Beam me to Planet Gore !
Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tom crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN ATTRIBUTIONS
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:22:56 -0700
Cc: Chick Keller <cfk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Somerville <rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Howard Hanson, LDRD" <hph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "James E. Hansen" <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Schlesinger <schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
I agree with Tom: I sent you (without copying others) a whole host of
material..
Kevin
tom crowley wrote:
> For goodness sakes, I don't know where to start - let me just make one
> point with respect to solar - solar projects onto the GHG signal in
> the 20th c. so solar cannot be distinguished during that time. if one
> were to independently correlate solar and GHG with temp. since 1750,
> solar would "explain" about 75% of the variance, GHG about 70% - a
> spectacular 140% of the variance explained!
>
> the only way to evaluate solar is to look at intervals when GHG was
> not changing and solar was - the preanthropogenic interval - perhaps
> the most comprehensive evaluation of the solar effect is in the
> attached paper, where it is quite clear that solar effect is either
> negligible or just barely significant, ie., 5-10% of the decadally
> scaled variance.
>
> with respect to the MWP all you have to do is plot the data up and
> compile them - the numbers don't work out as being warmer than the
> present - at best approaching or slightly exceeding mid-20th c. the
> reason is that is was warm at different times. Soon and Baliunas of
> course never showed this - but if you actually look at the damn data
> and plot up, the same answer as I stated above keeps showing up, over
> and over.
>
> with respect to UAH, there are now two other reconstructions that show
> otherwise.
>
> enough, this is like trying to convert someone with one religion to
> another.
>
> tom
>
> Chick Keller wrote:
>
>> Richard and Friends,
>>
>> thanks for the point of view. I'll put some of this into my
>> presentation.
>>
>> However, it won't wash when facing critics head-on.
>>
>> Their latest arguments are more subtle. Their main point is that
>> their counter information hangs together into a logically coherent
>> picture.
>>
>> Models: no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from
>> others! Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of
>> latitude yet the Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber shows up in ten of the CRU emails, all of them related to politics and financing.
LOL. These emails need to be trotted out in response every time the commies in the media pull their global warming ‘don’t just sit there do something we’re all gonna die’ crap.
They are grinding through their Disaster List, one stupid predication after another, in time for Copenhagen. Just like in “State of Fear”.
God bless Michael Crichton. May he rest in peace.
This guy has his fingers in his ears and he’s goin’ “LALALALALALALALALALALA.......”
Who woulda thunk it.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, for I am the Great and Powerful Oz!"
Satire is now the only way to deal with these shysters; here is my lame attempt (my apologies to Music Man):
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in Copenhagen!
With a capital “T”
That rhymes with “C” and “D” and “S”
And that stands for carbon dioxide from your SUV,
That stands for C02.
We’ve surely got trouble!
Right here in Copenhagen,
Right here!
Gotta figger out a way
To keep the young ones watching Al Gores movie at school!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble...
I though it was in Hopenhagan!
Good grief! Josef Goebbels could do no better, and he was the Minister of Propaganda.
From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Richard Somerville <rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:16:33 +0100
Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi,
just a quick reply. I am in on this, and will respond to a draft letter, in the hope that
you will make the first, Richard? I agree that it can be short. It is strange to see this,
knowing that the delegations I spoke to in/after Paris clearly said that the CLAs got it
their way, and that I believe this is the strong common perception we also had as CLAs
about the outcome.
Best wishes,
Eystein
Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 03.11 skrev Richard Somerville:
Dear Fellow CLAs,
The British magazine *New Scientist* is apparently about to publish several items critical
of the IPCC AR4 WGI SPM and the process by which it was written. There is an editorial, a
column by Pearce, and a longer piece by Wasdell which is on the internet and referenced by
Pearce.
I think that this attack on us deserves a response from the CLAs. Our competence and
integrity has been called into question. Susan Solomon is mentioned by name in
unflattering terms. We ought not to get caught up in responding in detail to the many
scientific errors in the Wasdell piece, in my opinion, but I would like to see us refute
the main allegations against us and against the IPCC.
We need to make the case that this is shoddy and prejudiced journalism. Wasdell is not a
climate scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was not in Paris, and is grossly
ignorant of both the science and the IPCC process. His account of what went on is
factually incorrect in many important respects.
New Scientist inexplicably violates basic journalistic standards by publicizing and
editorially agreeing with a vicious attack by an uncredentialed source without checking
facts or hearing from the people attacked. The editorial and Pearce column, which I regard
as packed with distortions and innuendo and error, are pasted below, and the Wasdell piece
is attached.
My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as
possible, would be an appropriate response. I think we ought to say that the science was
absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of
any kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed
point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism; that process would never
converge.
Please send us all your opinions and suggestions for what we should do, using the email
list [1]wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I am traveling and checking email occasionally, so if enough of us agree that we should
respond, I hope one or more of you (not me) will volunteer to coordinate the effort and
submit the result to New Scientist.
Best regards to all,
Richard
Richard C. J. Somerville
Distinguished Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224
La Jolla, CA 92093-0224, USA
To: IPCC-Sec <IPCC-Sec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Future of the IPCC:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500
Cc: ... rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ...
<x-flowed>
Dear All,
I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).
"There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action".
1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for "action"
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast - using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.
It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.
It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
"greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance".
2. Is "model democracy" a valid scientific method? The "I" in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.
3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?
Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.
Regards,
Shukla
Ping to some of your favorite correspondents.