“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
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.
G
Greenhouse effect, CO2 heat in Watt/m2
Posted by Administrator (admin) on 8th February, 2010
On the illustration: 0 ppm CO2 corresponds to 230 W/m2. (One degree Celsius corresponds toapproximately 4-5 W/m2).
Almost half the CO2 heat effect at 320 ppm is achieved already at approximately 20 ppm CO2 concentration. Changes in CO2 concentration at higher concentration has only a modest effect. This is due to the fact, that the radiation frequencies CO2 is capable to absorb is almost fully absorbed already at small CO2 concentrations. Thus, the CO2´s heat effect is logarithmic declianing for an increasing CO2 concentration.
The first 20 ppm represent around 50% of the CO2 effect, and thereafter each doubling of CO2 concentration has equal effect. This effect of one doubling of CO2 effect is called “CO2-sensitivity”.
So IF all the atmospheres insulating effect id due to greenhouse gasses only, then we have a total greenhouse effect of CO2 equals 6 degrees Celcius . Then we can calculate roughly:
- because 3 + 4 x 0,75 = 6 degrees Celsius.
So a doubling of CO2 might result in around 0,75 degrees Celsius = the ”CO2-sensitivity”.
This is the basic principle, however quite different opinions on the CO2-sensitivity extists, mostly because some believes that just a little heat from CO2 (or any other heat source) could result in a far bigger heat deveoplment due to “positive feedback”, see: ’Positive feedbacks – the dangerous aspect of CO2 heat’.
IPCC suggests CO2-sensitivity (heat effect pr doubling of CO2 concentration) on 3 degrees Celsius. Lets try to apply this in the rough calculation:
12 + 4 x 3 = 24 degrees Celsius for the total CO2 effect inclusive positive feedbacks.
So at first glance, approximately no less than 24 degrees Celsius of insulating effect of the Earths atmosphere originates from the CO2 molecule incl. positive feedbacks – IF the IPCC CO2 sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius is correct.
This actually has the consequence, that no less than 70% of the Earths insulating effect (33 degrees Celsius) should be result of CO2 incl. positive feedbacks from CO2.
So.. Without CO2 in the Earth atmosphere, there should be hardly water in the atmosphere even though the Earths surface is 70% water..)
James Hansen, leader at NASA/GISS speaks of CO2-sensittivity = 6 degrees Celsius
That is, one CO2 doubling = 6 degrees Celsius.
without any calculations, it sounds strange that on doubling of CO2 should equal the total CO2 greenhouse effect. A Very courageous theory indeed?
But lets calculate anyway: On doubling of CO2 = 6 degrees Celsius incl positive feedbacks. Using same calculations as above, the total CO2 incl positive feedback should give the Earths atmosphere a 48 degrees Celsius insulating effect which is more than the Entire Earth atmospheres insulating effect, 33 degrees Celsius. These numbers are obviously subject to intense debate and there are more aspects than mentioned here – but still, I have seen no satisfactory explanation yet.
Also see: ”Hotspot – The ’CO2-signature”, the central CO2-theory:’
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.
