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

[skierinvermont]

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.

More libel. Trenberth explained in no uncertain terms during the 09-10 winter that Ninos cause big EC snowstorms. To claim that he did not say this is fraudulent:

There's something else fiddling with the weather this year — a strong El Nino. That's the weather pattern that, every few years, raises itself up out of the western Pacific Ocean and blows east to the Americas. It brings heavy rains and storms to California and the south and southeast. It also pushes high-altitude jet streams farther south, which bring colder air with them.

Trenberth also says El Nino can "lock in" weather patterns like a meteorological highway, so that storms keep coming down the same track.

[nzucker]

More libel. Trenberth explained in no uncertain terms during the 09-10 winter that Ninos cause big EC snowstorms. To claim that he did not say this is fraudulent:

There's something else fiddling with the weather this year — a strong El Nino. That's the weather pattern that, every few years, raises itself up out of the western Pacific Ocean and blows east to the Americas. It brings heavy rains and storms to California and the south and southeast. It also pushes high-altitude jet streams farther south, which bring colder air with them.

Trenberth also says El Nino can "lock in" weather patterns like a meteorological highway, so that storms keep coming down the same track.

What does he mean "something else?" It's as if he implicates global warming first, and then says, "Well some natural variability might have been involved" when the only proven argument is the reverse. He also knows the media will report most heavily on his primary contentions and the purported link to global warming, as those are the easiest to discuss with the public and the most likely to have sales impact. The headline "Global warming responsible for DC blizzards" is inherently more attractive than "Strong El Niño and -QBO east responsible for DC blizzards." Trenberth knows this and deliberately plays upon media bias to communicate his arguments/biases.

In his 2011 AMS speech, he lumps "DC snowstorms/Snowmageddon" into the category of "2010 extremes caused by global warming, or extremely unlikely without it." If the Strong El Niño was undoubtedly the main meteorological justification for this phenomenon, then why is this somehow secondary to relating the event to AGW?

[skierinvermont]

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.

I can agree that ideally he would have been more balanced in his comments, as long as we agree that what he said was correct. And as long as we understand that he is making an academic point that all weather is affected by climate. There really isn't anything earth-shattering or biased about saying that. What I objected to early in this thread is those interpreting him as saying "tornadic activity will increase" or "AGW caused the tornadoes." That clearly was not what he said.. in fact he says the exact opposite. "We don't know."

We also don't know how completely he was quoted. We can see that the article quoted one aspect of his statement but only paraphrased the part where he says that we don't know how AGW will affect tornadic activity.

[tacoman25]

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.

The most telling thing to me is that these supposed renowned climatologists are apparently ignoring some much more obvious links, instead choosing to talk about climate change (of course, skiier will tell us that this is entirely the media's fault).

The two most similar outbreaks to April 2011 were 1965 and 1974. What did those years have in common with 2011? -PDO and La Nina. This should jump out at any climatologist. But instead the guy decides to pontificate about how global warming creates more energy in the atmosphere, despite ZERO evidence that AGW is leading or should lead to more/stronger tornadoes. Give me a break. Get off the climate change soap box for once, please.

[skierinvermont]

What does he mean "something else?" It's as if he implicates global warming first, and then says, "Well some natural variability might have been involved" when the only proven argument is the reverse. He also knows the media will report most heavily on his primary contentions and the purported link to global warming, as those are the easiest to discuss with the public and the most likely to have sales impact. The headline "Global warming responsible for DC blizzards" is inherently more attractive than "Strong El Niño and -QBO east responsible for DC blizzards." Trenberth knows this and deliberately plays upon media bias to communicate his arguments/biases.

In his 2011 AMS speech, he lumps "DC snowstorms/Snowmageddon" into the category of "2010 extremes caused by global warming, or extremely unlikely without it." If the Strong El Niño was undoubtedly the main meteorological justification for this phenomenon, then why is this somehow secondary to relating the event to AGW?

These are climatologists talking about how AGW affects climate.

If you want to read or learn about how weather patterns cause weather, read an interview of an operational meteorologist.

To expect someone who studies how AGW affects climate to talk about something else is just silly. The starting assumption of their comments is that a weather pattern caused the weather. That's a no-brainer. The reason for interviewing someone like Trenberth is to answer the question of how such events are related to AGW.. will they increase, decrease or change little? That's the whole purpose of the interview and the whole purpose of the scientist's research. If you want someone to go into intricate detail about the proximate causes of a weather event (west based Nino, -QBO, etc. talk to someone like Kocin.

[tacoman25]

I can agree that ideally he would have been more balanced in his comments, as long as we agree that what he said was correct. And as long as we understand that he is making an academic point that all weather is affected by climate. There really isn't anything earth-shattering or biased about saying that.

Or as Will and I have reasonably pointed out, there is nothing necessary or meaningful about it either.

The built-in assumption is: "All weather is affected by climate, all climate is affected by AGW, and therefore AGW is probably to blame in some way for this." If Trenberth didn't want to play that game, he wouldn't have to. But he happily plays right into it, which both I and others agree is irresponsible.

[nzucker]

These are climatologists talking about how AGW affects climate.

If you want to read or learn about how weather patterns cause weather, read an interview of an operational meteorologist.

To expect someone who studies how AGW affects climate to talk about something else is just silly. The starting assumption of their comments is that a weather pattern caused the weather.

He's making a speech at the American Meteorological Society; he should try to be accurate in attributing events to all known meteorological causes, not just his pet one. This is especially true when there is heavy evidence for meteorological causes and only speculation for AGW causes/influences. AMS speeches are not supposed to be a soap box for inaccurate, exaggerated views about climate change.

Also, Trenberth only seems to harp on those factors that make AGW likely to increase tornadoes (Gulf moisture, southerly LLJ/humidity); he's not nearly as interested in discussing how AGW makes extreme weather less likely. You don't noticing him mentioning "overall, hurricanes are going to decline significantly in a warmer world" or "many aspects of AGW favor fewer severe weather events due to reduced latitudinal temperature gradient and lower lapse rates." It's fine to talk about how climate change may potentially influence an event (though obviously doing it right after an outbreak that caused 300 to lose their lives makes one question motivation/bias), but Trenberth should at least be addressing how global warming makes severe weather more AND less likely.

[skierinvermont]

He's making a speech at the American Meteorological Society; he should try to be accurate in attributing events to all known meteorological causes, not just his pet one.

Everybody at the AMS is smart enough to know what the proximate causes of specific events are. When discussing how AGW changes the probability of specific events everybody assumes that the proximate causes (Nina, Nino, -NAO, ridge, trough etc. etc.) are going to remain the same.

You seem to think you are being smart by pointing out that the "primary causes aren't AGW" ... well no **** sherlock, that is the starting point of this whole discussion. The point of his talk was communicating AGW. If you want to hear somebody go into all of the proximate causes of specific events, go read something with that express purpose.

Basically you are saying anytime I want to talk about how AGW will affect the frequency of X event, I first need to discuss, in detail, the 54,000 other proximate causes to satisfy your desire to hear yourself sound smart using 3 and 4 letter acronyms like ENSO and QBO.

[skierinvermont]

Or as Will and I have reasonably pointed out, there is nothing necessary or meaningful about it either.

Nobody said there was anything especially meaningful about it. As Schmidt said.. it's simply a "truism." The only meaning is that we need to do more research to figure out the HOW part.

[nzucker]

Everybody at the AMS is smart enough to know what the proximate causes of specific events are. When discussing how AGW changes the probability of specific events everybody assumes that the proximate causes (Nina, Nino, -NAO, ridge, trough etc. etc.) are going to remain the same.

You seem to think you are being smart by pointing out that the "primary causes aren't AGW" ... well no **** sherlock, that is the starting point of this whole discussion. The point of his talk was communicating AGW. If you want to hear somebody go into all of the proximate causes of specific events, go read something with that express purpose.

Basically you are saying anytime I want to talk about how AGW will affect the frequency of X event, I first need to discuss in detail the 54,000 other proximate causes in detail.

I'm saying that AGW is probably an anti-cause of tornado outbreaks, therefore saying that "AGW affects all weather events" is misleading because most will draw the conclusion that Trenberth is saying that climate change makes tornadoes more frequent/dangerous, especially given what he said at the 2011 AMS speech about extreme weather being more common recently, tied to anthropogenic changes, and likely to increase in the future causing great damage to human society/infrastructure.

Also, only emphasizing parts of AGW that increase tornado activity is disingenuous because there are far more factors associated with AGW that decrease its likelihood. But he wasn't so quick to point out these...

[nzucker]

.Basically you are saying anytime I want to talk about how AGW will affect the frequency of X event, I first need to discuss, in detail, the 54,000 other proximate causes to satisfy your desire to hear yourself sound smart using 3 and 4 letter acronyms like ENSO and QBO.

Nope, I'm satisfying my desire to see science be accurate and weather phenomena well-explained by top climatologists, not just falling back on the oversimplified "it was related to AGW" argument.

Is that a problem?

I guess it is something only a hack would want, buddy.

[skierinvermont]

I'm saying that AGW is probably an anti-cause of tornado outbreaks

I eagerly await your published work on this matter.

[skierinvermont]

Nope, I'm satisfying my desire to see science be accurate and weather phenomena well-explained by top climatologists, not just falling back on the oversimplified "it was AGW" argument.

Nobody said "it was AGW"

[nzucker]

I eagerly await your published work on this matter.

Who cares? Spencer put it out there for me. I trust the experts

[nzucker]

Nobody said "it was AGW"

No, but he just says "All weather events are affected by global warming, such as this tornado outbreak."

Then, "A lot more extreme weather is happening now."

Then, "Global warming can increase tornadoes by providing more southerly, moist flow out of the Gulf.

Would you care to connect the dots, Andrew? It's BEYOND obvious what he's implying. You are just trying to hide behind semantics and technicalities to protect Trenberth's obvious bias.

[skierinvermont]

Who cares? Spencer put it out there for me. I trust the experts

Not peer-reviewed and not Spencer's area of published expertise which essentially revolves around producing and verifying (and correcting the repeated mistakes in) UAH temperature data.

Like I said, I eagerly await for you (or Spencer) to publish your proof that AGW will decrease tornadoes.

[nzucker]

BTW it's 47.6F here on May 4th...must be global warming

[nzucker]

Not peer-reviewed and not Spencer's area of published expertise which essentially revolves around producing and verifying (and correcting the repeated mistakes in) UAH temperature data.

Like I said, I eagerly await for you (or Spencer) to publish your proof that AGW will decrease tornadoes.

There is no proof, it's just likely because severe tornadoes have been rapidly decreasing with sustained warming, with several feasible reasons why. Tornadoes occur in environments that are all less likely in a warmer world ( extreme cold ENSO like 1965, 1974, and 2011, at least according to many scientists, should decrease as El Niño grows more frequent; less north/south temperature change as the higher latitudes warm fastest, which all agree on; and lower lapse rates as the troposphere outpaces surface warming rates, which is a physical fact of AGW...)

Trenberth's area of expertise also isn't "patterns responsible for DC snowstorms" or "famous tornado outbreaks and their conditions," so why do you regard his opinion at all? In fact, why is he even commenting on this if, as you say, unqualified scientists opinions aren't relevant/important to the discussion?

[skierinvermont]

BTW it's 47.6F here on May 4th...must be global warming

There would be more such cool days if it weren't for AGW. The number of below average days has decreased and will continue to do so.

[skierinvermont]

No, but he just says "All weather events are affected by global warming, such as this tornado outbreak."

Then, "A lot more extreme weather is happening now."

Then, "Global warming can increase tornadoes by providing more southerly, moist flow out of the Gulf.

Would you care to connect the dots, Andrew? It's BEYOND obvious what he's implying. You are just trying to hide behind semantics and technicalities to protect Trenberth's obvious bias.

I don't need to "interpret" what he is implying because he states specifically and overtly that we don't know how AGW will affect tornadic activity. Why would I chose to believe he is implying something directly contrary to what he said overtly? I guess you have to assume everyone is speaking in code.. it's like opposite day in 3rd grade all over again.

[tacoman25]

Nobody said there was anything especially meaningful about it. As Schmidt said.. it's simply a "truism." The only meaning is that we need to do more research to figure out the HOW part.

If it's a meaningless statement, how about throwing in something meaningful...like how -PDO La Ninas greatly increase the odds of such an outbreak? Slightly more relevant information than babbling on about "increased energy" in the atmosphere due to climate change.

[skierinvermont]

If it's a meaningless statement, how about throwing in something meaningful...like how -PDO La Ninas greatly increase the odds of such an outbreak? Slightly more relevant information than babbling on about "increased energy" in the atmosphere due to climate change.

Because the reporter no doubt asked him if AGW increases tornadic activity and not "could you explain to me the numerous complex proximate causes and interactions that led to each of these tornadoes for my avid meteorological weenie readership?"

And to this question he correctly answered "we don't know."

[tacoman25]

There would be more such cool days if it weren't for AGW. The number of below average days has decreased and will continue to do so.

Not necessarily. Recent U.S. trends suggest something else besides AGW at work...and an increasing number of below normal days. Coinciding with an increased number of tornadoes!

[tacoman25]

Because the reporter no doubt asked him if AGW increases tornadic activity and not "could you explain to me the numerous complex proximate causes and interactions that led to each of these tornadoes for my avid meteorological weenie readership?"

And to this question he correctly answered "we don't know."

Yes, I'm sure his answer was entirely directed by the reporter. Not his fault at all for not including some rather relevant information that as an ENSO expert he would be well aware of.

You really think these scientists are above reproach, don't you? That's why you always rush to their defense when criticism arises. Like clockwork.

[skierinvermont]

Not necessarily. Recent U.S. trends suggest something else besides AGW at work...and an increasing number of below normal days. Coinciding with an increased number of tornadoes!

I was speaking long-term, as in the 100 year trend.. not the 15 year trend.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, I'm sure his answer was entirely directed by the reporter. Not his fault at all for not including some rather relevant information that as an ENSO expert he would be well aware of.

You really think these scientists are above reproach, don't you? That's why you always rush to their defense when criticism arises. Like clockwork.

I would be more than happy to engage in an intelligent critique of scientific work or the statements of scientists. For example, when a scientist makes statements or publishes work at odds with the main body of scientific evidence.

[tacoman25]

I was speaking long-term, as in the 100 year trend.. not the 15 year trend.

James Hansen believed the 15 year trend would be considerably warmer. LOL!

Guess he should have consulted with Trenberth first, a scientist who clearly is incapable of being wrong.

[tacoman25]

I would be more than happy to engage in an intelligent critique of scientific work or the statements of scientists. For example, when a scientist makes statements or publishes work at odds with the main body of scientific evidence.

Oh, none of the critiques offered against Trenberth in this thread are intelligent huh? I guess that makes everyone here but you an idiot.

[skierinvermont]

James Hansen believed the 15 year trend would be considerably warmer. LOL!

Guess he should have consulted with Trenberth first, a scientist who clearly is incapable of being wrong.

Well you didn't even post the 15 year trend. The 15-20 year trend is up in the U.S. You posted the last 3 years compared to the previous 15 or so. So the last 3 have been cool I guess but the 15-20 year trend in the U.S. is up.

[tacoman25]

Well you didn't even post the 15 year trend. The 15-20 year trend is up in the U.S. You posted the last 3 years compared to the previous 15 or so. So the last 3 have been cool I guess but the 15-20 year trend in the U.S. is up.

Last 3.5 years. Basically since the -PDO phase set in.

And the 15-20 year trend might be slightly up at this point, but that's thrown off a bit by Pinatubo at the beginning. Either way, the U.S. is clearly not as warm now as Hansen thought we'd be.