For a Lack of Better Words.... W.T.F?

[BethesdaWX]

Warmist Community stooping to new lows, this is the kind of stuff that should hand these instigators a KO punch to the freakin head........................Alabama Tornado Tragety... and we read headlines such as "300 people killed in states run By Climate Deniers".......... Yeah good one! Be lucky I don't know where you reside!

Now they are blaming the "denier lawmakers" for causing the Tornado Outbreak?!?!? Talk about stupidity and no knowledge base on atmospheric science!

http://www.webcitation.org/5yJLBOgTq

http://wattsupwithth...ion/#more-38980

Only Problem is................................. The number of Strong Tornadoes is Decreasing! So WTF are you kmaking political Jabs towards people who have lost their lives.... and use a Stupid freakin Hypothesis to have any "blame" what - so - ever?

When the evidence is against you... and you make dipsh*t remarks like that, it'll haunt you in the end.

I found out that I lost a friend to that Tornado, and when I hear Political Remarks like this, it just makes me sick, and raised my adrenaline very high. This only shows desperation on the part of freakin warmistas, damn I hope a tornado tears through their backyard! I'll take my now.

[tacoman25]

Wow, at the comments posted below the "article"...

-Well, those global climate-change deniers are losing voters by the hundreds.

-Mother Nature’s plan to deal with the two-legged cockroaches has begun to be implemented.

-I’m sure those states had the highest box office receipts for atlas shrugged

time to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps Dixie.

-The government they so despise will come and help them. Yes, the repug states will get help from the “government”.

-Now come on. The fact that the majority of harsh weather is focused on red/denier states has nothing to do with it. These weather patterns have always plagued the south.

That they are more intense than usual is a fact. Just as the possibility of increased hurricane activity and intensity is. Just as the increase in snow storms that hit the NE and Midwest were.

This isn’t the wroth of Gawd, it is predictable weather that is the result of changes in global climate patterns.

The last comment is the least distasteful, but it also is quite ignorant. To simply state: "That they are more intense than usual is a fact" and then go on to directly attribute that to climate change is ridiculous. Not only is it impossible to know if a single weather event is caused by AGW (or made worse), there is no solid research that indicates AGW would even lead to more/stronger tornadoes.

[WeatherRusty]

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the public does not know what to think. They are very confussed. Emotions are running very heigh on both extremes. If we could only tone down rhetoric and scientists could better explain the science maybe we would get some positive outcome.

The fact is we can not attribute the tornado outbreak to global warming. We do not have the ability to answer that question.

[aslkahuna]

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the public does not know what to think. They are very confussed. Emotions are running very heigh on both extremes. If we could only tone down rhetoric and scientists could better explain the science maybe we would get some positive outcome.

The fact is we can not attribute the tornado outbreak to global warming. We do not have the ability to answer that question.

As a matter of fact, NWS and FEMA Officials are already calling these comments tripe. The FEMA Director when asked if it was due to Global Warming came back and said it was due to Springtime and that the South most definitely has gotten its share of long track violent tornadoes in the past and it was noted by NSSL that even though GW might result in warmer temperatures and more moisture it would result in less windshear which tornadoes need to get started. This outbreak is massive and devastating but it isn't that similar ones haven't happened before but the last one to which this one is being compared to, 1974 occurred 37 years ago probably before many of the nimrods making the stupid comments were born. Other outbreaks of similar nature include the Palm Sunday Outbreak of 1965 and the Enigma Outbreak in the SE US in 1884. The situation regarding these comments reminds me of the Islamic and Christian Fundamentalist-crackpots to the extreme who cast a pall over their respective groups whose general memberships are afraid to call them out. Here, it does no good for the skeptical community (which BTW for the most part does NOT deny that warming is taking place but disagrees as to why) to call these idiots out-the AGW community has to do it and let the crackpots know that they are doing no good. The same goes for skeptics and those in their house who need psychiatric help. Each side of the argument has to police their own.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

Great Post Steve!!! Thankyou!

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the public does not know what to think. They are very confussed. Emotions are running very heigh on both extremes. If we could only tone down rhetoric and scientists could better explain the science maybe we would get some positive outcome.

The fact is we can not attribute the tornado outbreak to global warming. We do not have the ability to answer that question.

You have to admit Rusty, this is utterly Pathetic. I lost a dear friend to that Tornado, and Damn I'm pissed at these comments.

I explained in the other Thread that.......

When CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times present levels about 175 million years ago and 440 million years ago, the Earth was in two very cold ice ages.

CO2 has never been a driver of temperature due to feedbacks within the climate system! Co2 had been near 5000ppm about 150 million years ago, and yet we were in the midst of an ice Age.

1) Significant/Measurable AGW is only a Hypothesis, and is not "certain" by any means, since we poorly understand the climate system aside from simple rapid feedbacks.

2) As I demonstrated in the other Thread, the warming we've seen to this day could be explained through Natural mechanisms within the climate system, Although this is also just another hypothesis.... these mechanisms revolving around the Sun/Clouds/Oceans, as a result of TSI/Ocean Creating feedbacks within the climate system.

Simple rapid feedbacks will not determine the climate if they are not predominately driven by factor N0. 1 (Co2), as in, GCC, for one example.

[cheetah440]

Cultists will stop at nothing. Facts don't matter to the cult.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't know who the people making these comments are, but my guess would be they are just ordinary folks making politically based statements. Don't blame this on the science. These are not science based comments.

This behavior represents clear evidence of the distain we have for each other along political lines. From both sides.

[WeatherRusty]

In an email interview with ThinkProgress, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, one of the world’s top climate scientists, who has been exploring for years how greenhouse pollution influences extreme weather, said he believes that it is “irresponsible not to mention climate change” in the context of these extreme tornadoes. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added that the scientific understanding of how polluting our atmosphere with billions of tons of greenhouse gases affects tornadic activity is still ongoing:

It is irresponsible not to mention climate change. … The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences (global warming). Tornadoes come from thunderstorms in a wind shear environment. This occurs east of the Rockies more than anywhere else in the world. The wind shear is from southerly (SE, S or SW) flow from the Gulf overlaid by westerlies aloft that have come over the Rockies. That wind shear can be converted to rotation. The basic driver of thunderstorms is the instability in the atmosphere: warm moist air at low levels with drier air aloft. With global warming the low level air is warm and moister and there is more energy available to fuel all of these storms and increase the buoyancy of the air so that thunderstorms are strong. There is no clear research on changes in shear related to global warming. On average the low level air is 1 deg F and 4 percent moister than in the 1970s.

[BethesdaWX]

Trenberth is an Idiot, he's out of his league... He should know that not only would the changing thermal profiles of "supposed AGW" create less shear as the LT warms further, but that Violent tornadoes have been DECREASING! So really he's either out of his league, or a complete whackjob. Violent Tornadoes would decrease under the AGW profile, since shear and overall synoptics would be less favorable for twisters.

Are you kidding me? 440 million years ago, there was 5000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we were in the coldest Ice age of all time (not counting "snowball earth" earlier on).

This is laughable........Trenberth... One of the Worlds Top Climate Scientists, cannot even understand the physics of the earth & his own AGW hypothesis??? I suggest you Clam up now Trenberth... or you're in trouble Buddy.

[skierinvermont]

Trenberth is an Idiot, he's out of his league... He should know that not only would the changing thermal profiles of "supposed AGW" create less shear as the LT warms further, but that Violent tornadoes have been DECREASING! So really he's either out of his league, or a complete whackjob. Violent Tornadoes would decrease under the AGW profile, since shear and overall synoptics would be less favorable for twisters.

Are you kidding me? 440 million years ago, there was 5000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we were in the coldest Ice age of all time (not counting "snowball earth" earlier on).

This is laughable........Trenberth... One of the Worlds Top Climate Scientists, cannot even understand the physics of the earth & his own AGW hypothesis??? I suggest you Clam up now Trenberth... or you're in trouble Buddy.

Shrill posts like these have no place in a science forum. This isn't a football game, this is science.

I don't think anybody knows exactly how shear will change in a warming world. I think models generally predict shear to increase, at least in the tropics, which is why they predict fewer hurricanes. So the same mechanism that causes fewer hurricanes might cause more tornadoes. But shear might increase in the tropics and decrease somewhere else, I don't know, one would have to look at the actual science on the subject instead of making shrill posts and calling scientists names. We have less than 100 years of data on tornadoes, and the warming that has taken place so far is fractional compared to the warming that is going to occur. So although tornadoes have decreased thus far, other factors have been more important in the short run than .8C of warming, but 2 or 3C of additional warming might increase tornadoes. Who knows... Trenberth said it is an area of active research. Maybe you can publish something in a peer-reviewed journal calling them whackjobs and explaining why you have, in a few shrill sentences, proved that tornadoes will decrease.

One thing that would make sense to me is that tornado season would start sooner and end later. But I know the deep south usually has fewer tornadoes in summer than spring, and that slower period could also be prolonged. In the summer, I would guess, the westerlies migrate too far north, and in a warmer world this would happen earlier in summer/spring.

[Clifford]

I don't have any fancy weather diagrams.

But, if you look at the Ryan Maue GFS charts:

You have a very cold West USA (caused in part by the PDO, and arctic weather).

Coupled with a very warm South-East USA.

And, put it together and one gets some wicked tornadoes.

The average temperature in the USA is likely neutral to negative.

I would think what the Greenhouse Effect would do would be to homogenize the temperatures. And, while I don't like Venus comparisions, the one thing that Venus has is very little day/night temperature variation despite its very long days.

Thus, the "Greenhouse Effect" might actually reduce the chance of tornadoes.

[WeatherRusty]

Trenberth is an Idiot, he's out of his league... He should know that not only would the changing thermal profiles of "supposed AGW" create less shear as the LT warms further, but that Violent tornadoes have been DECREASING! So really he's either out of his league, or a complete whackjob. Violent Tornadoes would decrease under the AGW profile, since shear and overall synoptics would be less favorable for twisters.

Are you kidding me? 440 million years ago, there was 5000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we were in the coldest Ice age of all time (not counting "snowball earth" earlier on).

This is laughable........Trenberth... One of the Worlds Top Climate Scientists, cannot even understand the physics of the earth & his own AGW hypothesis??? I suggest you Clam up now Trenberth... or you're in trouble Buddy.

A warmer tropical environment is expected to create an increase in wind sheer over the Atlantic basin IN THE TROPICS. This is an environment referred to as a barotropic zone with minimal horizontal temperature difference at various heights.

Baroclinic zones are characterized by frontal boundaries and associated weather involving horizontal and verticle temperate differences, jet streams and potential strong wind sheer.

I wouldn't be calling a major trained scientist an idiot if I were you. I wouldn't be so COC sure of myself at age 18 with little elite training either.

All Trenberth is saying is that it would be a mistake not to understand that every weather event today is immersed in an altered environment. An environment altered by man's activities. The conditions these storms form under are not entirely natural. For instance the average temperature is 1F degree warmer and specific humidity 4% greater than 30 years ago. Gulf of Mexico is about as warm now as has ever been recorded. These things make a difference, they are not negligible factors.

[BethesdaWX]

A warmer tropical environment is expected to create an increase in wind sheer over the Atlantic basin IN THE TROPICS. This is an environment referred to as a barotropic zone with minimal horizontal temperature difference at various heights.

Baroclinic zones are characterized by frontal boundaries and associated weather involving horizontal and verticle temperate differences, jet streams and potential strong wind sheer.

I wouldn't be calling a major trained scientist an idiot if I were you. I wouldn't be so COC sure of myself at age 18 with little elite training either.

All Trenberth is saying is that it would be a mistake not to understand that every weather event today is immersed in an altered environment. An environment altered by man's activities. The conditions these storms form under are not entirely natural. For instance the average temperature is 1F degree warmer and specific humidity 4% greater than 30 years ago. Gulf of Mexico is about as warm now as has ever been recorded. These things make a difference, they are not negligible factors.

No No No No No.....

Looks like I'll need to go into this again for you.

Here are the Quick Points before the Discussion.

1) You begin assuming Man is affecting the Climate... and that changes are caused by man, and not nature......I'll demonstrate why this is a perfect recipe for FAIL below.

2) 440 million years ago, Co2 was at 5000PPM...and we were in the coldest Ice age of all Time! Ummm... helloooooo! Can you not see the Red Light Here? Yo!

3) Violent Tornadoes have been decreasing as we've warmed...what does that tell you? It should tell you that we don't know sh*t about the our climate system system. Now, if we cannot come to a conclusion on this simple aspect, predictions for GTA are hard as hell and 100X more complicated.

4) ^^^^^^^ To relation in the above quote, The NWS has stated that the Idea of AGW enhancing the Tornado Outbreak has no proven scientific basis (read the Link I posted)....The dynamics will be poor in the AGW profile, since the LT needs to warm faster than ther Surface based on Laws of Physics. Now, do I need to explain the synoptic recipe for major tornadic activity, or are you Catching on? hehehe...

Remember the ole "He's not qualified" excuse that is thrown around here consistantly? Guess what? Kevin Trenberth is not Qualified to speak in terms of meterological events in a standalone manner! Unless we have double Standards here...

CLOUDS

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m² to 288 W/m² (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m² being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m² (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m². So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).

Resized to 80% (was 880 x 467) - Click image to enlarge

Variations in solar irradiance are recognized as a fundamental forcing factor in the climate system and may directly or indirectly influence the amount of clouds. For instance it is generally believed that the main cause of the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 was reduced solar irradiance (Lean and Rind 1998; Shindell et al. 2001). http://www.climate4you.com/

The solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent over the approximate 11-year solar cycle, which would appear to be too small to have an impact on climate. Nevertheless, many observations suggest the presence of 11-year signals in various meteorological time series, e.g., sea surface temperature (White et al. 1997) and cloudiness over North America (Udelhofen and Cess 2001).

The flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that GCR enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle. A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m^2, which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m² for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels.

Since clouds have a net cooling effect on climate, the above would imply (Svensmark 1998) that the estimated reduction of cosmic ray flux during the 20th century (Marsh and Svensmark 2000) might have been responsible for a significant part of the observed warming. Since 1983, the cooling cover of low clouds have decreased from 29% to about 25%, During the same period the net change of warming high clouds have been small.

The new hypothesis on cloud formation being influenced by the intensity of galactic cosmic rays has been exposed to critique (Kristjánsson et al. 2002; Kristjánsson et al. 2004). Later, however, new experiments demonstrated that cosmic rays may indeed produce cloud condensation nuclei (CCN's). By way of the SKY experiment in Copenhagen was demonstrated how electrons set free in the air by passing cosmic rays help to assemble building blocks for CCN's (Svensmark et al. 2006, Svensmark 2007).

As more experiments are carried out and longer and improved dataseries on cloud cover, cosmic rays, atmospheric water vapour, the amount of atmospheric aerosols, etc. are established, knowledge on cloud cover formation will improve. Until all processes controlling cloud formation are thoroughly understood, any attempt of modelling future climate change may well prove in vain.

The SUN

The spectral analysis shown here is from sediment cores obtained from Effingham Inlet, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The annually deposited laminations of the core are linked to the changing climate conditions. The analysis shows a strong correlation to the 11-year sunspot cycle.

See here for a powerpoint slide show by Tim Patterson.

N. Shaviv and J. Veiser using seashell thermometers shows a strong correlation between temperature and the cosmic ray flux over the last 520 million years.

Cosmic Ray Flux and Tropical Temperature Variation Over the Phanerozoic 520 million years

Sun and Cosmic Rays

During the 20th century the Sun has continued to warm and may have contributed directly to a third of the warming over the last hundred years. The change in solar output is too small to directly account for most of the observed warming. However, the Sun-Cosmic Ray connection provides an amplification mechanism by which a small change in solar irradiance will have a large effect on climate.

A paper by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen of the Center for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cosmic rays highly correlate to low cloud formation. Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness.

A recent experiment in 2005 shows the effect of cosmic rays in a reaction chamber containing air and trace chemicals found over the oceans. Electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as a catalyst in making aerosols. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules, which are the building block for the cloud condensation nuclei.

Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and the Huancayo cosmic ray station shows a remarkable correlation between low clouds (below 3 km) and cosmic rays. There are more than enough cosmic rays at high altitudes, so changes in the cosmic rays do not effect high clouds. But fewer cosmic rays penetrate to the lower clouds, so they are sensitive to changes in cosmic rays.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)

Cosmic ray flux can be determined from radioactive isotopes such as beryllium-10, or the Sun’s open coronal magnetic field. The two independent cosmic ray proxies confirm that there has been a dramatic reduction in the cosmic ray flux during the 20th century as the Sun has gained intensity and the Sun's coronal magnetic field has doubled in strength.

The graph below shows a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade.

The negative correlation between cosmic ray counts and troposphere temperatures is very strong, indicating that the Sun is the primary climate driver. H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen published the above graph in a paper October 2007 in response to a paper by M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich, in which they argue that the historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. However, the Lockwood paper had several deficiencies, including the problem that they used surface temperature data that is contaminated by the urban heat island effect (see below). They also fail to account for the large time lag between long-term solar intensity changes to the climate temperature response.

Over the 20th century the Sun has increased activity and irradiance intensity, directly providing some warming. The graph below from here shows the rising solar flux during most of the twentieth century.

CO2 Concentrations 500 Million Years

The graph shows CO2 concentration over the last 500 million years. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Note when CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times present levels about 175 million years ago and 440 million years ago, the Earth was in two very cold ice ages.

See here for a paper on CosmoClimatology by Henrik Svensmark.

See here for a discussion of the Shaviv and Veizer 2003 paper by Tim Patterson. See here for their paper.

Milankovitch Cycles

The Earth-Sun orbital changes are the principal causes of long term climate change. During the last 800,000 years, eight periods of glaciations have occurred. Each ice age lasts about 100,000 years with warm interglacial periods lasting 10,000 to 12,000 years. Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958) identified three major cyclical variables which became recognized as the major causes of climate change. The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth depends on the distance of the Earth to the Sun and the angle of incidence of the Sun’s rays upon the Earth’s surface. The Earth’s axis tilt changes on a 40,000-year cycle, the precession of the equinox changes on a 21,000-year cycle, and the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit changes on a 100,000-year cycle.

The Earth's axis tilt (also known as obliquity of the ecliptic) changes from 22 to 24.5 degrees over a 40,000-year cycle. Summer to winter extremes are greater when the axis tilt is greater. The precession of the equinox refers to the Earth's wobble as it spins on its axis. Currently, the north axis points to the North Star, Polaris. In 13,000 years it would point to the star Vega, then return to Polaris in another 13,000 years, creating a 26,000-year cycle. When this is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest in its orbit to the Sun), it produces a 21,000-year cycle. The variation of the elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun ranges from an almost exact circle (eccentricity = 0.0005) to a slightly elongated shape (eccentricity = 0.0607) on a 100,000-year cycle. The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of other planets. The impact of the variation is a change in the amount of solar energy from closest approach to the Sun (perihelion, around January 3) to the furthest distant to the Sun (aphelion, around July 4). Currently the Earth's eccentricity is 0.016 and there is about a 6.4 percent increase in incoming solar energy from July to January. In the Northern Hemisphere, winter occurs during the closest approach to the Sun. The graph below shows the three cycles versus time. The vertical line represents the present, negative time is the past and positive time is the future. See here.

Analysis of deep-sea cores shows sea temperature changes corresponding to these cycles, with the 100,000-year cycle being the strongest.

These solar cycles do not cause enough change in solar radiation reaching the Earth to cause the major climatic change without an amplifier effect. A plausible amplifier is the Sun’s varying solar wind that modifies the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere.

The following figure shows the longest-term data available representing the solar activity. “Three independent indices... The observed annual mean sunspot numbers (scale at right) also follows the 11-year solar activity cycle after 1700. The curve extending from 1000 to 1900 is a proxy sunspot number index derived from measurements of carbon-14 in tree rings. Increased carbon-14 is plotted downward (scale at left-inside), so increased solar activity and larger proxy sunspot numbers correspond to reduced amounts of radiocarbon in the Earth’s atmosphere. Open circles are an index of the occurrence of auroras in the Northern Hemisphere (scale at left-outside). [Professor Kenneth R. Lang, Tufts University <A href=http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=119">http://ase.tufts.edu...ture.asp?id=119]

Sunspot Number and Solar Activity Proxy 1000 -2000

The following figure compares the solar proxy 10Be concentration with a combined with filtered temperature record of the northern hemisphere from Beer et al [“The role of the sun in climate forcing”, J. Beer, W. Mende, R. Stellmacher, Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Switzerland and Institute of Meteorology, Germany, Quaternary Science Reviews, 2000]. “If one computes the global and annual mean of solar forcing caused by the 100 kyr period of eccentricity one gets an amplitude of 0.12Wm~2 in the spherical mean. This value is too small to be detected in climate records. But, despite the tiny global forcing value, we can observe the 100 kyr frequency during the last 800 kyr in most paleoclimatic records. The global mean temperature changes between glacial and interglacial periods are large: about 20C for polar (Johnsen et al., 1995) and 5 for tropical regions (Stute et al., 1995). As a consequence the sensitivity for the 100 kyr Milankovitch forcing formally turns out to be about a 100 times larger than the values obtained from GCMs [emphasis added]. This result illustrates that using global and annual averages to estimate the climate sensitivity can be very misleading, especially when seasonal and local effects are significant. E.g. in the case of glaciers strong melting during the summer cannot be compensated by ice accumulation during the rest of the year. Beyond a certain threshold the winter temperatures have a vanishing influence on ice accumulation. So, constant small differences can be accumulated to large effects over long periods of time (10 kyr or half a period of the precessional cycle).”

Temperature and Solar Activity Proxy 1720 -2000

The following figure is from a 2006 paper by Beer et al [“Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia” J. Beer, M. Vonmoos and R. Muscheler (Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, and NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center) Space Science Reviews, 2006, and shows the earth’s orbital eccentricity (panel (a) - the deviation from a circular orbit for the past 640,000 years with a clear period of ~100,000 years) and the corresponding sequence of glacial and interglacial periods found in the δD record from Dome C (Antarctica) (Spahni, 2005) that is an indicator of temperature shown in panel (. The red curve in panel ( reflects the summer insolation at 65◦N which includes, in addition to the eccentricity, the tilt angle (period of~40,000 years) and the precession of the Earth’s axis (period of ~20,000 years). “Note that the mean annual global insolation changes caused by the eccentricity are very small (<2.5 Wm−2)” and yet they cause significant climate changes. [http://www.eawag.ch/...lar_variability]] The paper states: “It is well known that the Sun plays the fundamental role as our energy source. However, it is still an open question what role the Sun plays in climate change… the observed changes of the TSI over an 11-year cycle are very small (0.1%), corresponding to an average temperature change of 1.5 K of the photosphere and, on Earth, to a global forcing change of 0.25 Wm−2 (averaging over the globe and taking into account the albedo of 30%). This led many people to conclude that, even if the solar constant is not constant, the changes are too small to be climatically relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms. This conclusion seems to be premature, firstly because there is no doubt that there are positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system. A cooling for example, leads to growing ice sheets which increases the albedo and thus the cooling. The existence of feedback mechanisms is illustrated by the discussed glacial-interglacial cycles that are related to a very weak annual mean change in insolation.”

http://www.appinsys....larEvidence.htm

The Theory for "extreme" AGW simply cannot have every climactic feedback revolving around it, thats not how it works, and it goes against well known laws of physics.

[OHSnow]

Trenberth is an Idiot, he's out of his league... He should know that not only would the changing thermal profiles of "supposed AGW" create less shear as the LT warms further, but that Violent tornadoes have been DECREASING! So really he's either out of his league, or a complete whackjob. Violent Tornadoes would decrease under the AGW profile, since shear and overall synoptics would be less favorable for twisters.

Are you kidding me? 440 million years ago, there was 5000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we were in the coldest Ice age of all time (not counting "snowball earth" earlier on).

This is laughable........Trenberth... One of the Worlds Top Climate Scientists, cannot even understand the physics of the earth & his own AGW hypothesis??? I suggest you Clam up now Trenberth... or you're in trouble Buddy.

If we can't trust scientists to tell us what the climate is going to look like in ten years, how the hell are we to trust them when they tell use what the climate was 440 million years ago? I mean, surely, you aren't professing to have personal knowledge of what things were like then?

[BethesdaWX]

If we can't trust scientists to tell us what the climate is going to look like in ten years, how the hell are we to trust them when they tell use what the climate was 440 million years ago? I mean, surely, you aren't professing to have personal knowledge of what things were like then?

Reviewing the past is not the same thing as predicting the future... one is looking at past history trapped in time (proxies), the other requires an in-depth understanding of the climate system, that we Don't Have, to predict the future.....totally different.....We can see the Past, we cannot see the future. Our understanding of the climate system is piss poor in the area of feedback, and this is why I'm as confident as I can be, the predictions for AGW are going to fall apart dramatically starting sometime between 2017 and 2020. If I'm wrong, oh well, but I highly doubt I am at this point. but who knows, I may end up taking a hefty dose of Humble Pie.

You actually do not need to be a scientist to understand this stuff. I work with scientists, socialize with scientists, and learn from scientists. You can rip people and their credentials all want, but it is a waste of time. It gets funny when we see every excuse in the book pulled out to try and lambash someone, only to see it come to bite 'em in the azz later on.

So really, we have it backwards. The climate System is immensly complicated, but understanding the basics is simple... not the other way around. Thats where the Bullsh*t gets started, and its a f**king disgrace to see the state of science today, too many f**king politics, too many f**king insults, too many damn f**king perverts running the fields. We need to bring back a sense of objectivity before its too late.....cuz once we realize we went wrong, the entire book will need to be re-written... and really that is the perfect way to kill science, but we'll hopefully learn our lesson after this coming epidemic! We're heading that way now, so all we can really do is sit back and watch as this era of science implodes. Its gonna be a rough ride in the next 30-40yrs, but we'll be better off as a society once we get through it. Don't fool yourself or beat the dead horse that is Climate Science, watch what happens beginning in 6-8 years.

[aslkahuna]

I believe that comments regarding shear and tornadoes take note of the following. As noted tornadoes are associated with baroclinic systems and the shear with them is largely driven by thermal contrasts and the presence of the jetstream. The jetstream is derived from the thermal contrast between the low and high latitudes. Now, if the idea is that the Arctic latitudes are going to warm faster and greater than the low then you reduce this contrast and it stands to reason therefore that the jet will weaken and shear will be less. Shear is the critical property that starts a Supercell rotating-without it you get nice big wet pulse type boomers but little in the way of tornadoes except maybe for weak spinups in the outflow. Consider this-this outbreak is being compared to 1974 but in reality in terms of how brutal it was in the SE US, perhaps a more apt comparison would be with the 1884 Enigma Outbreak which was at least as deadly. Now statistically having two very similar outbreaks 127 years apart makes more sense than blaming what is, to an EF-5 tornado, a relatively minor change in the thermodynamics.

Steve

[Vandy]

People make stupid comments. Doesn't invalidate the science done by others. FWIW, the official IPCC position on severe weather is that we don't have a good handle on how it would trend in a warming climate.

And that reasoning sounds legit to me Steve just based on studying Holton for years, but admittedly it's not a problem I have focused on.

[LakeEffectKing]

The fact is that we can't correlate the tornado outbreak of the past week to climate change at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

[VAwxman]

I think Trenberth saying it is irresponsible not to mention climate change sends the wrong message here. There is no need for that given what little we know. If we assume (and I'm not going to argue either way) that AGW theory is correct, it is very hard to assess the impact on tornadoes. Shear you'd think would be less overall in the mid latitudes, but given that shear is always pretty strong in late winter early spring, a decrease would not have much impact, as it would still be well enough, and if you add some warming, maybe, like skier said, it would just make tornado season occur a little earlier? I don't know if we're observing that though without actually pulling up stats.

[LocoAko]

If we can't trust scientists to tell us what the climate is going to look like in ten years, how the hell are we to trust them when they tell use what the climate was 440 million years ago? I mean, surely, you aren't professing to have personal knowledge of what things were like then?

No. It doesn't work this way.

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda:

2) 440 million years ago, Co2 was at 5000PPM...and we were in the coldest Ice age of all Time! Ummm... helloooooo! Can you not see the Red Light Here? Yo!

The skeptic argument...

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)

What the science says...

During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

Solved

[Vandy]

No. It doesn't work this way.

Yep. I can tell you who was president of the US 200 years ago with a lot more certainty than who I think will be president in ten years.

Forecasting a chaotic system is incredibly challenging. The consistency between all of the GCMs created by so many separate modeling groups around the world is what is so striking. That doesn't mean they are right, and I'm sure we'll see good improvement in the AR5 models, but it adds confidence to the forecast.

[OHSnow]

No. It doesn't work this way.

Well, we've been told repeatedly that proxies from even 500 and 1000 years ago are unreliable, so how can 440 million year old proxies be believed? In fact, we're told by some of the same people that the earth didn't even exist 440 million years ago.

[skierinvermont]

I think Trenberth saying it is irresponsible not to mention climate change sends the wrong message here. There is no need for that given what little we know. If we assume (and I'm not going to argue either way) that AGW theory is correct, it is very hard to assess the impact on tornadoes. Shear you'd think would be less overall in the mid latitudes, but given that shear is always pretty strong in late winter early spring, a decrease would not have much impact, as it would still be well enough, and if you add some warming, maybe, like skier said, it would just make tornado season occur a little earlier? I don't know if we're observing that though without actually pulling up stats.

I agree.. I think Trenberth is making an academic point that the atmosphere is just fundamentally different than 100 years ago with much more carbon, a more active sun, less stratospheric ozone, more aerosols etc., but I'm not sure this point needs to be made in the context of a specific event, at least not publicly. Until AGW's effect on tornadic activity is clearer, it's probably best not to mention it in the context of specific events. At least not publicly. Scientists can and should argue about how our new atmosphere enhances or diminishes such events but those arguments are probably best kept to scientific journals.

[nzucker]

I agree.. I think Trenberth is making an academic point that the atmosphere is just fundamentally different than 100 years ago with much more carbon, a more active sun, less stratospheric ozone, more aerosols etc., but I'm not sure this point needs to be made in the context of a specific event, at least not publicly. Until AGW's effect on tornadic activity is clearer, it's probably best not to mention it in the context of specific events. At least not publicly. Scientists can and should argue about how our new atmosphere enhances or diminishes such events but those arguments are probably best kept to scientific journals.

Trenberth's is just the typical scare tactic to get people to take action on global warming. Link it to some frightening weather event, and people will believe more, like Katrina and Al Gore.

Doesn't matter to him that tornadoes have been decreasing in the US as we've warmed. Doesn't matter that severe weather was at record lows in 2010. Doesn't matter that AGW should reduce temperature contrasts, since the north warms faster than the south, and thus limit tornadoes.

[Clifford]

Trenberth's is just the typical scare tactic to get people to take action on global warming. Link it to some frightening weather event, and people will believe more, like Katrina and Al Gore.

Doesn't matter to him that tornadoes have been decreasing in the US as we've warmed. Doesn't matter that severe weather was at record lows in 2010. Doesn't matter that AGW should reduce temperature contrasts, since the north warms faster than the south, and thus limit tornadoes.

I'm not sure about severe weather being at record lows.

There were some gnarly snow storms across the country.

I've just read the Mt. Bachelor has set another snow record of 632" for the season (cumulative snowfall, not total depth).

But, I think the warmists loose credence by trying to tie every severe weather event to Global Warming.

We've had floods, drought, snow, heat waves, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc throughout history. Prior to tying any single event to global warming, they need to unequivocally demonstrate that it falls outside of the norm, and there is a mechanism that would account for the event based on the warming theory, and that there isn't another equally plausible explanation.

[CT Rain]

Trenberth's is just the typical scare tactic to get people to take action on global warming. Link it to some frightening weather event, and people will believe more, like Katrina and Al Gore.

Doesn't matter to him that tornadoes have been decreasing in the US as we've warmed. Doesn't matter that severe weather was at record lows in 2010. Doesn't matter that AGW should reduce temperature contrasts, since the north warms faster than the south, and thus limit tornadoes.

He didn't do that though. There's a difference between talking about the relationship between the 2 (climate change and violent tornadoes) and saying one caused the other.

[LakeEffectKing]

I agree.. I think Trenberth is making an academic point that the atmosphere is just fundamentally different than 100 years ago with much more carbon, a more active sun, less stratospheric ozone, more aerosols etc., but I'm not sure this point needs to be made in the context of a specific event, at least not publicly. Until AGW's effect on tornadic activity is clearer, it's probably best not to mention it in the context of specific events. At least not publicly. Scientists can and should argue about how our new atmosphere enhances or diminishes such events but those arguments are probably best kept to scientific journals.

Yep....that it is currently between 0.2 to 0.6 degrees above the 12 month ave. (roughly) from a hundred years ago. Glad he used a national tragedy to point that out...in an academic way of course.

[WeatherRusty]

Yep....that it is currently between 0.2 to 0.6 degrees above the 12 month ave. (roughly) from a hundred years ago. Glad he used a national tragedy to point that out...in an academic way of course.

And the most important change, near surface water vapor is 4% greater than 30 years ago.

[LakeEffectKing]

And the most important change, near surface water vapor is 4% greater than 30 years ago.

Which in the contest of increased tornado threats is irrelevant...again, not a wise time to just be pointing out "academic" variations in climate, not to mention that WV % is the most variable of the GHG's and is the least understood, wrt the forcings driving it and the feedbacks it generates.