> heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep
> track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't
> definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the
> last few years. That's a travesty!"
> 
> Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as
> secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to
> acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent.
> Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly
> articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation
> systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and
> leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the
> peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation
> than a quote-mined email.
> 
> <End extract>
> 

That's even worse than what Trenberth admitted to in his e-mail. This
non-authoritative dissection of his simple statement now has him saying
that AGW is a given, which must be upheld at all cost, but we can't find
any indication of the warming i.e. increasing temperature i.e. global
warming. If Trenberth read this he'd be screaming, "Stop digging! The
hole I've dug myself is deep enough already!" A travesty indeed. ROTFL

-- 
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention:

Jan 2005 __________
Jul 2005 ________
Jan 2006 _________
Jul 2006 ______
Jan 2007 _____
Jul 2007 ____
Jan 2008 ____
Jul 2008 ___
Jan 2009 ___ Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________
Jan 2010 _________________
Jul 2010 ______________________________

Where to next?