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.
Sun
Recent visual sun
Photo by courtesy of SOHO/MDI/spaceweather.com.
Recent sunspot activity
Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1990 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the thick line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low values for the total solar irradiance.
-
Click here to download the entire annual sunspot number data series since 1818 from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC).
-
In 1848 the Swiss astronomer Johann Rudolph Wolf introduced a daily measurement of sunspot number. His method, which is still used today, counts the total number of spots visible on the face of the sun and the number of groups into which they cluster, because neither quantity alone satisfactorily measures sunspot activity (NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC) .
An observer computes a daily sunspot number by multiplying the number of groups he sees by ten and then adding this product to his total count of individual spots. Results, however, vary greatly, since the measurement strongly depends on observer interpretation and experience and on the stability of the Earth's atmosphere above the observing site. Moreover, the use of Earth as a platform from which to record these numbers contributes to their variability, too, because the sun rotates and the evolving spot groups are distributed unevenly across solar longitudes. To compensate for these limitations, each daily international number is computed as a weighted average of measurements made from a network of cooperating observatories. Today, much more sophisticated measurements of solar activity are made routinely, but none has the link with the past that sunspot numbers have (NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC) .
Recent solar irradiance
Total solar irradiance since 25 February 2003, according to the Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP). These data are obtained using the SORCE Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM). The thin line indicates daily TSI values, while the thick line represents the running simple 183 day (c. 6 months) average. The measured values for the total solar irradiation (TSI) are somewhat lower than reported by most other TSI-measuring instruments, which typically report TSI values around 1366 W/m2. However, the recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the TIM data provided by LASP.
The SORCE Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) measures the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), a measure of the absolute intensity of solar radiation, integrated over the entire solar irradiance spectrum.
The TIM's measured value of TSI at 1 AU is lower than that reported by other TSI-measuring instruments; an upcoming solar minimum value of 1361 W/m2 is estimated from the above TIM data. This is due to unresolved differences between the various TSI instruments in operation. The TIM measures TSI values 4.7 W/m2 lower than the VIRGO and 5.1 W/m2 lower than ACRIM III.
This difference exceeds the ~0.1% stated uncertainties on both the ACRIM and VIRGO instruments. Differences between the various data sets are solely instrumental and will only be resolved by careful and detailed analyses of each instrument's uncertainty budget. LASP report only the TSI measurements from the TIM, and make no attempt to adjust these to other TSI data records.
The TIM TSI data available are based on fundamental ground calibrations done at CU/LASP, NIST, and NASA. On-orbit calibrations measure the effects of background thermal emission, instrument sensitivity changes, and electronic gain. The TIM TSI data products have been corrected for instrument sensitivity and degradation, background thermal emission, instrument position and velocity, and electronic gain. The TIM relies on several component-level calibrations, as no calibration source or detector is available with the level of accuracy desired for this instrument -- a level of accuracy nearly 10 times better than that previously attempted for space-based radiometry.
Sunspot activity since 1700
Annual sunspot activity since 1700 according to the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The blue line shows annual values, red line shows the running 11 yr average.
Solar irradiance and sunspot number
Solar irradiance and sunspot number since January 1979 according to NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC. The thin lines indicate the daily irradiance (red) and sunspot number (blue), while the thick lines indicate the running annual average for these two parametres. The total variation in solar irradiance is about 1.3 W/m2 during one sunspot cycle, as an order of magnitude.
The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation over the period (since 1979) when satellite measurements of absolute radiative flux were available. Since sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere it might be expected that more sunspots would lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding margins of sunspots are hotter than the average, and so are brighter; overall, more sunspots increase the sun's solar constant or brightness.
The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, on the order of 0.1% of the solar constant (a peak-to-trough range of 1.3 W/m2 compared to 1366 W/m2 for the average solar constant). This number refers to the projected area of planet Earth, as seen from the Sun. However, the total surface area of the planet is four times the projected area, and the variation of 1.3 W/m2 therefore corresponds to about 0.325 W/m2 for the entire planet surface. This value might be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m2 for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels.
During the Maunder Minimum in the 17th Century (c.1650-1720) there were hardly any sunspots at all, and in all likelihood, the intensity of solar radiation was low. This event coincides with a documented period of maximum cooling within the Little Ice Age.
Irradiance is the radiometry term for the power of electromagnetic radiation at a surface, per unit area. Irradiance due to solar radiation is also called insolation. Total solar irradiance describes the radiant energy emitted by the sun over all wavelengths that falls each second on 1 square meter outside the earth's atmosphere, a quantity proportional to the "solar constant" observed earlier in this century. It measures the solar energy flux in Watts/square meter.
Solar irradiance reconstructed since 1610
Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000). The thin line indicates the annual reconstructed solar irradiance, while the thick line shows the running 11 average. The values shown include a background component. See Lean (2000) for discussion of the amplitude of the background component. Last year included in the Lean (2000) analysis: 2000. The small green columns in the bottom panel indicate different kind of historical evidence for past climate change effects. Click on the green columns for more information on each of these events.
Global temperature and sunspot number
Variation of global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3) and observed sunspot number (NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC) since 1960. The global monthly average surface air temperature is a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The variation in global temperature is about 0.2oC during one sunspot period, superimposed on the general increasing temperature trend during the period shown. The somewhat asymmetrical temperature 'bumps' around 1973 and 1998 are reflecting oceanographic El Niño effects.
-
Click here to download the entire series of estimated HadCRUT3 global monthly surface air temperatures since January 1850.
-
Click here to download the entire series of monthly NOAA NGDC sunspot number since January 1749.
-
Variation of global sea surface temperature (HadSST2) and observed sunspot number (NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC) since 1960. The global monthly average sea surface temperature is estimated by University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The HadSST2 data series are described by Ranier et al. (2006). Base period: 1961-1990. The thin lines in the diagram represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The variation in global sea surface temperature is 0.15 - 0.2oC during one sunspot period, superimposed on the general increasing temperature trend during the period shown. The somewhat asymmetrical temperature 'bumps' around 1973 and 1998 are reflecting oceanographic El Niño effects.
Cosmic ray intensity and sunspot activity
Variation of cosmic ray intensity and monthly sunspot activity since 1958 according to the Germany Cosmic Ray Monitor in Kiel (GCRM) and NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), respectively. High sunspot activity correlates with low cosmic ray intensity, and vice versa.
Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons (beta minus particles). The term "ray" is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.
The flux of galactic cosmic rays varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that galactic cosmic rays enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle. A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m2, which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m2 for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels.
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.
