Trenberth Lost Confidence In The Models

I worked with Trenberth’s NCAR as a hardware/software contractor for many years, looking at ways to speed up their weather and climate models. During autumn 2009, I had a contract with them to look into accelerating their radiative transfer model RRTM, which is used in both the weather and climate models. After two weeks of research, the project was put on hold because “(Trenberth) had lost confidence in their radiative transfer model

Later I found out that Trenberth had just written this E-mail

ScreenHunter_8502 Apr. 10 08.38

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Trenberth Lost Confidence In The Models

  1. The data is surely wrong?

    • omanuel says:

      Kevin Trenberth is a fool or an innocent puppet. To decide which, ask him WHY:

      1. The internal composition of the Sun was changed from mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946, . . . (without discussion or debate)?

      2. Physics textbooks replaced Nobel Laureate Francis W. Aston’s rigorously valid “nuclear packing fraction” with von Weizsacker’s seriously flawed “nuclear binding energy” (that systematically exaggerates proton-repulsion and underestimates neutron-repulsion) after the Second World War?

      His reply, or lack of reply, will tell if he is a fool or an innocent puppet. Most advocates of lock-step, 97% consensus science refuse to answer this well-documented question.

      Click to access WHY.pdf

    • Rosco says:

      That is the “take home” message !

      THEY are never wrong – everything/one else is !

    • Amazing how Alarmists and Progressives… and the Media can simply IGNORE this Smoking Gun evidence….

      To them… the scandal suddenly was the release of Climate-Gate emails… privacy… etc… but never the CONTENT of the emails themselves…

      Total shit… this needs to be shoved down the throats of every Hoaxer out there… repeatedly…

  2. daveandrews723 says:

    It’s funny how he points to the local anecdotal info about the Boulder temps in his email, almost as if he is surprised they weren’t experiencing above average temps because of CAGW. It’s encouraging to see he had the wisdom to point out the obvious to the warmists. It would be more encouraging if the entire scientific community would agree that the role of CO2 in effecting global climate is not nearly understood.

  3. Tab Numlock says:

    That CC is a rogues gallery of climate scumbags. BTW, how is it that people with advanced college degrees don’t know the meaning of the word “travesty”?

  4. Edmonton Al says:

    If appears to me that the “team” were offered a deal they couldn’t refuse by the UN IPCC “mafia”. And now they are locked in, no matter what they say. They cannot admit they were wrong.
    Their only solution is for the “team” to make a mass renouncement about the tampered data, and the methods used to obtain it. However, this is highly unlikely.

  5. those temps that Trenberth cites must be before they were adjusted; radiative transfer model have since been proven correct by multiple peer reviewed studies; btw — i was just out doing snow angels in the backyard

  6. cheshirered says:

    And 5 1/2 years later they still haven’t found it. #MIA

    • Windsong says:

      My same thought when I saw the date on the email. Makes you wonder what their emails said this winter when record lows were not just beaten, but obliterated, in the upper midwest and eastern US.

  7. RMB says:

    I’ve got to keep saying this until somebody listens. Surface tension blocks heat and it is just as well that it does because after being adjacent to one another for about 5 billion years the ocean and atmosphere would be very close in temperature and some parts of the world routinely hit 40degs. Cyclones start at 26.5degs
    The surface of water will not accept heat by convection. Anthropogenic global warming is utter tripe. Oh and if anybody thinks he should argue try heating the water through the surface first.

    • John West says:

      “I’ve got to keep saying this until somebody listens.”

      I hear you, I just don’t agree with you. I don’t see how surface tension can block energy transfer. Could you provide a quantum level explanation of how this is supposed to work? Also, please explain how the ocean is heated if not from above?

      • RMB says:

        The oceans are heated by radiation from the sun. That is the only heat they receive.What you cannot do is heat a gas and have that heat transferred through the surface of the ocean into the ocean.
        When the climategate e-mails were released I got curious about the fact that there was a lot of “missing heat” and I wondered if surface tension was a player but had been overlooked. Couldn’t find any reference to surface tension/climate. I figured I had to be talking non.sense but I had never seen water heated through the surface so I grabbed a paint stripping gun and fired it at the surface of water. result, the water remained stone cold. If it was possible for physical hear to enter the ocean, in hotter parts of the world the surface temp would probably be high thirties and cyclones start when temperatures reach 26.5.Astonishing as this was on further reflection it all made sense.
        I floated a baking dish on the surface to cancel the surface tension and the water accepted the heat no problem.
        I do not know at this time exactly how this works, I just know that is how it works and just as well.
        Because of surface tension, AGW is complete nonsense.

        • Michael 2 says:

          Darth Vader: “I find your lack of faith disturbing. ”

          RMB says “I grabbed a paint stripping gun and fired it at the surface of water. result, the water remained stone cold.”

          And you suppose therefore that “AGW is complete nonsense”.

          A paint stripping gun is a convection device, it blows hot air. Hot air does not radiate heat, it can only impart heat by physical contact. In the act of heating air, it reduces its relative humidity dramatically.

          When this hot air blows across water, it strips water from the surface in a process called evaporation. It is effectively the same thing as operating a swamp cooler in Fallon, Nevada on a hot summer day. It doesn’t matter that the air is 45 C (up to 120 F), the water will evaporate and cool itself and the air; converting sensible heat (that can be measured as temperature) into latent heat (energetic vapor).

          Evaporation removes a tremendous amount of heat. The subject is a bit complicated, but to evaporate water requires “five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °”

          “I floated a baking dish on the surface to cancel the surface tension and the water accepted the heat no problem.”

          The baking dish accepts convection heat and imparts that heat into the water. The water cannot evaporate because it is under the dish, therefore the heat diffuses into the water.

          The dish prevents evaporation. It is evaporation that can remove all the heat from your puny heat gun, turning it into vapor or steam and the water might actually cool during your experiment if the force of moving air causes more evaporation than just the heat being imparted.

          A better experiment is to have two bowls of water, one under an incandescent lamp (lots of infrared) and one under an LED or CFL (no infrared). The water under the incandescent lamp will absorb the infrared heat invisibly radiated from the lamp. It will also increase its evaporation somewhat but if you “still” the air above it, the air will saturate and prevent further evaporation allowing the water to warm. But until the air is saturated with vapor, the water won’t warm much or at all.

          Sunlight impinging upon the ocean is converted to water vapor (until the air is saturated). The energy is in the vapor, not the water. When that vapor eventually rains out, the heat is released. It is a gigantic transport mechanism transporting equatorial heat to the poles and water to the mountains. Can you imagine how much electricity it would take to pump the Colorado River all the way back to Colorado? More than all the electricity we get in dams along the way down!

          Hydropower IS solar power!

        • RMB says:

          The comparison with the water cooler doesn’t work.The water cooler is usually soaked canvas or similar where tthe surface tension is non-existent.My contention is that heat will not pass through a water surface where the surface tension is intact.
          “your puny heat gun” The heat gun operates at 600degs C Hardly puny and its fan forced the atmosphere is not fan forced.
          The proposition that this can be explained by evaporation would mean that my kitchen would be full of steam and its not.
          Remember cyclones start at 26.5degs and Trenberth is still looking fo heat.

    • FTOP_T says:


      Your solution is correct, but if you had to show your work, you would get points taken off. AGW claims DWLIR (also known as the magical unicorn) is heating the ocean. Surface tension is not the reason the claim is tripe, it is the absorption properties of water and its ability to evaporate. If (and this is a HUGE if) DWLIR exerted the mythical force of Trenberth’s 340 w/m squared from atmosphere to the ocean it wouldn’t matter. DWLIR is absorbed at 1 micron and could only increase evaporation which would cool the layer below.

      You are right that the ocean is not heated by the atmosphere. It is heated by visible sunlight, which is why the caribbean is so beautiful. When these quacks claim that ocean heat from AGW is bleaching coral or warming the oceans, they are essentially proving AGW false. It’s mechanism (DWLIR) can do neither to water. They are essentially proving Willie Soon correct and themselves wrong, but are too obtuse to see it.

      • RMB says:

        I’m not a scientist and if I was I’d deny it I’m just a guy who has fired a paint stripping gun at the surface of water. The surface of the water totally rejects the heat. However if I float a baking dish on the surface thereby cancelling the surface tension the water accepts the heat As far as I can see it is not possible to heat a gas in the atmosphere and have that heat pass by convection into water through the surface. If the explanation had anything to do with evaporation, my kitchen would be full of steam and its not.rgds

      • RMB says:

        Do yourself a favour. Get a paint stripping gun and try heating water through the surface.Cannot be done. You can radiate energy through the surface of water but heat willnot pass by convection. Pass the word. rgds

  8. John West says:

    So, if it was a travesty back in 2009 to not be able to account for the lack of warming then why isn’t it a hypothesis busting disaster in 2015? Oh, they got busy writing lack of warming excuse papers.

  9. Michael 2 says:

    I was hoping for a comment on the inefficiency of the model. High level, low efficiency language? Interpreted vs compiled? I suspect a highly parallel transputer system would be ideal for this sort of thing.

  10. darrylb says:

    For those of us, probably most everybody, it is interesting to note that this quite infamous email was sent to the ‘Get along Gang’ also known as the inner circle of the AGW. This is the group that circle their wagons with sarcasm and/or silence whenever a scientific probe is launched in their direction.
    For instance it has been surmised but not proven that Oppenheimer made the comment ‘We have to get rid of the medieval warm period’ to a colleague. Michael Mann was eager to comply and rewrite history.

  11. darrylb says:

    It was S. Schneider’s students (Anderlegg et al) that comprised the 496 names for the climate change blacklist.
    Names like Freeman Dyson, Roy Spencer and his boss and more…..

  12. darrylb says:

    Ben Santer–“If it doesn’t warm for 17 years then the models are wrong”
    Tom Karl- created the method of homogenization of temperatures –was it ever peer reviewed?
    Jones—in charge of but ‘lost’ the worlds raw temps
    and of course Hansen and Schmidt– leaders in corrupting the integrity of NASA

  13. daveburton says:

    Wow, I didn’t know you did that, Tony!

    BTW, here’s the unredacted Trenberth email text:

    • John Smith says:

      wow…thanks for link
      I’m still new to this and continue to be shocked by the naked and nasty politics of these supposed ‘scientists’
      seems like this corrupt house of cards has to fall down, but then that was 2009!
      e-mails like that are public and they still roll around denying the hiatus?
      stevengoddard seems cranky, I think I get it now
      and the little dog too

      • gregole says:


        If you are new the the Klimate Kapers, get a copy of “Climategate The CRUTape Letters” by none other than Mosher and Fuller! It was, I think, the first book to come out after Climategate. I got it and read it right away. All I knew at that time about Man-Made Global Warming was that somehow Gore was behind it so I ignored it. Then the WSJ came out with a story about Climategate, I found out about skeptical blogs, and my life has been ruined ever since! Just kidding.

        These self-proclaimed scientists are anything but. Simply read their emails to each other – the collusion, scheming, ratting on people, and just general low ethical quality on display is stunning. It’s kind of fun looking in on there petty machinations, but after reading their stuff for a while, you are glad they are people who are not a direct part of your life. These are some real nasty people.

        What scares me is how MSM totally ignores this story. Climate Science today is totally corrupted by activists, phoneys, and political jerks making money for nothing.

        • FTOP_T says:

          Creating the narrative,

          Science is Dead
          Al Gore killed it
          The media buried it

          Now we all get to mourn its passing

      • John Smith says:

        thanks, I’m in the first phase of the life ruination
        losing liberal friends
        it’s cool, I’m on the downhill side anyways
        best to go out with the dharma

        • Disillusioned says:

          John, I feel ya man!

          Most of my lib friends thought I went nuts – stopped calling, couldn’t/wouldn’t listen to the facts. They were like poll parrots spouting the same propagandist garbage the President and Huff’n&Puff’n Post spew. I stopped listening to NPR 5 years ago.Before that, I thought I was enlightened and getting real news. When I became disillusioned, I realized I had been dumbed down, and that NPR is no different from the rest of the MSM – part of borg propaganda.

          You don’t realize how smug and arrogant your liberal friends are until you try to talk to them about facts about CO2 and global warming. I have found them to be some of the most ignorant, closed-minded people on the planet. But, they think they’re so smart! I have difficulty when I go over to my best friend’s house and they have CNN on. He is hopelessly sucked in and clueless. It is very sad. There’s nothing I can do to change him. So we don’t talk politics anymore. Still, it has put a hurt on the friendship. Unfortunately.

        • gator69 says:

          I stopped listening to NPR about 15 years ago, it was nothing but noise and nonsense. I told my mother about seven years ago that I don’t care if I lose every friend I have, I will not sit by and allow lies to be spread, and I will stand for freedom no matter what. So far I have not lost a single friend, but I have educated a good number.

          My brother and I argued our entire lives, as brothers often do, but seven years ago I decided we had more important differences than whose turn it was to take out the trash, and I laid into him over this CAGW nonsense (on his 50th birthday no less, and he works at NASA). He now is a firm skeptic and admits what GISS is doing is wrong. It wasn’t until I buried him with data manipulations that he realized it is all a scam. Then it was time for an education on our founders and their efforts to free blacks since our founding. We argued all night my last day there, and it wasn’t until the next morning after we had both cooled off, that I convinced him he was wrong (not an easy task with him).

          If you speak the truth, you will never be sorry, and always be right.

  14. darrylb says:

    dave b/ Thanks for the total info and lead into the Trenberth email. Noting that Mann said we may have to do something about a somewhat skeptical remark and real climate or perhaps Jones could in England.
    The back and forth emails were antithetical to science.

    • Disillusioned says:

      They seemed more to me what plotting manipulators would do. Not what unbiased, neutral scientists looking for the scientific truth would do.

      • Hugh K says:

        Trying so desperately to save the climate and that damn climate just won’t cooperate must really suck.
        The Climatologists — From hero to zero…they’ve just got to know it by now.

        • Disillusioned says:

          “From hero to zero…”

          Poignant and palpable. Yet, there are throngs who still believe these washed-up zeros can do no wrong . That they have “the science” right – and that 97% of all the other scientists in the world are standing behind them in “consensus.”. And western governments are following these pied piper zeros down the gang plank like there is no tomorrow. Love all the mixed metaphors. 😉

          “…they’ve just got to know it by now.”

          Yes – they know nothing has gone right with CAGW. It is a dismal failure

          But, they also know they have scientific societies, governments (the President of the U.S.!), regulatory agencies, massive funding, NGOs, and the mainstream media- all firmly backing them, in their corner.

          “The science” doesn’t matter. Only convincing others “the cause” is right.

  15. stpaulchuck says:

    “our observing system is inadequate” Wow, just wow. It can’t be that your theory is all wrong. It HAS to the measuring system. These are some of the most self deluded people on the planet.

    • gator69 says:

      There was a geosciences conference held a number of years ago, that had every branch of the Earth Sciences plus ‘climate experts’, but it was heavy on geologists. At one point, one of these ‘climate experts’ was giving a presentation and actually said that because the observations were not matching the climate models, there must indeed be something wrong with the observations.

      There was copious loud laughter, and the presenter appeared to be confused by it.

  16. AndyG55 says:

    A bit OT, but a new study shows more CO2 coming from lakes etc than was thought..

    It also seems they might finally try to include clouds in the climate models.. “settled science” my a*** :lol

    Below, I’ve included the link to the web version of the EOS mag, for those who are interested.

    • AndyG55 says:

      ps… Again, if blatant propaganda makes you nauseous, maybe avoid some of the articles.

      • gator69 says:

        Nauseated, not nauseous.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You know what I mean.. 🙂

          Because I was once a member of AGU, I get these things.

          I usually just bin them, but thought I might give you guys a taste !

        • Menicholas says:

          I think either is acceptable in the context:

          [ ˈnôSHəs, -ZHəs, -ēəs ]
          1.affected with nausea; inclined to vomit

        • gator69 says:

          Sadly, the language is being corrupted.

          How r u? 😆

          I keep an old Webster’s dictionary, and you would be amazed how definitions have ‘evolved’.

          Nauseous: 1- Nauseated, causing nausea: sickness

          Nauseate 1- To become affected with nausea, 2- To feel disgust

          They are similar, but different.

          I am an old school linguist, and we were taught that you must first become nauseated, before you are nauseous.

          The one that really bothers me is ‘patriotic’.

          Neo-English: Patriotic pa·tri·ot·ic adjective 1- having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country.

          The definition of patriotic pre-Hillary screeching was…

          Patriotic 1- inspired by patriotism, befitting or characteristic of a patriot.

          Patriot 1- one who loves his country and zealously supports its authority and interests.

          I am old school, and therefore I am presently not a patriot, because not only do I not support Skeeter, I certainly do not zealously support his authority.

          He who controls the language, controls thought.

        • Patriot – one who loves his country so much he zealously transforms her into something else.

  17. De Paus says:

    Snowfall on the Cairo-Alexandria desert road.
    Heavy rains and snow sweeping Alexandria after wave of bad weather
    Friday, 04/10/2015 18:19 pm
    Week gate
    White fell snowballs west of Alexandria and on the road to Alexandria – Cairo Desert, due to the increasing wave of bad weather, which hit the province, since the dawn of day.
    Also saw different parts of Alexandria, heavy rain, which led to confusion traffic on the Corniche and the main street.
    On the other hand, Alexandria Port Authority announced that the continued closure of Bughazi Alexandria and exotic ensure the safety of ships and not colliding with each other.
    Urgent News> Egypt News> snowfall on the Cairo-Alexandria Desert Road
    2015/-4/10: News Egypt: snow on the Cairo-Alexandria Desert Road

    Reader’s comment: I triple checked this news to make sure it is not a hoax. I found three sources that confirm April snow on the Egyptian desert road Cairo-Alexandria. This should be headline news, but the MSM keep quiet about it.

    • FTOP_T says:

      Ice Age Now continually updates record cold events from around the world. Startling what is happening everywhere. Cold is more dangerous than hot, and there is record cold happening across the globe.

      Then you have poor people dying from carbon monoxide because of rising energy bills due to Eco-follies. Welcome to 1984.

  18. David, UK says:

    Why is everyone discussingTrenberth’s email like it was discovered just yesterday?

    • gator69 says:

      Because the grantologists are still talking about a warming planet, that hasn’t in over 18 years.

    • FTOP_T says:

      The better question is why is Trenberth still in a position to spout more nonsense and always providing countless quotes to every pseudo-scientific news story on climate change?

      Most cockroaches scurry for cover when the light shines on them.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Heavily-funded climate change shill cockroaches are impervious to light or embarrassment.

        And with those “countless quotes” we are watching the cockroaches getting themselves all twisted up into knots – the more rope with which they are hanging themselves.

    • Michael 2 says:

      David says “Why is everyone discussingTrenberth’s email?”

      Not everyone is discussing Trenberth’s email. I see here a dozen or two out of 7 billion people.

      My discussion here today has been on the power of a paint stripping gun to increase evaporation of water such that the extra heat of the heat gun goes entirely into evaporation and thus seem to be ineffective at heating water from above.

      Why are you discussing the discussers of Trenberths email?

  19. Another Ian says:

    Comment at

    Jason Calley says:
    March 20, 2015 at 6:56 pm
    The science is settled!!

    (It is only the data that we are still busy falsifying…)”

    • gator69 says:

      Once data has been adjusted, it is no longer data, it is an artifact of analysis.

      The grantologists point to artifacts, and claim it as ‘data’.

      da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun
      1- facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis

      • spren says:

        Gator, I have a strong concern about adjusting data and what its true value is after being adjusted. I can understand the “adjustments” made to satellite data when errors in their interpolation are discovered, but even then, I am concerned as to how it is known that the adjustment moves the value closer to its real state. But when adjustments are done to data captured in the past, usually from human readings of temperature data, how can this be considered valid. If the instrumental value of the reading is considered flawed, then why isn’t the data discarded rather than adjusted? With all the technology available now to precisely measure things, why don’t we start again when unblemished data?

        They keep adjusting data from the past, that has already been “adjusted” multiple times. What other area of science could anything like this process be tolerated, let alone not completely called out as completely flawed? And then the perpetrators express how confident they are in what they have altered. Imagine businesses going back into the past and “adjusting” their previous financial reports of profits and losses. Anyone doing this would be laughed off the stage if they weren’t accused of fraud. Pathetic doesn’t even come close to what is going on in the name of “science.”

        • gator69 says:

          Agreed. I worked at one of the largest banks in the US until the Dodd-Frank Act killed my department. Banks are based upon numbers. Banks also like to show their stockholders good numbers. But what happens to a bank that ‘adjusts’ it’s figures just to make their investors happy?

          Hint: They don’t win a Nobel Prize.

  20. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    If Kev wants to find his missing heat, he should look in the giant void between his ears. He has packed a almost infinite amount of Global Warming Stupid in there, but there is lots of space for his infamous missing heat.

  21. gregole says:

    Missing heat. Yeah. These clowns have some answering to do.

    First off, what ever late 20th century heat rise we had wasn’t much. It didn’t do much of anything. Look at the records. If it was so bad to get a tiny temperature rise, then the world should have started going to hell in 1998 during the great El Nino. Not a thing happened. To be honest, I don’t even remember the weather specifically in 1998.

    I have a question. I asked it some time ago on one of those WUWT threads Mosh was bombing with cryptic one-liners. The question is: What temperature should the Earth be? Is there some “right” temperature? Some think ( anyone?) that there is a “right” level of CO2. They think this, I understand, because if there is “too much” CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth will rise. I am asking, “rise above what temperature?” That temperature would be the “right” temperature.

    Does anyone have any idea what the “right” temperature of the planet is? And if there isn’t (heaven forbid) a “right temperature”, so what if the temperature goes up a tenth of a degree? I mean, if there is no “right” temperature, maybe a little hotter is just fine.

    Incidentally, I’m actually sincere in my question. Does anyone know of a “right” temperature?

    • spren says:

      I think that is a very valid question. In my local rag, someone asked an identical question and then they were accused of pushing pseudo-science! Wouldn’t that be a necessary question to understand what the change exactly was to move things back to an optimal state? We can’t even definitively state what the current temperature is let alone what it should be reduced/increased to achieve that optimal state. If you are positing the necessity to change what is, don’t you have to know what you want to change it to be, and also show how your prescriptions for changing what is will actually bring you to what should be?

    • FTOP_T says:

      Exactly the right question. Add in that temperature matters most where we live and the question becomes more potent.

      How much colder does Boston need their winters to be before it is “just right”? How much more ice do the Great Lakes need to “optimize” their temperature?

      It is all so absurd.

    • Michael 2 says:

      “Incidentally, I’m actually sincere in my question. Does anyone know of a right temperature?”

      Yes. Waimea Bay on the north shore of Oahu. It is the right temperature pretty much every day of every year. Mid to upper 70’s Fahrenheit and crystal clear water to match.

  22. Elaine Supkis says:

    The ‘optimum’ depends on what sort of creature or plant you are. Polar bears want a return of the Ice Ages, for example. Since the anti-warm folk want to cool down the planet to save the polar bears, I could suggest all of this is an insidious plot of the bears to conquer North America all the way down to Texas. 🙂

  23. Disillusioned says:

    I can see how some of them might want to put Texas on ice. But, during the last glaciation Robinson, Illinois is about where the southern-most extent of the last glacial advance stopped.

    And, since polies love to eat fatty sealies, which love to dine on fishies, they’d probably avoid the midwest glacial extent and stay near the coasts where their preferred supermarket delicacies are more abundant.

    That is unless some of them were to acquire more of a taste for homo sapiens and other sundry survivors during the upcoming glaciation. I can think of a few population control proponents I’d like to offer up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s