Kevin Trenberth not happy, another travesty.

Kevin Trenberth, head of NCAR in the USA, is not happy.

He also wasnt happy some while ago, when he wrote to Michael Mann and expressed his dismay that the world wasnt warming.

“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”

So Kevin hatched a theory that said the missing heat is deep in the oceans, it has to be because they can’t find it anywhere else.

These leaked emails got he and Michael Mann, mr hockey stick himself, kicked of the IPCC AR5 team.

So now he has cracked the shits, and here is an interview with the Brisbane paper expressing dismay too many scientists having an input can’t reach consensus easily.

AS THE world’s elite global warming experts begin poring over the drafts of  the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this week, one  leading scientist doesn’t believe the process should be happening at all.

”I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it  will be blander – I’m disappointed in what I’ve seen so far,” said Kevin  Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Centre  for Atmospheric Research.

Professor Trenberth’s misgivings are not based on doubts about the strength  of the science underpinning human-induced climate change, but on frustration  with the bureaucratic nature of the IPCC.

Dozens of Australian scientists are among hundreds of international experts  who started reviewing the IPCC’s fifth summary report this week, with the final  version to be published next September. The previous  report, released in 2007,  declared global warming ”unequivocal” and said it was ”very likely” to be  being driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second  tier” science are diluting the report’s quality, and that science has jumped  far ahead of the lumbering process. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse,  it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very  depressing,” he said. ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s  harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow.  After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.”

Two other scientists involved with the IPCC process, who asked to remain  anonymous, told  The Age the upcoming report contained many  improvements on the previous edition, but that few ”breakthroughs” would be  included.

”What you are dealing with is some superb work, and some that’s not so  relevant or current, but the process makes it difficult to weight these  appropriately,” one said.

Professor Trenberth is a bruised survivor of the so-called ”climategate”  scandal, which involved the theft and publication of thousands of emails that  had been sent between some of the world’s most influential climate  researchers.

While he and his colleagues were cleared by a series of investigations, the  people who hacked the email system at Britain’s University of East Anglia have  never been caught, and the case was closed, unsolved, earlier this year.

Professor Trenberth believes it had a big impact on public debates about  climate science. ”It made an immense difference – the level of vitriol and hate  we received,” he said. ”Not only do we have waves of attacks when we publish  and it ends up on a denialist website, but it has affected politicians.”

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its  climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth, affecting  Professor  Trenberth’s peers, as a  result of online campaigns against climate scientists,  he said. He believes   uncertainties in   climate change models  scientists rely  upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of  climate  science.

”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are  there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.

Maybe instead of having a sook because the budget got slashed for researching something that doesn’t exist, maybe he should stick to his original comment about why the hell we havent warmed in 16 years??


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s