“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.
H
Hotspot / “The CO2-signature”, Testing the CO2 theory
Posted by Administrator (admin) on 8th February, 2010
To add CO2 to air near the Earths surface has hardly any effect on the heat absorbtion, and this has been known for around 100 years since Professor Angstrom carried out a row of basic experiments to examine the CO2 theory. They simply added a little CO2 to an atmosphere air sample and found surpricingly little effect. This in fact ended all talk about the CO2 theory for half a century. The CO2-theory got a new chance in the 1950´ies because analysis showed that the absorbtion spectra of CO2 slightly changed frequency at lower pressures. So, if CO2 was to have any effect worth mentioning, there had to occur heat absorbtion from CO2 at the lower pressures found around 10 km altitude. So on this quite healthy and scientific basis, it was predicted that a CO2 heat effect would be detectable as a warming around 10 km altitude over the tropics mostly. That is, MORE warming in 10 km altitude than near the surface. This warm bubble was called “the CO2-Hotspot” or ”the CO2-signature”.
There has not been measured MORE warming at 10 km altitude in the last several decades. On the countrary, This area of the atmosphere has become colder relative to the surface temperature. So what we see is not just a missing hotspot, no, we see the opposite of what was believed to be result of any CO2 warming effect.
So first we found out that CO2 had no effect worth mentioning near surface (Angstrom), and later the idea about CO2 warming highr in the atmosphere appears not to be happening either.
It is obviously a problem for the CO2 theory that the warming in 10 altitude does not occur in real world, but what IF there had been such a warming? To warm the surface of the Earth, the CO2 theory now demands that the very thin and cold air at 10 km altitude should be able to warm up the Earth. This air is typically minus 60 degrees Celsius. With a CO2 warming at one degree Celsius, this air would then be minus 59 degrees Celsius?
Warmer air seeks up. So how is the (non-existing) CO2-heated air supposed to warm up the Earth surface from 10 km altitude? So the transfer of heat to the earths surface has to be mainly heat radiation from thin cold air to the much warmer surface. But, to begin with, there is no CO2 warming detected in 10 km altitude.
For each year without any trace of the CO2-signature (heat) in high altitude, the IPCC declares itself more and more sure that the CO2 hypothesis is solid settled science.
Below is shown how the IPCC models predict warming from different forcings. Figure c (circled) shows the expected warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases and figure f (also cirkled) the effect af all forcings.
Here is what they found:
No increased warming from greenhouse gases = no hotspot = the CO2-hypothesis is falcified.
Instead of making the obvious conclusions, the IPCC and the alarmist scientists has reacted to the imperical falcification by suggesting that maybe the measurements are wrong, or maybe there is so much noise that we can't see the warming. Well, ...yes maybe, but by any normal scientific standard, this has prooved the hypothesis wrong.
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.
