BREAKING: Obama's Science Czar JOHN HOLDREN INVOLVED in CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL

So, will the state-run media be bold enough to hide this, too? Obama’s socialist Science Czar John Holdren, who once said that forced abortions were needed to save the planet, is also involved in the Climategate Scandal.

Holdren, another socialist in the White House, was pushing global cooling before he was pushing man-made global warming.

NewsBusters and Canada Free Press are doing the work the state-run media would rather ignore and hide:

New Climategate revelations made by the Canada Free Press about a White House connection to the scandal will soon make it much more difficult (and ridiculous) for the networks to ignore.

Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball reveal the involvement of White House Science Czar John Holdren (photo) in the Climategate Scandal. The picture presented of Holdren is not a pretty one:

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

Emails to or from John Holdren: From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Malcolm Hughes , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Kevin Trenberth , Caspar Ammann , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, tcrowley@duke.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu, Tom Wigley Subject: Fwd: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:41 -0400 Dear All, Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along... mike Delivered-To: mem6u@virginia.edu X-Sender: jholdren@camail2.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400 To: "Michael Mann" , "Tom Wigley" From: "John P. Holdren" Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate Michael and Tom -- I'm forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my "Harvard" colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory. Best regards, John Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0400 To: schrag@eps.harvard.edu, oconnell@eps.harvard.edu, holland@eps.harvard.edu, pearson@eps.harvard.edu, eli@eps.harvard.edu, ingalls@eps.harvard.edu, mlm@eps.harvard.edu, avan@fas.harvard.edu, moyer@huarp.harvard.edu, poussart@fas.harvard.edu, jshaman@fas.harvard.edu, sivan@fas.harvard.edu, bec@io.harvard.edu, saleska@fas.harvard.edu From: "John P. Holdren" Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate Cc: jeremy_bloxham@harvard.edu, william_clark@harvard.edu, patricia_mclaughlin@harvard.edu, Bcc: Colleagues-- I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position. While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one's interlocutor turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of context in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy's formulations that made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a couple of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that its content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our "environmental science and policy breakfast" list for your entertainment and, possibly, future breakfast discussion. The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that it can be read straight through, top to bottom. Best, John At 09:43 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, you wrote: Dr. Holdren: In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not? Best, Nick Nick Schulz Editor TCS 1-800-619-5258 From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM To: Nick Schulz Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy Dear Nick Schultz -- I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have been swamped with other commitments. As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with Soon and Baliunas. If you seriously want to know "Why not?", here are three ways one might arrive at what I regard as the right conclusion: (1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments, the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it: W. Soon and S. Baliunas, "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003. M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M. Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, "On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth", EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8 July 2003. This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison. (2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking somebody who does possess these characteristics -- preferably somebody outside the handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional climate-change skeptics -- to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any number of major universities. (3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications (including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are, essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas' reputation in this field suffered considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong. Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so. But in cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things -- and where one is able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the issue is as lopsided as here -- one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being true would be foolhardy. Sincerely, John Holdren PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey my response in its entirety. At 11:16 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I suppose it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree? Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct? Best, Nick From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:54 PM To: Nick Schulz Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy Nick-- Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a strong and sweeping proposition (such as that "the current period is the warmest in the last 1000 years") must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one convincing counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing -- it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows. To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Both of these are "empirical" laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on observation; neither one can be "proven" from more fundamental laws. Both are very sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes. The second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the burden of proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody who claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case, the burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because the two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either has ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is so strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in court, that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be rejected summarily, without any further analysis of the details. Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the latter only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the state of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question -- not simply on whether a proposition is sweeping or narrow. In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write along the lines of "A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes support the conclusion" that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are "inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence". They are not saying that no shred of evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion. This is often the case in science. That is, there are often "outlier" data points or apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not given much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists judge it to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a way that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out that the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed, apparent contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to measurement error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance indicates. A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have failed in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid in itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the proposition. In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an "outlier" point or other seeming contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in detail why the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing. Sincerely, John Holdren At 08:08 AM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: Dr. Holdren: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time. You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that Mann et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from their basic research. You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would consider the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann papers and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on his research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said, I m willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand. But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps you could clear up a thing or two. Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the research itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research. And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence . That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary based on his research. But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors." Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley responded at the time by saying "I think there's a limit to how far you can ever go." As for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, "I don't think we're ever going to get to the point where we're going to be totally convincing." These are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they make different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that claim. Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the debate what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end, I don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence. I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people? All best, Nick Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:23 -0400 To: "Nick Schulz" From: "John P. Holdren" Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy Nick-- You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there's any hope of reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens. This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don't think the difficulties are insurmountable. That's why I'm in the business I'm in, which is teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy. Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do. But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are made, "You don't have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg." In other words, for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter. There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in policy decisions where science and technology are germane. How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling experts can illuminate issues even for those who don't understand everything that the experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors published in that year, as saying "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors." and you ask "Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?" My answer is: Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they did NOT say "Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors." They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied... This is a carefully specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and what they found. And it is appropriately contingent --"APPEARS to be closely tied" -- allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a different perspective on what appears to be true. With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen. That is why I'm an optimist. You go on to quote the respected scientist "Tom Quigley" as holding a contrary view to that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don't know of any Tom Quigley working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to "Quiqley" do not directly contradict the careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file). I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other things. Best, John Holdren JOHN P. HOLDREN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARVARD UNIVERSITY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138 phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963 email: john_holdren@harvard.edu assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ksg.harvard.edu, 617 495-1498 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN P. HOLDREN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARVARD UNIVERSITY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138 phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963 email: john_holdren@harvard.edu assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ksg.harvard.edu, 617 495-1498 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml References 1. http://www.techcentralstation.com/ 2. mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu 3. mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu 4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

From: Tim Johns To: "Folland, Chris" Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:34:49 +0000 Cc: "Smith, Doug" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Tim Johns Dear Chris, cc: Doug Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most likely to be "realistic". The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment fine print to that extent). Cheers, Tim On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > Tim and Doug > > Please see McCrackens email. > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > Any guidance welcome > > Chris > > > Prof. Chris Folland > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > > Fellow of the Met Office > Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence. > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met Office Hadley Center. > ³Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > For additional information see: > http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c > older-than-in-Iceland.html > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html > > -- Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday Thursday-Friday Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wave.gif"

From: Phil Jones To: Tim Johns , "Folland, Chris" Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009 Cc: "Smith, Doug" , Tim Johns Tim, Chris, I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug's paper that said something like - half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998! Still a way to go before 2014. I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg C for the LWC. It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. The paper shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park and Rothamsted). Cheers Phil At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote: Dear Chris, cc: Doug Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most likely to be "realistic". The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment fine print to that extent). Cheers, Tim On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > Tim and Doug > > Please see McCrackens email. > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > Any guidance welcome > > Chris > > > Prof. Chris Folland > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > <[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> > Fellow of the Met Office > Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike MacCracken [[2]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence. > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met Office Hadley Center. > ³Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > For additional information see: > [3]http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > [4]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c > older-than-in-Iceland.html > [5]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html > > -- Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk [7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday Thursday-Friday Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth [8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 2. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net 3. http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c 5. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs 6. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html 7. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 8. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/

From: "Folland, Chris" To: "Phil Jones" Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:57 -0000 Phil Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more general studies show relationships between the population or size of cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban warming in some cases? And why this might be so? Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Chris, Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather. Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought. Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather, and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month. Cheers Phil At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote: >Phil > >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them. > >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here as >well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been better, >allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30! > >Chris > > >Prof. Chris Folland >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >Kingdom >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18 >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > Tim, Chris, > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office > press release with Doug's paper that said something like - > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on > record, 1998! > Still a way to go before 2014. > > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. > > Chris - I presume the Met Office > continually monitor the weather forecasts. > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > days (in Norfolk) > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. > > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg > C for the LWC. > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. > The paper > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park > and Rothamsted). > > Cheers > Phil > > > >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote: > >Dear Chris, cc: Doug > > > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario > >(for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models > >shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us > >in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a > >new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions > >reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by > >a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 > >emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1 > >scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The > >A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than > >the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most > >likely to be "realistic". > > > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite > >marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first > >few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, > >reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence > >in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although > >much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in > >the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please > >don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress, > >not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We > >think the different short term warming responses are largely > >attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. > > > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing > >similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a > >multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes > >similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might > >well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment > >fine print to that extent). > > > >Cheers, > >Tim > > > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > > > Tim and Doug > > > > > > Please see McCrackens email. > > > > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In > > a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net > > warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the > > method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent > > warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless > > perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys > > are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > > > > > Any guidance welcome > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Prof. Chris Folland > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June > > > 2008) > > > > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, > > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > > > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > > > Fellow of the Met Office Hon. > > > Professor of School of Environmental > > Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > > > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot > > of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have > > done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how > > much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from > > China and India (I know that at least some plants are using > > desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry > > that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going > > to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to > > tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to > > pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better > > inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US > > EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were > > not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not > > having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated > > in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but > > it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > > > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air > > quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put > > the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems > > quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low > > albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe > > one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies > > the sulfate cooling influence. > > > > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and > > quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to > > enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > > > Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. > > > > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past > > decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also > > do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a > > quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, > > the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the > > models are no good, etc. > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > > > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > > > > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > > > > > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > > > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will > > be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global > > temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 > > average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate > > model indicates a ³rapid return of global temperature to the > > long-term warming trend,² with an increasing probability of record > > temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not > > break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East > > Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. > > ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence > > on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met > > Office Hadley Center. > > > ³Further warming to record levels is likely > > once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > > > > > For additional information see: > > > http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set > > -t > > o-be-c > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html > > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230. > > > ht > > > ml > > > > > > > >-- > > Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling > > Met Office Hadley Centre > > FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday > > Thursday-Friday > > > > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google > > Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Folland, Chris" To: "Phil Jones" Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:01:37 -0000 Phil Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them. Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Chris, City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water bodies as well. I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th century. I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it. Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and on Horseguards Parade! The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably. It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the skeptics. They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability! Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as it was the last one on your list. Cheers Phil At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote: >Phil > >Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more >general studies show relationships between the population or size of >cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there >any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban >warming in some cases? And why this might be so? > >Chris > > >Prof. Chris Folland >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >Kingdom >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02 >To: Folland, Chris >Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > Chris, > Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather. > Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI > in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't > see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought. > > Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather, > and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote: > >Phil > > > >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature > >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them. > > > >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here > >as well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been > >better, allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30! > > > >Chris > > > > > >Prof. Chris Folland > >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > > > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United > >Kingdom > >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > > Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor > >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18 > >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris > >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim > >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > Tim, Chris, > > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting > > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office > > press release with Doug's paper that said something like - > > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on > > record, 1998! > > Still a way to go before 2014. > > > > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying > > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal > > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. > > > > Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather > > forecasts. > > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the > language used in the forecasts seems > > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > > days (in Norfolk) > > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. > > > > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 > > deg C for the LWC. > > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has > > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. > > The paper > > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park > > and Rothamsted). > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > > > >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote: > > >Dear Chris, cc: Doug > > > > > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the > > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the > > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B > > >scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment > > >models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an > > >issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running > > >models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has > > >large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated > > >using the IMAGE > > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated > > >by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic > > >secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in > > >the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions > > >from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a > > >decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say > > >for sure which is most likely to be "realistic". > > > > > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is > > >quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the > > >first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO > > >simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus > > >some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario > > >runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are > > >considerably warmer than > > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - > > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the > > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated > > >in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but > > >please don't circulate this any further as these are results in > > >progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone > > >published). We think the different short term warming responses are > > >largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. > > > > > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 > > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are > > >doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be > > >analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) > > >prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation > > >details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt > > >scenarios and their > > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment > > >fine print to that extent). > > > > > >Cheers, > > >Tim > > > > > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > > > > Tim and Doug > > > > > > > > Please see McCrackens email. > > > > > > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 > > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation > > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. > > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a > > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have > > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. > > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol > > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. > > > In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced > > > net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other > > > words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for > > > recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method > > > nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the > absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. > > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and > > > DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > > > > > > > Any guidance welcome > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Chris Folland > > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June > > > > 2008) > > > > > > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, > > > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > > > > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > > > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > > > > Fellow of the Met Office Hon. > > > > Professor of School of Environmental > > > Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > > > > > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting > > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a > > > lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis > > > you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and > > > that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising > > > emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants > > > are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an > > > inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid > > > 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the > > > next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, > > > "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there > > > are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from > > > these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their > > > efforts were going to also inventory > > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they > > > were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by > > > not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be > > > repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical > > > depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > > > > > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling > > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present > > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, > > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also > > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and > > > air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is > > > to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also > > > seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with > > > its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is > > > evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a > > > little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence. > > > > > > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more > > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit > > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive > > > and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would > > > be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to > > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 > > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we > > > manage > > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more > > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we > > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and > > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming > > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, > > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning > > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are > > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > > > > Would be an interesting issue to do > research on--see what could be done. > > > > > > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is > > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I > > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over > > > past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. > > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you > > > also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have > > > a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. > > > Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really > > > cooling, the models are no good, etc. > > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > > > > > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > > > > > > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > > > > > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the > > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 > > > will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average > > > global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the > > > 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met > > > Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global > > > temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing > > > probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that > > > 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . > > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil > > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East > > > Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the > last year partially masked this underlying rate. > > > ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant > > > influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland > > > of the Met Office Hadley Center. > > > > ³Further warming to record levels is likely > > > once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina > > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > > > > > > > For additional information see: > > > > http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > > > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s > > > et > > > -t > > > o-be-c > > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html > > > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > > > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230. > > > > ht > > > > ml > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling > > > Met Office Hadley Centre > > > FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday > > > Thursday-Friday > > > > > > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google > > > Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-- > >----- > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: "Folland, Chris" Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Date: Wed Jan 7 12:51:51 2009 Chris, Apart from contacting Gavin and Mike Mann (just informing them) you should appeal. In essence it means that Real Climate is a publication. If you do go to GRL I wouldn't raise the issue with them. Happy to be a suggested reviewer if you do go to GRL. Cheers Phil Chris, Worth pursuing - even if only GRL. Possibly worth sending a note to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate to say what Nature have used as a refusal! Cheers Phil At 17:01 06/01/2009, you wrote: Phil Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them. Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) <[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Chris, City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water bodies as well. I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th century. I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it. Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and on Horseguards Parade! The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably. It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the skeptics. They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability! Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as it was the last one on your list. Cheers Phil At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote: >Phil > >Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more >general studies show relationships between the population or size of >cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there >any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban >warming in some cases? And why this might be so? > >Chris > > >Prof. Chris Folland >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >Kingdom >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) ><[3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02 >To: Folland, Chris >Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > Chris, > Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather. > Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI > in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't > see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought. > > Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather, > and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote: > >Phil > > > >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature > >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them. > > > >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here > >as well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been > >better, allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30! > > > >Chris > > > > > >Prof. Chris Folland > >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > > > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United > >Kingdom > >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > ><[5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor > >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phil Jones [[6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18 > >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris > >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim > >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > Tim, Chris, > > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting > > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office > > press release with Doug's paper that said something like - > > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on > > record, 1998! > > Still a way to go before 2014. > > > > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying > > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal > > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. > > > > Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather > > forecasts. > > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the > language used in the forecasts seems > > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > > days (in Norfolk) > > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. > > > > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 > > deg C for the LWC. > > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has > > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. > > The paper > > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park > > and Rothamsted). > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > > > >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote: > > >Dear Chris, cc: Doug > > > > > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the > > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the > > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B > > >scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment > > >models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an > > >issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running > > >models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has > > >large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated > > >using the IMAGE > > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated > > >by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic > > >secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in > > >the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions > > >from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a > > >decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say > > >for sure which is most likely to be "realistic". > > > > > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is > > >quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the > > >first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO > > >simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus > > >some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario > > >runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are > > >considerably warmer than > > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - > > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the > > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated > > >in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but > > >please don't circulate this any further as these are results in > > >progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone > > >published). We think the different short term warming responses are > > >largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. > > > > > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 > > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are > > >doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be > > >analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) > > >prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation > > >details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt > > >scenarios and their > > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment > > >fine print to that extent). > > > > > >Cheers, > > >Tim > > > > > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > > > > Tim and Doug > > > > > > > > Please see McCrackens email. > > > > > > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 > > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation > > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. > > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a > > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have > > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. > > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol > > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. > > > In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced > > > net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other > > > words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for > > > recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method > > > nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the > absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. > > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and > > > DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > > > > > > > Any guidance welcome > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Chris Folland > > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June > > > > 2008) > > > > > > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, > > > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > > > > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > > > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > > > > <[7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. > > > > Professor of School of Environmental > > > Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Mike MacCracken [[8]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > > > > > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting > > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a > > > lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis > > > you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and > > > that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising > > > emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants > > > are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an > > > inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid > > > 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the > > > next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, > > > "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there > > > are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from > > > these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their > > > efforts were going to also inventory > > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they > > > were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by > > > not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be > > > repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical > > > depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > > > > > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling > > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present > > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, > > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also > > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and > > > air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is > > > to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also > > > seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with > > > its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is > > > evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a > > > little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence. > > > > > > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more > > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit > > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive > > > and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would > > > be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to > > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 > > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we > > > manage > > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more > > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we > > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and > > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming > > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, > > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning > > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are > > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > > > > Would be an interesting issue to do > research on--see what could be done. > > > > > > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is > > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I > > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over > > > past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. > > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you > > > also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have > > > a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. > > > Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really > > > cooling, the models are no good, etc. > > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > > > > > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > > > > > > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > > > > > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the > > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 > > > will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average > > > global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the > > > 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met > > > Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global > > > temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing > > > probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that > > > 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . > > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil > > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East > > > Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the > last year partially masked this underlying rate. > > > ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant > > > influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland > > > of the Met Office Hadley Center. > > > > ³Further warming to record levels is likely > > > once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina > > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > > > > > > > For additional information see: > > > > [9]http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > > > > > > > [10]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s > > > et > > > -t > > > o-be-c > > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html > > > > [11]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > > > > [12]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230. > > > > ht > > > > ml > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling > > > Met Office Hadley Centre > > > FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk [13]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday > > > Thursday-Friday > > > > > > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google > > > Earth [14]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-- > >----- > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 3. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 5. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 6. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 7. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 8. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net 9. http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s 11. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs 12. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230 13. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ 14. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.