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 News (hidethedecline)
Answer to the Skepticalscience.com article:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html
regarding the article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/
I can see that skepticalscience appears satisfied with the DMI data when you use the full year data - so what causes the summer temperature mismatch north of 80N between GISS data and DMI data?
Let’s refresh our memories:
A few days after the WUWT article, the DMI “melt season” was over and the final version of updated DMI 80-90N DMI summer (melt season) temperatures appears as follows:
Fig 1.
- Yes, the DMI melt season temperatures 80-90N in 2010 hit an all time low temperature record of just near +0,34 Celsius thus once again confirming the cold trend that started around 1991.
DMI trend summer 1991-2009: COOLING
GISS 80-90N temperatures june and july mostly projected up to 1200 km.
Fig 2
GISS june, july trend 1991-2009: WARMING
This does not make the GISS temperature projection method look good.
I can’t see how the writing at Skepticalscience.com should change that. I also showed other examples of problems with the GISS temperatures projected 1200 km over the ocean not really addressed in the skepticalscience article.
Normally when examining ice extend, believers of the global warming hypothesis mostly focus on the summer melt period. But now when a data source (the best data source for 80N-90N) shows temperatures for the melt period to be cooling of the area 80-90N, then we should look at the whole year. OK, lets then focus on the FULL year ice extend for the FULL globe based on Cryosphere data:
Fig 3
The 2010 column (an early prognosis) so far comes in number five since year 2000. That is, the fifth smallest global sea ice extend since year 2000.
So to begin with, the anomalies of global sea ice extend for 2008-10 appears to be just 0,3-5 mio sq km under normal.
However, Chryosphere in January 2007 made a Correction/reduction in Arctic sea ice data:
Fig 4
Here we see that the whole level of Arctic sea ice after year 2000 has been corrected down by Chryosphere with around 0,3 – 1,0 mio sq km. So this correction itself is perhaps large enough to fully account for the “missing” sea ice extend 2008-10. The strong La Nina cooling 1999-2001 is clearly reflected in the CT 2006 data, but not easy seen in the CT 2010 data.
So, without the Chryosphere correction done in January 2007, the sea ice anomalies 2008-2010 would have been zero or positive.
In my archives, I found this compare of arctic summer ice extends showing, that CT´s Arctic summer ice decline is over 1 mio sq km larger in 2007 than other data sources:
(Im not sure who collected these data.)
This indicates that the essential Cryosphere jan 2007 correction may be an outlier.
Similar to the uncorrected CT data are the gridded NSIDC data presented by Jeff Id:
Fig 6
Again, the years 2008-2010 is not really supporting any downward trend, although the entire period 1978-2009 shows decline using a banal flat trend.
For both CT data and Jeff Id´s NSIDC data presentation we see that its in fact it is mostly the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 that shows a large dip in global sea ice extend. Take away those years, and where is the decadal declining trend?
When Jeff Id Zooms in on the years after 1995, it becomes clear, that the 3 years (2005-7) is responsible for downward trends if we use the banal flat trend argumentation for global ice extend:
Fig 7
Link to Jeff Id´s article:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sea-ice-copenhagen-update/
Last changed: 18th October, 2010 at 23:39:29
Back
Comments
Add Comment
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.
