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

[nzucker]

He isn't making statements about specific events.. he is making statements about the frequency and/or probability of specific events, IE climate.

He's making a statement about a specific tornado outbreak. That's ONE event.

[ORH_wxman]

Also, I love how it suddenly became popular after the last couple winters to say AGW will cause more/bigger east coast snowstorms. Where were those statements a few years ago?

It's these built-in assumptions about climate change that allow anything and everything weather/climate related to be linked to AGW...at our discretion.

There was a lot of speculation about how AGW had made it more likely for a +NAO to be dominant and thus, decrease the chances of large snow and increase the chances for warmer winters....just a few years ago. I remember Wes referenced some of those rumblings on the wx side. I think it was back in 2007 or 2008.

Then of course the NAO flipped in summer 2008 and essentially spent 30 months in the negative phase with some colder and record snowy winters in the eastern U.S. and of course then we hear the hind-cast of how AGW causes a -NAO because of melting sea ice. I don't think there has been any peer reviewed papers arguing heavily in one direction or the other, but I do know for a fact that the headline fit the sensible weather just 3 years apart.

The only peer reviewed stuff I know about is that higher snow cover in the autumn has been linked to higher frequency of -AO winters. But just because its peer reviewed doesn't mean its great proof as we've seen with many other claims.

[skierinvermont]

Roy Spencer, a NASA climatologist, says that global warming should decrease tornadoes. And hey he's an expert climatologist like Viner, so who am I to doubt the experts?

Because most experts say, including Dr. Trenberth but also many others, that we do not know how tornadic activity will change and there are too many interactions and variables to resolve at this point. For example, AGW is likely to increase the southerly LLJ by warming the land faster than the water, creating lift and turning over the plains and more southerly flow from the gulf.

In all seriousness, though, decreasing lapse rates and contrast in airmasses should ameliorate severe weather outbreaks. When Trenberth says "It is irresponsible not to mention climate change," he is implying that climate change was partially responsible for these tornadoes. That is the impression 99% of people reading his words are going to get, and given his 2011 AMS presentation it is the impression he intends to convey; in that speech, he was particularly assertive that events such as the 2/5 Snowmaggedon and California floods would have been less likely without global warming. Ironically, it's actually climate change that is probably reducing severe weather outbreaks, but of course individual events can NEVER be assumed to be part of a "greater picture" unless there is a clear threshold at which warming dictates the formation of a certain weather phenomenon. Why is it irresponsible not to mention climate change when discussing a tornado outbreak if we don't know of any mechanism by which warming would actually increase tornadoes? Isn't it, on the other hand, actually irresponsible to mention AGW since we don't have any proof that it's involved, and given the media's tendency to go crazy with this stuff like Katrina 2005?

That is not the impression 99% of people are going to get. He said specifically that it is not known how AGW will affect tornadic activity. Several other scientists repeated that claim. You would have to be a moron (or a hack) to read that article and conclude that AGW will increase tornadic activity.

Right. Global climate is a tiny contributor to most weather phenomena, so we need to talk more about the pattern. Dr. Trenberth clearly does not understand the difference between climate and weather; his lack of meteorological background means that he can't grasp that the DC snowstorms in 09-10 were due to a west-based El Nino, or that the 4/27/11 tornado outbreak was due to La Nina and the -PDO pattern. Moreover, it's interesting how any weather event is now molded to fit the AGW hypothesis: when it wasn't snowing a lot in London, Viner said it was because of global warming. We frequently heard the same refrain here in NYC during the low snowfall years of the 1990s. Then, when it started snowing a lot again, it was also because of global warming. You can't have it both ways. If something isn't definitively linked to climate change, then why mention it?

Dr. Trenberth is quite clear about the difference between weather and climate. He argues very specifically that the effect of AGW should be discussed as a change in probability/frequency.

Viner didn't say the lack of snow was due to AGW.. he said the long-term decline is related to AGW and that it will continue to decline in the long-term. But because you are a hack, you omitted his statement that "heavy snow will return" and you continue to manipulate his comments.

Also funny that you claim Trenberth lacks a meteorological background... considering he has a doctors degree in meteorology from MIT, is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, worked for several years in the New Zealand meteorological service, and currently works at NCAR. You continue to pull facts out of your ass. Really sad to see you just making up lies.

[tacoman25]

He isn't making statements about specific events.. he is making statements about the frequency and/or probability of specific events, IE climate.

In reference to specific events that happen.

Semantics, dude.

[skierinvermont]

He's making a statement about a specific tornado outbreak. That's ONE event.

He isn't saying whether or not it was caused by AGW. In fact, he specifically says WE DON"T KNOW what affect AGW will have on tornadoes (as opposed to your garbage claims that we know it will decrease).

[tacoman25]

There was a lot of speculation about how AGW had made it more likely for a +NAO to be dominant and thus, decrease the chances of large snow and increase the chances for warmer winters....just a few years ago. I remember Wes referenced some of those rumblings on the wx side. I think it was back in 2007 or 2008.

Then of course the NAO flipped in summer 2008 and essentially spent 30 months in the negative phase with some colder and record snowy winters in the eastern U.S. and of course then we hear the hind-cast of how AGW causes a -NAO because of melting sea ice. I don't think there has been any peer reviewed papers arguing heavily in one direction or the other, but I do know for a fact that the headline fit the sensible weather just 3 years apart.

The only peer reviewed stuff I know about is that higher snow cover in the autumn has been linked to higher frequency of -AO winters. But just because its peer reviewed doesn't mean its great proof as we've seen with many other claims.

Exactly!

Which is exactly why I don't put much stock in what the latest paper warns about AGW effects...hurricanes, blizzards, floods, (and I'm sure we'll see something on tornadoes soon)....no matter what it is, there will be explanations offered and climate change will somehow by connected as a significant factor. And of course, the result will be bad for the human race.

That's how the built-in assumption machine works.

[skierinvermont]

Exactly!

Which is exactly why I don't put much stock in what the latest paper warns about AGW effects...hurricanes, blizzards, floods, (and I'm sure we'll see something on tornadoes soon)....no matter what it is, there will be explanations offered and climate change will somehow by connected as a significant factor. And of course, the result will be bad for the human race.

That's how the built-in assumption machine works.

But as Will suggests, this is basically confined to the media and isn't found in the peer-reviewed literature. There hasn't been a major shift in scientific opinion on the NAO in the last few years. We've just seen the media emphasizing different sides of the argument.

[tacoman25]

He isn't saying whether or not it was caused by AGW. In fact, he specifically says WE DON"T KNOW what affect AGW will have on tornadoes (as opposed to your garbage claims that we know it will decrease).

And yet when asked about the implications of climate change on tornadoes, he adds this little doozy:

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.

Feeds right into the "AGW is guilty until proven innocent" mentality that predominates. How can you not see this, honestly?

[tacoman25]

But as Will suggests, this is basically confined to the media and isn't found in the peer-reviewed literature. There hasn't been a major shift in scientific opinion on the NAO in the last few years. We've just seen the media emphasizing different sides of the argument.

If you think the media (and what gets attention/funding) doesn't play a role in scientific research, you are a bit naive.

[skierinvermont]

And yet when asked about the implications of climate change on tornadoes, he adds this little doozy:

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.

Feeds right into the "AGW is guilty until proven innocent" mentality that predominates. How can you not see this, honestly?

If that were all he said, then I would agree with you. But he also specifically says we don't know how AGW will affect tornadic activity. To interpret him as otherwise is to interpret him in a way that directly contradicts the rest of his statement.

[nzucker]

Because most experts say, including Dr. Trenberth but also many others, that we do not know how tornadic activity will change and there are too many interactions and variables to resolve at this point. For example, AGW is likely to increase the southerly LLJ by warming the land faster than the water, creating lift and turning over the plains and more southerly flow from the gulf.

That is not the impression 99% of people are going to get. He said specifically that it is not known how AGW will affect tornadic activity. Several other scientists repeated that claim. You would have to be a moron (or a hack) to read that article and conclude that AGW will increase tornadic activity.

Dr. Trenberth is quite clear about the difference between weather and climate. He argues very specifically that the effect of AGW should be discussed as a change in probability/frequency.

Well, overall extreme tornadoes have been going down as the US has warmed a lot...and we've clearly seen plenty of evidence that tornadoes are caused by mid-level lapse rates and gradient dynamics, which are supposed to decline in the long-term, so that's clearly more powerful evidence than Trenberth suggesting after a deadly outbreak, "Well we must assess climate change's role in this." Most tornado outbreaks have occurred in a pattern that is overall supposed to become more unlikely in the future, meaning La Niña, strong cold north/warm south temperature gradient, high snowcover in the Plains/Canada, etc....So instead of worrying about AGW's connection to worse/more tornadoes because a huge outbreak just happened (short-term emotional appeal), instead we should be thanking AGW for eliminating tornadoes gradually (long-term reasoning). Also, if he is not trying to convince people that AGW is going to make tornadoes more extreme/frequent, then why does Trenberth specifically decide to mention it after a major outbreak put the thought of increasing extreme weather into people's minds? Why not mention last year that the record low number of tornadoes may be due to global warming? Seems a bit convenient timing, eh, Andrew?

Trenberth is clearly exploiting the event for AGW publicity, just as Hansen and McKibben exploited the 1988 hot summer. This has been a long-standing double standard of the alarmists, to criticize skeptics for using single weather events to argue against global warming because they are non-representative, but then to use non-representative weather events to convince the public of the severity of global warming.

Viner didn't say the lack of snow was due to AGW.. he said the long-term decline is related to AGW and that it will continue to decline in the long-term. But because you are a hack, you omitted his statement that "heavy snow will return" and you continue to manipulate his comments.

He definitely implied that the lack of snowfall in recent winters was the beginning of a long-term shift in snowfall amounts due to AGW, didn't even mention the NAO which is without a doubt the most important index for British snow. And also, how can you logically say, "Children won't know what snow is" and "Heavy snow will return." in the same interview? If the same extreme patterns are always going to yield snowfall, then it doesn't much matter what the background temperature is. Remember, it almost never snows there except when you have a huge NAO block anyway.

Also funny that you claim Trenberth lacks a meteorological background... considering he has a doctors degree in meteorology from MIT, is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, worked for several years in the New Zealand meteorological service, and currently works at NCAR. You continue to pull facts out of your ass.

Most meteorologists aren't specialists in long-term patterns. To get a meteorology degree and work in most positions, you don't need to reflect much on the placement of ENSO events, long-range NAO patterns, etc....you are basically learning the physical equations that define the atmosphere and create the models, which is very different from the type of weather historian/enthusiast that you'd find here. I talk with a lot of met majors regularly, and most of them know less than I do about whether DC has snowy winters in a west-based Niño, whether tornado events have occurred in a strong Niña gradient pattern and which historic events fell into this category, etc...We've also seen some of the most prestigious forecasting centers in the world, such as UKMET, make egregious predictions that favor global warming over multidecadal patterns, only to get burned as the Met Office did in Winters 09-10 and 10-11 (fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...) Many of the top forecasters/climatologists such as Hadley, Arctic sea ice panel '09, Hansen etc have favored excessively the argument of global warming, and for sure it is a simpler one to make to the public against a complex series of long-term oscillations that influence weather differently in each place and combine in novel ways all the time.

[skierinvermont]

I am greatly looking forward to zucker's explanation of how a doctor's degree in meteorology from MIT, working for the NZ meteorological service, being a fellow of the AMS, and working for NCAR fails to constitute a background in meteorology. It really is appalling how zucker just makes up lies to try and "win" arguments.

[skierinvermont]

Most meteorologists aren't specialists in long-term patterns. To get a meteorology degree and work in most positions, you don't need to reflect much on the placement of ENSO events, long-range NAO patterns, etc....you are basically learning the physical equations that define the atmosphere and create the models, which is very different from the type of weather historian/enthusiast that you'd find here. I talk with a lot of met majors regularly, and most of them know less than I do about whether DC has snowy winters in a west-based Niño, whether tornado events have occurred in a strong Niña gradient pattern and which historic events fell into this category, etc...We've also seen some of the most prestigious forecasting centers in the world, such as UKMET, make egregious predictions that favor global warming over multidecadal patterns, only to get burned as the Met Office did in Winters 09-10 and 10-11 (fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...) Many of the top forecasters/climatologists such as Hadley, Arctic sea ice panel '09, Hansen etc have favored excessively the argument of global warming, and for sure it is a simpler one to make to the public against a complex series of long-term oscillations that influence weather differently in each place and combine in novel ways all the time.

Trenberth is an expert in ENSO climatology. More fail from zuckerboy. The things you list are EXACTLY the types of things which Trenberth studies and publishes on. Claiming someone like Trenberth lacks a background in meteorology is essentially libel.

[nzucker]

Trenberth is an expert in ENSO climatology. More fail from zuckerboy.

Really?

Then why did he say he thought heavy snowfalls in DC and heavy rains in California are connected to 2010 being a year of global warming induced weather extremes?

Doesn't he know that that's just a normal winter for a strong, west-based El Niño? DC is supposed to get big snowstorms, and California is supposed to get heavy rain/flooding when there is a big Niño. Anyone who looked at previous west +ENSO events could easily have predicted these unusual outcomes just using past analog years, so why does Trenberth consider these part of "new" extreme phenomenon? Why didn't Trenberth qualify his statements about these 2010 events being symptoms of AGW-influenced extremes at his 2011 AMS speech with the fact that these were normal El Niño patterns that had shown up repeatedly in winters before with the same Pacific configuration?

[Isotherm]

If you think the media (and what gets attention/funding) doesn't play a role in scientific research, you are a bit naive.

And if you think that funding doesn't play a role in peoples' opinions, then you're niave. It's not a coincidence that most climatologists are believers in AGW while most meteorologists are on the opposite side of the fence.

[skierinvermont]

Trenberth is clearly exploiting the event for AGW publicity,

No. The media is. The reporters called him and he repeated what he has been saying for years. AGW affects ALL aspects of weather in one way or another, and it is our job to figure out HOW.

[nzucker]

Trenberth is an expert in ENSO climatology. More fail from zuckerboy. The things you list are EXACTLY the types of things which Trenberth studies and publishes on. Claiming someone like Trenberth lacks a background in meteorology is essentially libel.

I thought Trenberth was more interested though in predicting/studying El Niños, not talking about their historic effects on specific regions' weather?

[ORH_wxman]

Trenberth shouldn't be making any comments at all if he truly wants to be responsible or just say "Extreme weather events happen all the time and we can't conclusively link AGW to this"....his blabbering on about how climate change affects all weather events is pretty whimsical and really unnecessary. If you are talking to the media and they ask you about a specific weather event and how climate change might be involved...to respond with "climate change affects all weather" is clearly implying to them that it might have caused that event. You can hide behind semantics, but know your audience. Trenberth knows his audience. It was the media. He isn't a stupid person. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[skierinvermont]

I thought Trenberth was more interested though in predicting/studying El Niños, not talking about their historic effects on specific regions' weather?

No. Nice try though.

He is an expert on ENSO prediction and its effects.. for example he has published on how the 1988 La Nina caused the extreme heat and drought that summer in the U.S. He is one of the most prolific and knowledgeable experts on weather and climate.

[nzucker]

I am greatly looking forward to zucker's explanation of how a doctor's degree in meteorology from MIT, working for the NZ meteorological service, being a fellow of the AMS, and working for NCAR fails to constitute a background in meteorology. It really is appalling how zucker just makes up lies to try and "win" arguments.

I don't see anything by Trenberth on specific weather patterns/events in North America.

I did a search of his papers on Google Scholar and most of what I see is "El Niño and Climate Change," "Ocean Heat Cycles/Transports"...

Seems like he's largely lacking in a background on North American weather analogs. Anyone who thinks snow in DC and rain in California is not mostly an El Niño thing is just a moron.

[nzucker]

No. Nice try though.

He is an expert on ENSO prediction and its effects.. for example he has published on how the 1988 La Nina caused the extreme heat and drought that summer in the U.S. He is one of the most prolific and knowledgeable experts on weather and climate.

Can you shut the **** up you arrogant eekhole? "Nice try though" "Hack" aren't going to cut it anymore with me.

I think you know what I'm saying about Trenberth...his comments clearly include a lack of knowledge of US historic weather and analog years. He is the type of scientist who tries to define everything through AGW.

[skierinvermont]

Trenberth shouldn't be making any comments at all if he truly wants to be responsible or just say "Extreme weather events happen all the time and we can't conclusively link AGW to this"....his blabbering on about how climate change affects all weather events is pretty whimsical and really unnecessary. If you are talking to the media and they ask you about a specific weather event and how climate change might be involved...to respond with "climate change affects all weather" is clearly implying to them that it might have caused that event. You can hide behind semantics, but know your audience. Trenberth knows his audience. It was the media. He isn't a stupid person. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Trenberth has been saying the same thing for years. It's sort of his pet-peeve almost. Climate change affects all aspects of weather. And he DOES specifically say we can't conclusively link AGW to this.

Even the media article is VERY clear that we don't know how tornadic activity will change with AGW. This is a non-issue that people are trying to blow up by manipulating the comments.

[skierinvermont]

Can you shut the **** up you arrogant eekhole? "Nice try though" "Hack" aren't going to cut it anymore with me.

I think you know what I'm saying about Trenberth...his comments clearly include a lack of knowledge of US historic weather and analog years. He is the type of scientist who tries to define everything through AGW.

No what I see you doing is making up lies and manipulating the comments of reputable scientists. To claim that someone with Trenberth's background lacks a background in meteorology is just libelous.

He is not the type of scientist that tries to define everything through AGW.

He has published extensively on natural variability related to ENSO, the pacific regime shift of 76-77, U.S. historical climate etc. etc. etc. Trenberth has forgotten more about weather and climate than you will ever know.

[nzucker]

Trenberth has been saying the same thing for years. It's sort of his pet-peeve almost. Climate change affects all aspects of weather. And he DOES specifically say we can't conclusively link AGW to this.

Even the media article is VERY clear that we don't know how tornadic activity will change with AGW.

Keep deluding yourself brotha...

If you don't think Trenberth is trying to tie the DC snowstorms, Alabama tornadoes, and California floods into a convenient story about global warming, then you just aren't looking.

[nzucker]

No what I see you doing is making up lies and manipulating the comments of reputable scientists. To claim that someone with Trenberth's background lacks a background in meteorology is just libelous.

It just shows a willful ignorance or disregard of meteorology to claim that 2010's DC snowstorms were caused by global warming and not ENSO, to mention in an interview that warming adds extra fuel to tornadoes without also mentioning that it kills the contrasts that sustain them, to say that Summer 2010's heat waves would have been unlikely if not for global warming without mentioning that most of our historic heat waves happened when global temperatures were cold.

If he is so skillful in meteorology and weather history, then why doesn't he mention these facts to add detail and balance to his argument?

Perhaps it is just part of Trenberth's aristocratic ideal that you can't debate/discuss scientific facts.

[tacoman25]

If that were all he said, then I would agree with you. But he also specifically says we don't know how AGW will affect tornadic activity. To interpret him as otherwise is to interpret him in a way that directly contradicts the rest of his statement.

He doesn't have to say that AGW causes more tornadoes. I commend him for admitting a lot more research needs to be done. But at the same time, when a climatologist like Trenberth is making statements like that, it still feeds into the idea that AGW is guilty until proven innocent when an extreme event happens. And that mentality is just wrong and unscientific. And it's not like Trenberth is unaware of this.

[tacoman25]

Trenberth is an expert in ENSO climatology. More fail from zuckerboy. The things you list are EXACTLY the types of things which Trenberth studies and publishes on. Claiming someone like Trenberth lacks a background in meteorology is essentially libel.

Then why the hell didn't he mention the most obvious culprit with the the recent tornado outbreak, La Nina?

[tacoman25]

And if you think that funding doesn't play a role in peoples' opinions, then you're niave. It's not a coincidence that most climatologists are believers in AGW while most meteorologists are on the opposite side of the fence.

AGW certainly does generate a lot more interest in climatology.

[tacoman25]

Trenberth shouldn't be making any comments at all if he truly wants to be responsible or just say "Extreme weather events happen all the time and we can't conclusively link AGW to this"....his blabbering on about how climate change affects all weather events is pretty whimsical and really unnecessary. If you are talking to the media and they ask you about a specific weather event and how climate change might be involved...to respond with "climate change affects all weather" is clearly implying to them that it might have caused that event. You can hide behind semantics, but know your audience. Trenberth knows his audience. It was the media. He isn't a stupid person. He knew exactly what he was doing.

THANK YOU.

[ORH_wxman]

Trenberth has been saying the same thing for years. It's sort of his pet-peeve almost. Climate change affects all aspects of weather. And he DOES specifically say we can't conclusively link AGW to this.

Even the media article is VERY clear that we don't know how tornadic activity will change with AGW. This is a non-issue that people are trying to blow up by manipulating the comments.

I don't find his comments all that sincere and objective, but that's just me. If I thought they were, I'd give him props. Technically from a semantics standpoint, he really didn't say anything wrong. Its what he doesn't say that is where he paints his AGW picture.

Its ridiculous to try and tie all these events into AGW. The worst part is acting as if these events haven't already occurred in the past. 1974 and this year were both coming off of potent Ninas which was by far the most important larger scale factor in "loading the dice" (to use a favorite AGW term) for a huge tornado outbreak. The excessive cold bottled up in Canada and the natural heat that builds up in the SE coming off a Nina were the biggest factors.