Marketing 101.... Selective quotes.
David in Qatar brings us this reprint of a quote from Kevin Trenberth.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1048).
Kevin Trenberth's e-mail is not accurately represented here as the very next line is omitted and should read; The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Notably, even in the quote, he does not say that warming is not happening. He says he expected "even more warming" than is currently measured.
It is also relevant to know something about Kevin Trenberth. His work seems to be concerned with answering the question of where the heat is being stored. It is the inability to answer that question that he finds inadequate. He clearly has no doubt that the globe is warming and the heat is being stored somewhere. For $31.00 you can access his full report on our inability to measure temperature changes regionally, or send to Mr Trenberth for a pdf version of what is sumarised below;
aNational Center for Atmospheric Research1, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000, USA
Available online 3 August 2009.
Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future.
It is also notable that the discussion concerned an article published in the BBC which they seem to believe had errors and how to correct those errors.
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
And it is also curious that the following reply to Mr Trenberth was revealed, but is not being relentlessly repeated in the headline news;
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
It is really much to easy to find out that this e-mail chain does not discredit Global warming theory.
Frankly, I think the entire point of Hackergate is not to discredit Global warming science, but to discredit Gov't involvement by asking taxpayers to make the leap into believing that Gov't funded science is corrupt, and private for profit companys are more trustworthy. We can then be convinced that global warming solutions of Gov't spending offered by "treehuggers" and environmental groups of the last thirty years should be disregarded in favor of the "for our profit" solutions offered by corporate interests that require tithing a lender and the perpetuation of debt induced poverty.
Libertarians, Conservatives, small Gov't advocates, and Free Market advocates have been selling the idea that it is better for a borrowers prospects to get burdened with a loan payment for capital improvements than risk the moral hazard of a charitable gift or follow the recomendations of environmentalist do-gooders.
As most of you know, I don't agree.
Right now the question I want answered more than any other is who hacked the e-mails and who made them public.