Latest facts

Latest...

Login

Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:

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.

Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009

Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin

Leo Tolstoy

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

Phil Jones

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -

Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! Cheers Phil PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:

Dear Mike and Ian Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.

Keith Briffa:

Briffa: For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually >warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming >is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth >was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global >mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of >years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence >for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that >require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future >background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be >a good place to air these isssues.

Latest comments:

Arctic Ice

The book contains russian data from greenland, barentz, kara, laptev, east-siberian and chukchi sea (most of them are not in the DMI data) http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8272/augustmeanof6seas.jpg you can also find maps here: http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/gdsidb_2.html best regards

General comments and discussions
Posted by Administrator (admin) on 12th February, 2010
Latest comments: >>

Hi Murray!	By Frank Lansner on 23rd February, 2011 at 12:30:33
You write: "I was astonished by your zoom analysis of the DMI summer temperature trend." Well, I honestly was surpriced myself, and I really did the closer look because i was scientifically interested: How can temperatures 80-90N decline while the general Arctic showed less and less ice? For one thing, this also supports, that the melting came from below, a warmer Arctic AMO current pushing slightly warmer water under the ice? So what ever causes the AMO to warm appears responsible? In addition, winds around year 2010-2008 did change to push more ice out of the arctic - but also had the effect of compressing ice North of GreenLand/Canada areas - which includes most of 80N-90N. So a compressing of ice in 80N-90N might actually diminish the smaller areas occuring with open waters 80N-90N and thereby really explain why temperatures have declined 80-90N. One of the most important results herea are of course how completely useless the GISS REEEED color 80N-90N rising temperatures in summer apperas. The DMI data (ERA40 etc) clearly show GISS projection over oceans to be crap. So why do GISS use this?? Well it makes a superbe red color in the top of their global warming illustrations.... K.R. Frank
Arctic melt season cooling	By Unknown on 22nd February, 2011 at 22:19:22
I was astonished by your zoom analysis of the DMI summer temperature trend. I have scanned those annual curves n+1 times and never noticed that, because of the scale I guess. Or maybe it's that you are more observant. Anyway, the cooling starts about 1993, which is just after the peak of solar cycle 22. The first bit of cooling could be consistent with the downside of the 11 year solar cycle. But then we have a much less active cycle 23, and a quiescent cycle 24. Quite probably more cloudy days, a la Svensmark, and thus summer cooling. We see some sign of global SST cooling starting 2003, but for sure after 2005. Long delay time to see the solar effect in SST, and then longer to transport the cooler water to the Arctic, and we get the ice minimum in 2007, 14 years after the cooling start in 1993 that shows up in Arctic summer temperature. WOW! You may have found the "canary in the coal mine". Murray
Various	By Unknown on 22nd February, 2011 at 21:51:18
Frank, in the left sidebar you have links to UAH,RSS,HadCRUT3, NCDC,GISS etc. The curve the links take you to for RSS, HadCRUT3 and NCDC is the same curve. CO2 global warming theory postulates that warming will be greatest at night, in winter and at high latitudes. Probably the postulate applies to warming regardless of the driver. For sure DMI shows far greater variation in winter. Average warming for high latitudes is the average of little or no change in summer, and substantially less cold in winter, but still much to cold to melt anything. Similarly global average comes from little or no change in the tropics, and large change, mainly less cold, at high latitudes. I think the reason the Arctic is near the same in the 2000s as in the late 1930s is because both periods were near the peak of the 60 year climate cycle. In fact, using your analyses, the cooling ca 1944-1976 was near o.4 degrees C. I can just about justify anything from 0.35 to 0.45 degrees, depending on which of your curves to use. It is very likely that real warming, after correcting for all warming biases, from 1976 to ca 2006 was =< 0.4 degrees. Most stations north of 67, after allowance for UHI for some of them, have the highest warm years in the late 1930s, although there are a few that have the warmest cold years in the 2000s. The decade 1998-2008 may have been a bit warmer than the decade 1934-1944, but again, if corrected for all warming biases, I doubt that it would be. Biases like new instruments, new airports, and missing minus signs are very important in the region north of 67. For more on climate cycles see my blog at http://www.agwnot.blogspot.com/ Nov 16 and Jan 23 posts. Great source of temp series here http://www.rimfrost.no/ cheers, Murray
Peter Sawyer, Australia send this letter	By Unknown on 13th February, 2010 at 16:20:29
Peter Sawyer, Australia send me the e-mail below. His attached article is published as "Skeptics" by Peter sawyer. Nicolai Skjoldby: Hello Nikolai, Congratulations on your website - most fitting name I must say. I've only just started to work my way through, but so far it is looking quite good. However, as a professional writer for some thirty years, can I be so bold as to say I think you are making the same fundamental error that all the other so-called skeptic sites are making? Not in the "science" itself, which I am sure is spot on, but in the actual language used. I note you introduce yourselves as "skeptics or realists", and that is at least a step in the right direction - further than any of the other "skeptic" sites have gone. But there are very good reasons why you should stick solely to being realists, and stop using the term "skeptic" altogether. There are other, equally important words that must be avoided at all costs, and yet others that must be hammered home at every opportunity. In the hope of enlightening people on the importance of the words used, I have written an essay which is attached. I send you a copy for you to use as you see fit - either as an article, or just for your own edification. Regards Peter -- Peter Sawyer - Australia

Hide the decline

The indispensable A-Z in the climate debate

HIDE• THE• DECLINE

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil Jones

››

Latest facts

Latest...

Login

Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:

Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009

Leo Tolstoy

Phil Jones

Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:

Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:

Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:

Keith Briffa:

Latest comments:

Arctic Ice

Book/Arctic data

Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961

Tuvalu & The Pacific

Tony Brown / Tuvalu

Tuvalu - some background

Tuvalu

Thankyou for tip! replied on juddith Currys blog the following:

data selection question

BEST temperatures.

Just not true. (national Geographic "land only")

Hi Doug!

Tony Price: "The truth is enough. Nothing else is needed."

R Harwood - BEST

R Harwood

Hide the plateau.

Tuvalu

Greenhouse Land

Hide the plateau

Thanks Frank

Credibility

Correct!

Somewhat misleading (to saythe least)

Skeptics by Peter Sawyer

To Jorge

To the "FAIL" / unknown commenter

FAIL

Figure 1

aerosols.. more:

Start discussions, give comments

General comments and discussions

Comments

Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:

Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009

Leo Tolstoy

Phil Jones

Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:

Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:

Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:

Keith Briffa: