🚀 go-pugleaf

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message 
news:m3vqc6tjv2ja47k6emr5aphjpeudbctf03@4ax.com...
> 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>
>



Nice apologia
    Doesn't change a bit that since they can't account for the source and 
destination of all that energy, they have a problem with supporting their 
claim
In other words, they're saying:
    -    We don't know what's happening.
    -    We have no handle on the data
    -    We don't even have a computer model that works properly
    -    But we know that our conclusions are good.
That's NOT the way science is supposed to work