The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently drafted a third assessment report (TAR-2000) for circulation to experts for review.

This forum is open to expert and non-expert alike to submit comments. Comments should be addressed to daly@microtech.com.au with `TAR-2000 Review' in the subject line.

There are also related two other ongoing reviews and debates where issues may overlap with those discussed here - Surface v. Satellites? and Solar-Climate Interactions    - John L. Daly

Subject: "Models are all we've got"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:28:42 +1100
From: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>
To: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>, Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>

Dear Chick and Mike

In a way, you have both in recent messages defined the problem down to its core issue.

Is modelling in general the best way to get a handle on climatic processes?

Climate processes are in a continuous dynamic state of flux, but it is an analogue system, whereas a model is digital. Climate resolves its imbalances through continuous balancing of competing forces acting over time scales from the speed of light to decades whereas Models resolve their imbalances via millions/billions of feedback iterations using equations defined for them by the modellers.

Consider the action of a fielder in a cricket or baseball game. Some athletes can throw the ball a great distance, and with uncanny accuracy hit their tiny target spot on. How do they do it? How would a model do it? The player does not solve millions of simultaneous equations and calculus problems in his head as he eyes the target, gathers strength in his arm, and throws. Instead, his action is analogue, perfect continuous co-ordination between eyes, arms, brain, `feel' for the weight of the ball, judging of trajectory, application of force etc. But the model? It will solve the same problem by repetitive calculation (iterations) of complex equations involving force, gravity, trajectory, range, distance etc. to achieve a similar outcome. The model is not really a model at all, but merely a `mimic'. And suppose the weight of the ball is changed? The fielder just bounces it in his hand once or twice to get the `feel' and that is sufficient. The model has to be *told* the new weight, and told to a high degree of accuracy. In other words, the model is not autonomous like the fielder - it has to get all its instructions from the modeller as to how to respond to changed situations. Thus, the model output is really only a quantified result of what the modeller has already decided qualitatively.

While the laws of physics may be immutable, it is not always predictable which law will predominate over which when a maelstrom of competing laws are acting simultaneously as with climate. The laws of physics in the models are no doubt correctly defined in the equations, but the dominance/subservience of one law to dozens of others is defined by the modeller, not by the model. For example how do we decide whether a radiative process is dominant, or is neutralised by, say, an action of latent heat or convection? The model can't tell us on its own as it is only a dumb machine. The modeller decides that issue in the way the codes are written. In the end, the model simply mirrors the intellectual choices of the modeller and puts numbers to them. If those choices are based on flawed reasoning or insufficient observational evidence, it is naive to think the model will somehow iron out the problems through sheer number crunching power. That would be to attribute qualities of judgement to models which they simply do not have.

In essence, the model does not relieve the intellectual burden of determining which variable is dominant over which. The modeller has to choose, and this choice then becomes integral to the model. The 33°C tropical ocean limit we have been discussing is a good case in point. Mike regards that as open to increase under CO2x2 conditions, whereas I do not. If we each integrate that opinion into models, the number crunching power of the competing models would not get us any closer to resolving that issue, because we have not resolved it by observation/experimentation first.

Thus the model only reflects the state of understanding of the modeller, via the programming codes - it does not have any independent power to resolve issues which the modeller has not satisfactorily resolved beforehand.

For many of the points in contention we already have the best model of all - the Earth itself. For example, we need no model to tell us what may happen to the 33°C tropical ocean limit since model Earth has already told us - no change. Whether we like Model Earth's reasoning or not, the result is clear and unambiguous. On the question of polar warming as CO2 rises, Model Earth has already demonstrated that no such warming has happened or is happening. Maybe it will in future, maybe it won't, but to pretend that Model Earth's result is wrong or an aberration on the laws of physics is to knowingly integrate a key error into the digital models.

What frustrates the skeptics about the models and their developers is that important observed and empirical evidence is ignored in the development of models, if that evidence does not accord with pre-conceived notions held by the modellers as to how the climate behaves or is meant to behave. Yet such models are given a degree of credibility which their very processes do not warrant. In addition, they have proved to be poor predictive tools (unlike weather models which are firmly rooted in current observational data).

Both Mike and Chick expressed sentiments as to the futility of discussing qualitative issues until they had been worked out quantitatively first. I would say that is putting the cart before the horse. Only when the issues have been resolved qualitatively through observation and/or experiment are you then ready to apply quantitative analysis to complete the solution to the problem. The tropical 33°C limit is one such issue which cannot be resolved by number crunching, but only by observation and experiment. Then you crunch the numbers to evaluate its impact on the climate system as CO2 levels change. The same applies to polar temperatures, an issue where the models are spectacularly at variance with nature.

It is often said, "all science is numbers" (Newton?). That's true up to a point. But do not make the reverse logical error of thinking that "all numbers is science". That's where the psychologists and sociologists went wrong - and look what a joke their `sciences' have become.

Cheers     John Daly

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:46:02 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Organization: Earth
To: COURTNEY <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

Richard,

Here's a nonlinearity for you that would cause a difference in the maximum temperature. As heat retention increases and causes cloud cover to do so as well, the latitudinal spread from normal (vertical) insolation of increased cloud cover due to temperatures at the "limit" increases as well, correct? Therefore, the resistance to flow due to a longer horizontal travel path of air replacing the warm air rising nearest the point of vertical insolation due to density differential decreases vertical flow caused by this density differential, therefore increasing water vapor close to the surface and decreasing the increase of cloud cover.

This would cause the upper limit of temperature to increase from whatever anyone thinks it would be.

Is that in the models? I tend to agree that observations are more accurate than model results, and that models not integrating all components of feedback may be more precise, but may well be less accurate than human spatial integration covering more comprehensive and complete concepts.

Steve.

Subject: "Models are all we've got"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:32:47 +0200
From: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>, "Mike MacCracken" <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>, "Chick Keller" <cfk@lanl.gov>

Dear all,

John gives a very good explanation of modeling pinciples !

I have always wondered how computer simulation principles should be explained to my students. (To Mike: I do not create economical models, but models for simulation of chemical production processes. These models are used for economical optimization of the production or for process control. The reliability of the output must meet high quality standards which means that I cannot use much uncertain equations or parameters in the model).

Computer simulation is only a combination of many quantitatively well-known basical facts thus analyzing combinations that cannot be figured out in any other way. The output, however, must be tested against reality. To some extent, unknown parameters (constants, variables) can be adapted to tune the model to give realistic outputs. The structure (the equations) of the model can also be adapted to give realistic outputs.

If a model contains much uncertainty in both structure and parameters we have a "flexible" model. A flexible models can always be tuned to reality better than a more simplified, "stiff" model, but the predictional power of a flexible model to calculated something outside the tuning range is poor because it may not have a fully correct description of the physical processes involved. The less we know about the physics and the parameters, the more the deterministic simulation model works as a complicated non-linear statistical model. These models are treacherous and should never be trusted for parameter values outside the range of experimental tuning (for example double CO2). GCM-models are nice tools who can be used for may purposes, but after having followed the climate change discussion for many years, I don't think that they are able to predict the influence of 2xCO2 on the climate. Compared to other more serious problems for mankind, it is however not a very interesting question either.

It is not only in climate change research we have the same problem. Recently I had problems with a model for supercritical extraction of enzymatic compounds. The model had a very nice graphical output, contained some 6000 statement lines, numerical solutions of differential equations a.s.o. and was able to describe the bench-scale plant to a great extent. But after increasing the size to pilot-plant scale, the model did not work at all. Why ? Because it was tuned to the bench-scale and had poor extrapolation power regarding the size of the process.

The best way to test the reliability of a climate model for 2xCO2 is to put 2xCO2 into the atmosphere and see what else is happening other than increased production of the Finnish forests..

Until then, have a nice day. Jarl

Subject: "Models are all we've got"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:23:38 +0100
From: "Onar Åm" <onar@netpower.no>
To: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>, John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>, "Mike MacCracken" <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>, "Chick Keller" <cfk@lanl.gov>

<Jarl Ahlbeck said:>

Dear all,       John gives a very good explanation of modeling pinciples !

I second that! I am in the business of computer modeling too, and John's description was very insightful. Whether we trust the models or not boils down to whether we trust the modelers to have made the right qualitative choices. We know for instance that not a single climate model includes any secondary solar forcings like the Svensmark effect. (since they are not well-understood yet) This alone disqualifies the models as reliable predictive tools. (In addition comes all the mess with clouds and aerosols)

I can only speak for myself, of course, but all my experience as a scientist and as a computer modeler simply does not allow me to put any trust into the GCM predictions 50-100 years into the future.

Onar.

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:15:33 -0500
From: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>
To: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)

Dear Richard--

Just time for a couple of comments:

1. In using the word limit, I do not mean to imply that it is something absolute--just a practical upper value given how the processes are interacting at present.

2. Regarding how cloud formation might change, I would argue that cloud formation occurs when one reaches saturation, which is controlled by temperature and water vapor amount (and air pressure--but we are not adding mass to the atmosphere, so its vertical profile remains). I would argue that changing the amount of energy in the system as GHGs trap more energy and changes the distribution of energy that drives (in part) transport can indeed cause changes in where and how easily clouds form, which can then lead to changes inthe radiation patterns, etc. When considering volcanic effects, one must, for example, consider not only the direct heating responses, but the way in which the changes in heating cause changes in circualtion, and then how these cause changes in things like clouds, etc.

How everyhting fits together--how all the processes interact--will indded change as the large additional amounts of energy are trapped, water is evaporated from the surface, etc.

Mike

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:08:20 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Organization: Earth
To: Jarl Ahlbeck <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>

This argument is more aptly put, I think, as running into a brick wall on one side and the regurgitation of dogma on the other.

You say "if there is no warming of the air temperature over the ice, there is no climate forcing at that point". I would say that is not an accurate statement in that as Arctic sea ice decreases, there is more wind forcing to increase the amount of North Atlantic water pulled into the Arctic, melting it even more. It has been shown the temperature of the Arctic Ocean is increasing, and the area of the sea ice decreasing. These attributes compound each other, accelerating the reduction of sea ice and increasing the warmth of the Arctic and the length of the growing seasons in the far north. The feedback mode of decreasing salinity out of the Arctic slowing the North Atlantic Current is, on a decadel scale, being overcome. When the North Atlantic fully engages the Arctic as part of the "Global Conveyor Belt" following structural failure and flushing of remnants of the sea ice in the Arctic we can expect, I believe, a major shift in global (or at least northern hemispherical) climate.

One year, in August or September...

It could be a good thing, providing more food for the starving people of the world. It could show the dogmatic we do, in fact, affect climate on Earth, and should consider that.

The concept of sequestration of Carbon could prove to be an extremely stupid idea. It is certainly being espoused by those afraid of change.

What we need is a good model.      Steve

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:40:46 +0200
From: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>
To: "Steve Hemphill" <steve@hemphill.net>

What we need is a good model.

Agree, but do you have any good models to explain the attached temperature curves for Greenland, Iceland, Kajaani (Finland) and Finland ? TMHO they show only random variations. What I would like to see, is a plot of model predictions versus observations.

regards,    Jarl

Subject: "Models are all we've got"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:47:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>
To: Jarl Ahlbeck <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>

Jarl,

I just reviewed a book in which you have a chapter (T R Gerholm, Climate Policy after Kyoto, translated from the Swedish, and published by Multi-science, late 99) This is most useful for students. In it you tell a story about the high temperatures measured recently over Siberia. As these measurements seemed to play quite a role in recent exchanges, will you tell the group your suspicion about why they were so high ? Or have you changed your mind? (withdrawl of subsidies...)

And why is Bolin having a go at me, am not even in the book...    Sonja

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:22:06 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>

Dear Mike:

Thank you for the clarifications.

I am not convinced by your argument concerning cloud formation and the 'Ramanathan/ Collins effect'. You say; "I would argue that changing the amount of energy in the system as GHGs trap more energy and changes the distribution of energy that drives (in part) transport can indeed cause changes in where and how easily clouds form ...".

I agree that increasing the energy in the system may affect cloud formation, but the 'Ramanathan/Collins effect' limits the amount of energy in the system; i.e. more energy leads to more evaporation leads to more cirrus leads to less solar energy input leads to an equilibrium energy in the system.

The equilibrium energy in the system is why there is a limit to SST of 305 K.

I find it hard to believe that increased GHGs can trap so much energy in the system that complete obscuration of the sky will be achieved by induced cirrus. But, while there remains some clear sky then the 'Ramanathan/Collins effect' limits the energy in the system.

All the best    Richard

Subject: Re: "Models are all we've got"
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:22:23 +0200
From: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>
To: "Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>

Dear Sonja,

No I have not changed my mind. My information comes from a Russian researcher who knows that too low temperatures were reported during the Soviet era because it was a way to get more fuel.

Jarl

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:57:36 +1300
From: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>
To: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>, "Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>

Jarl, Sonia

The idea that Russian temperatures were artificially low in the 20s and 30s because that was the only way you got the food and fuel to survive was suggested by John Daly long ago. It makes sense as some of the stations were gulags; I think even Vorkuta was one.

There is little evidence to support this from the actual monthly records which are obtainable in easy graphical form from

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ghcn/temp .

They show a very wide monthly range which is fairly uniform and without an apparent trend over the early years, with the minimum alone rising only recently.

The deprived gulags theory does not explain why Northern Siberia had the highest temperature rise from 1976-1999.

I favour an explanation as follows:

Most stations are at an airport. Air transport is vital to the region, particularly in winter. Traffic would have increased. dramatically in the last 20 years. Measures would be taken to keep the airport in action during the winter, involving heating the runways. The Met equipment would have initially be tucked away in a quiet corner, but now is exposed to fire-breathing monsters. Recent Russian chaos would have contributed, but why should it be biased upwards? Perhaps because nowadays they avoid taking measurements when it is really cold.

Met stations all over the world are going over to automatic measurement, free from human influence. Maybe it will stabilise the surface record.

Vincent Gray

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:58:42 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Organization: Earth
To: Jarl Ahlbeck <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>

Jarl,

What we need is a good model.

Agree, but do you have any good models to explain the attached temperature curves for Greenland, Iceland, Kajaani (Finland) and Finland ? TMHO they show only random variations. What I would like to see, is a plot of model predictions versus observations.

I believe I can explain that. The reason is related to the commonly known negative feedback mechanism of Arctic sea ice melt increase decreasing the flow of the NADW. Since the feedback is slowly being overcome as the sea ice melts, a bias exists in this region analogous to the feedback mechanism in a cooling phase. The feedback mode is attempting to cause cooling, but the potential is inadequate now to fully compensate for the increased pumping of heat north by the higher severity storms due to the greater density differential between equatorial and polar air masses, since the equatorial air mass is warmer. Therefore the system is trying to cool back to equilibrium, but doesn't have the potential.

Steve

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 19:32:45 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Dear Steve

Steve Hemphill wrote:

The feedback mode is attempting to cause cooling, but the potential is inadequate now to fully compensate for the increased pumping of heat north by the higher severity storms due to the greater density differential between equatorial and polar air masses, since the equatorial air mass is warmer.

The more severe storms are certainly a consequence of a steepened temperature gradient between equatorial air masses and polar masses. But such a steepened gradient can occur one of three ways -

1) unchanged poles, warmer equator (your hypothesis)
2) cooler poles, warmer equator
3) cooler poles, unchanged equator

(3) is the correct answer. The equatorial air masses are unchanged, but the poles, especially this northern winter, are colder, thus the more active polar front and associated mid-latitude storms. Here in Australia, we know what the equatorial zone temperatures are (eg. Darwin) and there has been no change.

Since the greenhouse scenario has the poles warming more than anywhere else, the gradient should be slackening (fewer and less severe storms), not steepening. But if you refer to the satellite temperatures ( http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif ) you will see that the earth is presently in a cooler phase, and it is in this cooler phase that storm intensity has been greater. Ergo, storm severity is a product of global cooling, not warming.

As to feedback effects from ice, Artic sea ice extent is reported to be much more extensive this winter, especially around Alaska. The recent claims of Arctic sea ice thinning were based on studies which compared the 1960s (a particularly cold period in the Arctic according to station records) with the 1990s (a more normal period). See my article on this at http://www.john-daly.com/thin-ice.htm

If we instead compare the ice thickness of the 1930s with that of today, what would we find? We do not have the data to know, but since the 1930s was even warmer in the Arctic than now, it is a reasonable inference that sea ice would have been even thinner then. Using proxy studies to compare any known low point unfavourably with another, more normal, or even anomalously high point (eg. 1998) is a very questionable statistical practice.

Regards    John Daly

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 08:51:05 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>

Dear John:

In a recent email to Steve Hemphill you observed that;

"The more severe storms are certainly a consequence of a steepened temperature gradient between equatorial air masses and polar masses. But such a steepened gradient can occur one of three ways -

1) unchanged poles, warmer equator (your hypothesis)
2) cooler poles, warmer equator
3) cooler poles, unchanged equator

(3) is the correct answer. The equatorial air masses are unchanged, but the poles, especially this northern winter, are colder, thus the more active polar front and associated mid-latitude storms. Here in Australia, we know what the equatorial zone temperatures are (eg. Darwin) and there has been no change."

I agree, and I am surprised that you made no reference to the recent discussion concerning the 'Ramanathan/Collins effect' betweem Mike MacCracken and myself. This effect prevents equatorial sea surface temperature rising above 305 K. Most of the equatorial region is ocean, and the temperatures of equatorial air and sea surface are coupled. Hence, regions over or near oceans (e.g. Darwin) will not experience warming induced by greenhouse gases.

So, not only have the equatorial zone temperatures not risen, they will not rise and they cannot rise except over continental land. This is the reason that your point "(3) is the correct answer".

All the best       Richard

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:12:10 +0200
From: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>
To: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>, "Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>

Dear Vincent,

The claim that the Soviet system of providing more fuel from central stores during cold temperatures may have distorted the long-term temperature record for Siberia is, of course, only a hypothesis. It is possible that the influence is minute, but it should be taken into account in the discussion anyway. The Russian researcher with whom I have talked personally about the Russian records lives in the West, but due to the fact that he escaped before 1990 and still have some troubles because of that, I will not mention his name on the net. Now I cannot remember exactly how the discussion started, It is possible that I had read the theory somewhere before (from Daly?) and told him in the first place. But he agreed, and he confirmed the fact that the more fuel was given if the local station reported low temperatures. He told me a lot more too about the scientific life under Brezhnev too that do not belong to this discussion. His opinion was anyway that historical temperature data from Russian civil stations are not reliable enough to be used for GW records. The same can be seen from the Daly website. The Russian military- and space sector may have better numbers, but I no not think this information is generally available, or ?

regards, Jarl

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:08:11 -0700
From: Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>
To: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>, "Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>

Folks,

I'm finding these exchanges fascinating and invaluable as critical input. As a small contribution, consider the attachment. It is a graph of global temperatures with and without the russian records (1950-present). For those who can't open this, what you see is two nearly identical plots shifted by 0.1-0.2°C. The trend lines thru the two from 1980 to present are essentially the same. I suppose there are several interpretations for this, but what I see is that the Russian records give us an increased temperature that is considerable, but no change in warming. Finally, if you compare the record with the Russian measurements taken out with the satellite record (MSU 2LT), you get the strange situation that the satellite temperatures are always higher than the surface and at times by nearly 0.4°C!!??

Regards,

Charles. "Chick" F. Keller,
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics/University of California
Mail Stop MS C-305
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87545 cfk@lanl.gov
Phone: (505) 667-0920       FAX: (505) 665-3107
http://www.igpp.lanl.gov/climate.html

Subject:sensitivity history
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:51:33 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Organization: Earth
To: COURTNEY <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

So, let me see if I follow your logic here. You agree there has been arctic warming over the last 30 years, then say the increased storms are the result of arctic cooling. You also say that 60 years ago the poles were as warm as they are now.

I'm just trying to get your story straight.

Steve

Subject: Arctic Ice thinning, Proxies, and Lonnie Thompson's ice cores
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:32:13 -0700
From: Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>

John,

I'm a little slow this moring. I'm not sure what your point is below. You say that the reason sea ice has thinned since 1960 (or more distant times) is because it has warmed up since then. I thought that was the point--it's warming up. What am I missing here?

And, as to using proxy studies to substantiate/contradict observed temperatures, that seems to depend on how representative they are. It seems to me that the evidence from a wide variety of proxy studies worldwide is that there has been significant warming in the last 50 years. On the other hand, there are some interesting proxy studies that show the opposite (how about the Equatorial African Lake you showed us last week as such an example?), and so I tend to take them all into consideration as long as they seem accurately determined and representative.

Along this line, I have been following Lonnie Thompson's ice coring program in high altitude places in South America (and elsewhere). He has made the point that attempts to revisit some of the coring sites from the mid 1980's are being thwarted because the ice has melted drastically. It occurred to me that, if this ice is melting so much now after only a few years, how much might it have melted during the posited several hundred year Medieval Warming Period? The fact alone, that Lonnie has ice cores from that time period, seems to say the MWE wasn't very evident at those locations.

Along those lines, it seems we all would like to see a more comprehensive determination of global temperatures in the past 2,000 years including as much data as possible. Many have been concerned that Jones et al (Holocene 1998) and Mann et al (GRL 1999) haven't included enough records (neither sees a very pronounced global MWE which is curious since the records should have seen something). I wonder that someone else hasn't tried to do more. Perhaps it's coming but is difficult to assign accuracy to.

Regards, Chick Keller

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:17:36 +1100
From: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>, Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>

Dear Steve and Chick

Steve Hemphill wrote:

So, let me see if I follow your logic here. You agree there has been arctic warming over the last 30 years, then say the increased storms are the result of arctic cooling. You also say that 60 years ago the poles were as warm as they are now. I'm just trying to get your story straight.

This is all to do with timescales. The Arctic `warming' I referred to was a claim made in respect to Arctic sea ice when submarine measurements of the depth of the sea ice was compared between the 1960s (a known cold period) with the early 1990s (a known warm period).

This winter (1999-2000) the Arctic has been colder, thus steepening the temperature gradient, giving us stronger storms.

60 years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now, based on instrumental records, so the `story' is -

1) 1930's the Arctic is at its warmest this century
2) 1960's the Arctic becomes very cold
3) 1990's the Arctic becomes warm again (though not as warm as the 1930s)
4) 1999-2000 the Arctic is colder again.

Chick Keller said:

I'm not sure what your point is below. You say that the reason sea ice has thinned since 1960 (or more distant times) is because it has warmed up since then. I thought that was the point--it's warming up. What am I missing here?

The submarine surveys were done during phases (2) and (3), thus picking up only the warm upswing phase of a longer neutral cycle. Lots of proxy studies do that, and it's a misleading practice. It's the same principle involved when some scientist somewhere claimed the world was warmer now than any time in the last 600 years. Not difficult to prove, considering that 600 years ago we had the Little Ice Age. Now if he had said the last 1,000 years .....

So, yes, there was warming between (2) and (3), which we knew already from recorded temperatures without the need for submarines. However, there is no reason to believe that such an upswing phase in a longer variable cycle is anything but natural variability, possibly with contributions from the sun. It would be incorrect to attribute the 1960s-1990s upswing from a known low point in the cycle as greenhouse induced for the simple reason that Greenhouse had minimal effect during the 1930s when the warmth was at its greatest in the Arctic.

So, there's "it's warming up" and there's "it's warming up". A long-term warming produced by greenhouse gases is one thing. An upswing phases in a natural climate cycle is something else. Every upswing has its matching downswing, just like a sine wave. To attribute the warming half of such cycles to `global warming' and to attribute the cooling half to `natural variability' is misleading to the public and imposes an anthropocentric bias on how we interpret natural cycles. Proxy studies do that with monotonous regularity.

I even saw one press release from a scientific institution around 1996 claim that there was a strong warming between 1992 and 1996, implying of course that man and his greenhouse gases was to blame. The fact that the earth was in its recovery phase from Pinatubo didn't deter these people from implying there was something sinister about it. Such things all point to politics in command of this issue, not science.

Regards     John Daly

Subject: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:32:59 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Organization: Earth
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>

So you're saying the 1930's were as warm as the 1990's?

There's been an interesting competition every year in Nenana, Alaska. The Tanana river is the subject of a lottery of sorts. They've been keeping track of the date the river ice breaks up since 1917. You get a guess for 2 bucks: http://www.ptialaska.net/~tripod/breakup.times.html

I plotted the 11 year averages, and the 1930's were nowhere near as early as the 1990's.

What evidence do you have that the 1930's were as warm as the 1990's? Everything I've seen points to a pretty constant temperature until W.W.II, then a little cooling until after the test ban treaty when we stopped throwing millions of tons of atomized dirt (no pun intended) into the stratosphere. Since then we've way surpassed the 1930's in warmth according to everything I've seen.

Also, how do you explain the Larsen ice shelf breakup?

Steve

Subject: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:56:02 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Steve Hemphill wrote:

So you're saying the 1930's were as warm as the 1990's?

No, I said the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s. Just as in the USA itself.

There's been an interesting competition every year in Nenana, Alaska. The Tanana river is the subject of a lottery of sorts. They've been keeping track of the date the river ice breaks up since 1917. You get a guess for 2 bucks: http://www.ptialaska.net/~tripod/breakup.times.html

I plotted the 11 year averages, and the 1930's were nowhere near as early as the 1990's.

The 1999 winter ice breakup on the Tanana River, Nenana, Alaska occurred at 9.47 pm 29th April. The record for the earliest ice breakup (ie. warmest event) was not set recently, but set 9 days earlier - in 1940

Your graph showing 11-year averages is distorting the picture as the 1940 record does not show up. Averaging like that inevitably mangles the true picture. Remember also that the Tanana River at Nenana is downstream from Fairbanks, a growing city. This will result in urban heating of the river. The Nenana Ice Classic is a nice one for a little gamble once a year, but meaningless as an indicator of climate change due to the heating of the river by Fairbanks.

What evidence do you have that the 1930's were as warm as the 1990's? Everything I've seen points to a pretty constant temperature until W.W.II, then a little cooling until after the test ban treaty when we stopped throwing millions of tons of atomized dirt (no pun intended) into the stratosphere. Since then we've way surpassed the 1930's in warmth according to everything I've seen.

See attached graphs for Akureyri, Northern Iceland, and Jan Mayen Island. The 1930s were the consistently warmest period.

Also, how do you explain the Larsen ice shelf breakup?

That's because the Antarctic Peninsula (2% of the Antarctic) has warmed in recent decades by 1 or 2°C. The rest of the coastal Antarctic has not warmed at all, while the interior has actually cooled. Sea ice around the Antarctic has increased 1.3% per decade since the mid 1970s (acc. to GISS), leaving the Larsen Ice Shelf (the most northerly of all the ice shelves putting it in the warmest latitudes of any ice shelf anywhere in the world. Larsen `A' was even outside the Antarctic Circle) as a strictly local event, not indicative of anything global. There is also a local circulation of water clockwise around the Weddell Sea stressing the Shelf even further. There has been an ongoing shrinkage of shelf ice around the Antarctic ever since the end of the ice age, a process still ongoing and unrelated to recent transient trends in climate. Since the Larsen Shelf is at the 60s south latitude, it is clearly in warmer latitudes than the rest of the Antarctic and is thus subject to much greater stress.

Your question though implies an evident `warming' bias. There are warming anomalies all over the world. There are cooling anomalies all over the world. By directing challenging questions only at the warming anomalies, you imply they are part of some global trend. But I see no challenging questions about the cooling anomalies (other than from the skeptics). These are passed off as natural variability or `just one of those things', the same interpretation being denied to any of the warming anomalies. They have the finger pointed at them just for being warming events, even when they have perfectly explainable causes.

I have asked for explanation as to why the South Pole has cooled even though the models predict large warmings there - but no real answer as yet. I have answered your Larsen Ice Shelf question - perhaps you can answer the South Pole question?

Regards     John Daly

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:36:28 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Dear Steve:

I do not agree that there has been polar warming over the last 30 years. I don't understand how you obtained that idea when I agreed the statement of John Daly (and you quoted my agreement) that; "The equatorial air masses are unchanged, but the poles, especially this northern winter, are colder ..."

Also, I did not say that 60 years ago the poles were as warm as they are now. In fact the Arctic basin temperature was much warmer 60 years ago than now. In the period 1950 to 1990 the Arctic Basin winter temperature cooled by 4.40 K and Autumn temperature cooled by 4.99 K with no significant change in spring and summer temperatures (ref. Khal JD et al., Nature 361, 335-337 (1993) ).

I enjoy people arguing with what I say because that way I learn, but it is not reasonable to widely circulate that I said the precise opposite of what I did.

All the best      Richard

Subject: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:28:28 +0100
From: "Volz, Dr. Hartwig" <Hartwig.Volz@rwedea.de>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>, Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Hello everybody,

having followed this interesting discussion for some time now, I would like to bring two aspects to your attention which may not have been sufficiently considered, i.e. some tentative quantification of the "urban heat effect" and some tentative quantification of "arctic warming or cooling".

Urban heat effect

Some days ago I read in a book on climatology that the average energy input by consumption of commercial energy within Germany would amount to approximately 1.6 W/m². Because I could not believe in such a large number, I checked the calculation. Here it is.

Germany is a comparatively small and densely populated area with 82 million habitants and 357,000 square kilometers (3.57*10^11 m²). In 1997 commercial energy consumption amounted to 497 million "hard coal equivalents". Conversion factor: 1 million hard coal equivalent = 29.3 peta Joule (2.93*10^16 J). So German annual energy consumption amounted to 497 * 2.93*10^16 = 1.46*10^19 J/a. Consumption per sec: 1.46*10^19 / (365*24*60*60) = 4.62*10^11 J/s (= W). Divided by the area of Germany gives the average energy input: 4.62*10^11 / 3.57*10^11 = *1.29 W/m²*. In comparison: The best estimate CO2 anthropogenic forcing from pre-industrial time until today (F = 5.35*ln(c/co)) amounts to 5.35*ln(370/280) = *1.49 W/m²*. The conclusion is obvious: from a point of view of reliable temperature recording with regard to radiative forcing sensitivity the entire region is "contaminated" on average, let alone regions close to larger cities. This quantification also supports the argument below, connecting the winter ice break up of the Tanana river with the growing of the neighbouring city Fairbanks.

Just for fun an additional quantification: a human body generates 120 W on average. German population distributed evenly over Germany would generate close to 0.03 W/m². Obviously in a densely populated area this value may easily amount to several W/m² of body heat alone.

Arctic warming or cooling

As some of you know, I calculate natural as well as anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcings with the aid of infrared emission spectra from earth, measured in 1970/71, when atmospheric CO2-concentration amounted to round about 321ppm. This graph illustrates some spectra.

In these spectra from polar regions as well as from Africa the CO2 radiative forcing value is the area (integral) of the trapezoid around 660 cm^-1. Qualitatively one recognises immediately that the radiative forcing values over Africa are very much larger than those over polar regions. For a quantitative analysis of the spectra the modified Schwarzschild equation (a modified radiative transfer equation) is needed, shortly discussed recently ( http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000.htm#Volz1 , together with some basic understanding in spectroscopy and the knowledge of the atmospheric lapse rate. Actually, with some experience, the ground temperature, tropopause temperature ,atmospheric lapse rate and, to a certain degree, stratospheric temperature increase all can directly be read from the spectra (or, naturally, could be calculated from the spectra; but this is not an easy task with a PC). Without going in too much detail, the following is obvious, at least for somebody with the knowledge outlined above: when atmospheric CO2-content increases, e.g. by anthropogenic emission, the base lines of the trapezoid will become broader, from which results an additional anthropogenic radiative forcing. The following graph quantifies the 1971-radiative-CO2-forcing and an additional 2*CO2-anthropogenic forcing, both as a function of ground temperature (blue sky conditions, dry atmosphere). The tropopause temperature is assumed to remain constant at 215 K, a value which is consistently read from the spectra and which is also close to the one assumed globally on average ( round about 210 K). For this calculation the Schwarzschild equation has to be applied. In a wet atmosphere or with partial cloudiness the forcing values would become smaller.

Obviously the point of all this is the following: in warm regions (close to the tropics) the natural and anthropogenic forcings are large; so are the water and ozone forcings as read from the spectra. Under polar conditions - low to very low ground temperatures, but not that much different atmospheric temperatures - all forcings become very small indeed (cf. also spectrapolarafrica.gif; e.g. in spectrum 12d the forcings become even negative, because the air in the falling polar whirl is warmer than the ground). Based on the anthropogenic forcings I calculate on a pure energy-balance-basis (guess-culate for cloud coverage) a 2*CO2 temperature rise of round about 1 to 1.5 K in the tropics, but only 0.5 K or even less in polar areas, water feed-back included (too complex to explain today how this is done).

Anyhow, my conclusion: to me strong polar warming by increase in greenhouse gases is a myth (have a final look at the polar infrared emission spectra; where could a strong anthropogenic forcing show up in these spectra?). My suspicion, but not my knowledge: the GCM's may use some wrong or very imprecise mathematical code, at least for polar regions. Based on my analysis, the alleged strong polar warming is totally incomprehensible.

regards    Hartwig Volz

Subject: TAR-2000 Review- Arctic Sea Ice
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:31:38 -1000
From: George Birchard <gfb@aloha.net>
To: daly@vision.net.au

You said "As to feedback effects from ice, Arctic sea ice extent is reported to be much more extensive this winter, especially around Alaska." In the early winter extensive sea ice formed in shallow shelf water in the Bering Sea. I do not dispute reports that ice covered a much larger area than seen for many years. I would like to know if salinity was lower than normal in the Bering Sea. Did low salinity melt water enter the Bering Sea from the Arctic last summer? If so, sea ice in the Bering sea is not necessarily indicative of cooling.

A closer look reveals that a substantial reduction in sea ice has occurred in the Barents Sea this winter compared to last. http://polar.wwb.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html#shmap It appears that warm saline water from the North Atlantic has moved into the Arctic. The increase in intensity of storms in the North Atlantic and Arctic may be attributed to the stronger temperature gradient between warmer, more saline, sea water and the relatively unchanged cold air coming off of Greenland and the ice covered Arctic. The increased thermohaline circulation, not global changes in temperature gradients, affected the intensity of North Atlantic storms. Based upon wave heights here in Hawaii, there has been reduced storminess in the central Pacific this winter. It appears to be related to the ongoing La Nina and enhanced Walker circulation.

I come to this site as a skeptic. I am extremely skeptical about the use of numerical models to make climate projections. Before making projections, it is most helpful to understand the present. Moreover, the failure of numerical models to "predict" conditions in the past, such as the warm, wet and benign climate of the Pliocene casts doubt on their predictive value. http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of99-535/ The models appear to be unable to handle moisture. When I look climates of the geologically recent past, the Pliocene looks a lot more inviting than the Pleistocene. I think that based upon geological evidence, a return to full glacial Pleistocene conditions is the worst case scenario.

I welcome this web page as a place of open discussion. I would suggest that impugning the motives of those with different opinions is not enlightening. It discourages open discussion. However humorous it might be, the joke about Mr. Gore is not accurate. No politician has the power to stand in the way of big U.S. economic interests, especially Mr. Gore. You need not fear a sudden collapse in the global economy because of global warming politics. Improved technology and the rapidly increasing cost of oil will make improvements in energy efficiency an economic benefit. Belching smokestacks, such as are found today in China, are a sign of poverty, not wealth. Mr. Gore, like Mr. Clinton, is concerned about the U.S. economy and is proposing environmental measures that will not jeopardize U.S. wealth. The voters here are much more concerned about their wallets than the weather.

Regards, George Birchard

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:46:08 +1300
From: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>
To: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>, "S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>, "Chick Keller" <cfk@lanl.gov>

Chick & Co

I have been unable to open this file, so I am not sure what it shows. However, I have the following comments.

There are two issues regarding the Russian temperatures

1. the rise from 1901 to 1998, as displayed in Figure 2.10a of the TAR, which shows an increase of 1.23°C over the whole of the former Union/Russian Empire, with a huge gap in central Siberia

2. The rise from 1976 to 1998, as displayed in Figure 2.10d of the TAR, which shows an increase of about 1.0°C in Northern Siberia.

Only the second rise can be compared with MSU measurements.When this is done, as in my paper, the MSU reading shows no rise whatsoever.

The graph I cannot download would appear to cover the whole of "Russia", including the urban centres in the East and in South Siberia which will confuse the issue. It is the wholly rural region of North Siberia we are conserned with.

The Peterson/Lawrimore study fails by including whole regions (such as Northern Siberia and Northern Europe) which are entireley "rural", but which display higher-than-average temperature increases. They have superposed on an urban/rural comparison an inter-regional comparison which has an opposite tendency, thus apparently eliminating "urban warming"

I have argued that the high temperature rises in Northern Siberia and Northern Europe, which are invisible to the MSU, must be due to some local effect, such as local heating. Balling/Michaels and Trenberth insist that there was a real climate change from 1976 to 1998 in Northern Siberia. This may let the local met scientists off the hook, but it does not alter the argumant that if you want to compare urban and rural temperature readings you should confine yourself to those regions which have approximately the same proportion of both. The inclusion of regions which are exclusively rural introduces a regional bias.

The MSU record from 1979 to 1999, as published in the NRC Report, is in black and white in my copy, so I am not sure of the colours, but I believe that it does show a temperature rise in Siberia, but in Central and Eastern Siberia, not Central Northern Siberia. Chick might argue that this is an example of "decoupling". The MSU also shows a temperature rise in the North Atlantic, but not Northern Europe. ? also "decoupling? But the MSU shows a fall over the South Indian and Atlantic oceans, in agreement with the surface record. So it only decouples when necessary to settle arguments.

Regards      Vincent Gray

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:50:32 -0700
From: Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>
To: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>

Vincent,

Interesting points--lots to think about. I apologize for the attachment that is hard to open. I have asked by attachment opener person to put it into a more common format and will forward it.

Also, I will check to see what part of Russia it covers. As to "coupling" of the surface to the troposphere, I will ask around about that too, but I think I'm hearing that coupling over oceans seems to work and coupling over land is a sometime thing. Also, coupling in the tropics seems to be more common than in the subtropics. To resolve some of this confusion I think I'll ask my friends at NCDC to read Vincent's paper (are you submitting it for publication?) and to comment on the ins and outs of selecting representative regions both rural and urban.

Finally, regarding related issues, I call attention to the Jan 27 issue of Nature, which has a fascinating article by Wenz and Schabel intercomparing three satellite records--MSU, AVHRR, and Water Vapor. Their findings both in the matter of trends and of constancy of relative humidity with height ought to cause some discussion.

Regards,     Chick & Co

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:38:45 +1300
From: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>
To: "Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>, "S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>, "Chick Keller" <cfk@lanl.gov>

Chick & Co

This is a bit thick and fast. Wildgruber's Inbox couldn't take it

My paper is on Daly's website at

http://www.john-daly.com/graytemp/surftemp.htm

I hawked earlier versions around "Climate Research" and "Geophysical Research Letters", but to no avail, but NCDC have probably read it. I sent it to the IPCC as backing for my comments, and was surprised to learn yesterday that they have read it.

The possibility of "loose coupling" being confined to the land is awfully convenient, but I would point out that the MSU finds a maximum temperature increase of only 0.5°C, whereas the surface went up 2.0°C in Northern Siberia.

Vincent Gray

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:45:13 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Organization: Earth
To: COURTNEY <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

Dear Courtney,

I certainly apologize for believing you thought the arctic had warmed over the last 30 years. I think I now understand you believe the arctic has not, in fact, warmed over that time period.

However, do you believe that even if some "magic" high temperature has been reached AT the equator, some distance from the equator it could be warming, being below your "upper limit"?

I believe your "upper limit" ignores flow path lengths and resistance to flow, as well as differences in viscosity with temperature.

Steve

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:25:27 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Dear Hemphill:

There is nothing "magic" about the maximum limit to sea surface temperature (SST) of 305 K. It is set by an observed physical mechanism, and I provided full references to this in my circulated email to Mike MacCracken on 10 February 2000.

Also, I see no evidence that temperatures have ever risen to be near 305 K at large distances from the equator. Of course a limit value does not constrain temperatures below that limit.

I am flattered that you think the limit on SST is "mine", but it is not. It is the upper limit imposed by a physical mechanism that was first observed and explained by Ramanathan and Collins.

Scientists change their models when the models don't agree with the real world. You say; "I believe your "upper limit" ignores flow path lengths and resistance to flow, as well as differences in viscosity with temperature." I think your belief is a good example of the present fault in climate science. The world is as it is observed to be, but you say you believe the world must be different because your model says so.

Richard

Subject: Russian Temperatures
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:14:59 +1300
From: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>

Correction, folks.

The temperature rise over Northern Siberia 1976-1998 was 1°C PER DECADE. So, actual rise was 2°C

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:43:03 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: COURTNEY <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

Dear Courtney,

I'm using the definition of "believe" as interchangeable with "think". I also believe if I jump off a high cliff it will hurt when I land. I also believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also believe in fluid dynamics, and that it takes heat to melt ice.

I don't think you understand my statement. As a first order assumption it is not necessary for the temperature to rise above 305 K. It is only necessary for the band approaching 305 K to widen in latitude. Then we have an increased gradient between the poles and this imposed limit.

Do you not agree with that statement?

I think the physical mechanism of a 305 K maximum would depend on the gradient within the equatorial reach, and we would see a minor increase under conditions of warming, but to make the statement "305 K is a limit" is untenable.

Sincerely, Steve

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:19:36 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Dear Hemphill:

You ask me if I agree with your statement that: "As a first order assumption it is not necessary for the temperature to rise above 305 K. It is only necessary for the band approaching 305 K to widen in latitude. Then we have an increased gradient between the poles and this imposed limit." I write to confirm that I do agree your above statement.

Having said that, I do not understand the relevance of the above statement to our discussion. You wrote to object to my agreeing that John Daly's interpretation of changed equator-to-pole-temperature-gradient was a result of "cooler poles, unchanged equator". I had observed that the Ramanathan/Collins effect ensures that equatorial temperature can not rise because it has a maximum limit value of 305 K, and I had said this limit value explains why "cooler poles, unchanged equator" must be the reason for the changed temperature gradient. Then, you wrote saying of me that, "[I] agree there has been arctic warming over the last 30 years, then say the increased storms are the result of arctic cooling." I responded by pointing out that I had not agreed any such thing and I cited the findings of large Arctic cooling by Khal et al..

Please note that Khal et al. analysed more than 27,000 temperature profiles that were obtained by US and Soviet military from over the entire Arctic region during the Cold War period 1950 to 1990. No such detailed polar temperature measurements are available from before 1950 nor after 1990 (the military stopped the work with the end of the Cold War). The analyses of Khal et al. determined cooling trends at the Arctic surface of 4.40 K in winter and 4.99 K in autumn throughout the period from 1950 to 1990. These findings are significant at the 95% confidence level. They found no significant trends in the summer and spring temperaturers.

So, Ramanathan and Collins have determined that equatorial sea surface temperature is limited to a maximum of 305 K, and Khal et al. have determined that Arctic temperature has cooled by an amount of more than 2 K (more than 4.40/2 K as whole-year average). This will have increased the temperature gradient between the equator and the Arctic by more than 2 K. Knowing this, I can see no reason to postulate that the "band approaching 305 K" has "widened in latitude".

Also, I do not understand the relevance of your references to jumping off cliffs, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and fluid dynamics. Failing to understand their relevance, I cannot make an appropriate response to them.

Yours sincerely    Richard

Subject: Mechanism for max SST at 305 °K
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:13:38 -0700
From: Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>
To: Richard Courtney, Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Dear Richard and Folks,

As one who was involved in Ramanathan's CEPEX Pacific Project and following (IGPP at Los Alamos hosted the last CEPEX wrapup workshop, and the Los Alamos lidars measured water vapor and aerosols across the equatorial pacific during that exercise), and who has followed this effort more recently, I feel the need to point out that, while Ram and his excellent team have worked long and hard on this problem, his mechanism is by no means universally accepted, although it has provoked much innovative thought and work to determine precisely what is going on. My own, simple-minded mechanism is that for SST's above about 301°K the atmosphere/ocean system is ripe for generating deep convective instability (a very effective cooling mechanism) which happens immediately as any local convergence occurs. Thus, it is rare that SST's can rise much above such levels, and 305 seems to be the observed statistical limit. There are most probably other additional mechanisms of which Ram's is a strong candidate, such as deepening of the thermocline, increased radiative cooling, etc. The limit seems clear, the mechanisms seem very complex.

Regards, Chick Keller

Subject: More on Global Warming
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:33:45 -0800
From: "Wroblewski, Julius A" <JWroblewski@providencehealth.bc.ca>
To: daly@vision.net.au

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for this most interesting web site concerning the global warming debate.

If I may, I would like to throw in two points of discussion about recent alleged bits of evidence for global warming that should be addressed. Maybe these are even good for an entry on to your site. Let me know. Anyway, these are the points:

-A recent news item (quoted today in the Drudge Report {www.drudgereport.com}) claimed that rising sea levels are threatening the island nation of Tuvalu with ever rising tides. Has this been verified? Have similarly low lying populated areas (they must exist!) been similarily effected? Has the Tuvalu area been proven to be geologically stable (ie. not gradually subdiding)? Surely this must be checked out.

-Much is being made of recent coral die off as proof of warming sea waters. Has this phenomenon been shown to be wide spread enough in a pattern consistent with this effect? Has there been a study of the history of the coral to determine if cyclical die offs have or haven't occured in the past?

-J. Wroblewski Vancouver, BC Canada

Subject: Manna
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:55:46 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: COURTNEY <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

Dear Courtney,

You don't believe CO2 being a greenhouse gas is relevant to this discussion?

However, I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, and I believe it's not only a greenhouse gas but that Carbon is our Manna as well. To "sequester" (waste) it could be the most ridiculous idea modern man has come up with yet. While not arguing cause and effect, history has shown its level to correlate with warmth and greenery.

Steve

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:54:31 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Franz Gerl <A.F.Gerl@t-online.de>
To: COURTNEY <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

Dear Richard,

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, you wrote:

Also, I did not say that 60 years ago the poles were as warm as they are now. In fact the Arctic basin temperature was much warmer 60 years ago than now. In the period 1950 to 1990 the Arctic Basin winter temperature cooled by 4.40 K and Autumn temperature cooled by 4.99 K with no significant change in spring and summer temperatures (ref. Khal JD et al., Nature 361, 335-337 (1993) ).

A short look at the paper itself shows that this is a very sloppy citation The temperature values you quote are for the Western Arctic Ocean Surface. If you exclude the land based stations (which are showing warming) restrict yourself to the surface (radiosondes are showing mostly warming even over the WAO) you will find a place where ocean heat transfer is the most important variable, which may then show cooling at times.

I have no idea how the meaning of the paper could be changed into anything similar to what you wrote above.

Franz

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:36:17 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: Franz Gerl <gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE>

Dear Franz:

I did not make "a very sloppy citation". The paper is titled "Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years" and is by Kahl JD et al. (Nature 361, 335-337 (1993) ).

Its synopsis says;

"Most of the trends are not statistically significant. In particular, we do not see observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn."

Table 1 of the paper (page 335) lists "Temperature trends over central and western Arctic Ocean" over the Central Arctic Ocean and the Western Arctic Ocean at the surface, 850 hPa, 700 hPa, and the 850-700 hPa layer for each of the four seasons. This provides 32 trend measurements. The trends significant at 95% confidence are marked in bold type. Only 7 of these 32 trend measurements are significant at 95% confidence and only two of these are from the surface. They indicate that the Western Arctic Ocean cooled by 4.40 K in Winter and 4.99 K in Autumn.

You are not being reasonable when you cite the land based stations as "showing warming" because the trends you cite are not statistically significant. And, if it were reasonable to include these not significant data, then the overall trend would still be strong surface cooling. The surface data in the paper's Table 1 are as follows:

Central Arctic Ocean winter trend +0.81 K (not a statistically significant trend)
Central Arctic Ocean spring trend +0.02 K (not a statistically significant trend)
Central Arctic Ocean summer trend +0.41 K (not a statistically significant trend)
Central Arctic Ocean autumn trend -2.50 K (not a statistically significant trend)
Western Arctic Ocean winter trend -4.40 K (SIGNIFICANT AT 95% CONFIDENCE)
Western Arctic Ocean spring trend +1.56 K (not a statistically significant trend)
Western Arctic Ocean summer trend -0.23 K (not a statistically significant trend)
Western Arctic Ocean autumn trend -4.99 K (SIGNIFICANT AT 95% CONFIDENCE)

Hence, I consider my statements (that you dispute) to be an accurate report of the findings of Kahl et al.. I have provided the reference and, therefore, others can judge this for themselves.

All the best     Richard

Subject: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:48:40 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: daly@vision.net.au

Dear John,

Your statements don't match the data, or the data is missing from your arguments.

You said:

No, I said the 1930s were *warmer* than the 1990s. Just as in the USA > itself. On what records do you base these statements?

Also, as far as the Tanana River breakup, the average date for the 30's was May 5th, the average date for the 90's was April 29th. That's 6 days earlier for the 90's vs. the 30's. Do you really think the growth of Fairbanks has caused the breakup to accelerate by 6 days, from 50 miles upriver? What is the proportional flow of the Tanana from Fairbanks to Nenana? What is the difference in temperature of the Tanana upstream and downstream of Fairbanks?

And you neglected to mention the breakup in 1940 was, in fact, only an hour and a half earlier than 1998.

Before I can even think about explaining your "cooling in the Antarctic" I'm afraid you need to identify exactly which records you're referring to. I hope you're not going to refer to the dogma of atmospheric cooling. I've explained that before.

Steve

Subject: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:48:17 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>

Dear Steve

Steve Hemphill wrote:

Your statements don't match the data, or the data is missing from your arguments.

You said:

No, I said the 1930s were *warmer* than the 1990s. Just as in the USA itself.

On what records do you base these statements?

It seems everything I write and everything everyone else is writing is being simply ignored or bypassed by you. In my last messages, I twice provided temperature graphs from weather stations within the Arctic Circle (Jan Mayen and Akureyri). I give you the records and then you ask me what records I base the statements on. ??

Also, as far as the Tanana River breakup, the average date for the 30's was May 5th, the average date for the 90's was April 29th. That's 6 days earlier for the 90's vs. the 30's. Do you really think the growth of Fairbanks has caused the breakup to accelerate by 6 days, from 50 miles upriver? What is the proportional flow of the Tanana from Fairbanks to Nenana? What is the difference in temperature of the Tanana upstream and downstream of Fairbanks?

The quantities you ask for matter little. The fact that Fairbanks is upstream, dumping warmer water into the river means there will be a warming - how much is unknown (unknown to me at least), but the fact that such warming must exist is self-evident, given that Fairbanks has grown. That being the case, the date of the Nenana circus has no bearing on climate change whatever.

And you neglected to mention the breakup in 1940 was, in fact, only an hour and a half earlier than 1998.

60 years ago before the additional warming of the river from Fairbanks. That must have been cold indeed. The warming lobby are always pointing to this or that recent `record' as being somehow significant for global warming. But records which do not support warming are brushed aside (that bias filter again). Well, the Nenana record stands. 1940 was the record early date for the Nenana breakup, the lack of artificial warmth from Fairbanks making that early breakup all the more remarkable.

Before I can even think about explaining your "cooling in the Antarctic" I'm afraid you need to identify exactly which records you're referring to. I hope you're not going to refer to the dogma of atmospheric cooling. I've explained that before.

And I have explained several times before that instrumental records from the South Pole and Vostok show this cooling. Most of the coastal records show a completely neutral trend. Vostok is linked from my main page at present, while the south pole can be viewed at http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif This is about the third or fourth time that I have specified these stations, and yet you still ask what records I am referring to??

I said in my previous message:

I have asked for explanation as to why the South Pole has cooled even though the models predict large warmings there - but no real answer as yet. I have answered your Larsen Ice Shelf question - perhaps you can answer the South Pole question?

You are out of questions as you are making no attempt to provide meaningful answers to questions put to you. I don't mind fielding the hard questions as long as the person pointing the accusing finger at each and every proxy around is also prepared to field some hard questions of their own. So far, you seem unprepared to tackle anything other than shift the agenda to another target proxy every time you draw a blank.

John D.

Subject: sensitivity history
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:39:55 +0100
From: A.F.Gerl@t-online.de (A.F.Gerl)
To: daly@vision.net.au

Dear Richard,

yes its for the readers to decide whether you accurately reported the findings of Kahl et al. In your first e-mail to Steve you quote the surface trend of a part of the record as the value for the entire Arctic Basin, in your next message it becomes the "entire Arctic region".

Of the seven trends judged significant you exclusively cite the two negative ones, even though you usually consider tropospheric temperatures as the most important.

You wrote:

You are not being reasonable when you cite the land based stations as "showing warming" because the trends you cite are not statistically significant. And, if it were reasonable to include these not significant data, then the overall trend would still be strong surface cooling.

In the paper accelerated surface warming of Arctic land-based wather stations are mentioned in passing, it does not deal with them at all. No trends of the entire Arctic are given.

Surely the signals of the Arctic are mixed when compared with the results of older more primitive models. However the results of the paper fit with the modern view that an increased poleward energy transport by the atmosphere results in a decreased transport of warmth by the oceans. This may even change the parameters for the Tropics.

Greetings, Franz

Subject: Re: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:10:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>

Dear All,

Would you please look at Nature 17February, p.714-14 plus full paper by Huang et al 403, pp756-758. Will anybody weaken in their IPCC science opposition on the basis of this? Variability is up of course, but Overpeck seems to leave no alternative but ghg for observed warming in boreholes, unless you challenge his refs 7-10, which many of you seem to be doing. In my mind, the questions remains of whether continued warming, which is claimed to be in the pipeline, is a net global disaster. Also, not clear to me why policy-makers should look ahead, why not industry alone/people. This appeal to policy-makers is usually followed by research agendas needing funding..as does happen, see last para p.715 'What is required......'

Dr. Sonja.A.Boehmer-Christiansen

Subject: Cooling Arctic???
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:19:05 GMT
From: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk (COURTNEY)
To: "S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen" <S.A.Boehmer-Christiansen@geo.hull.ac.uk>

Dear Sonja:

Please see Figure 4 of the paper you reference (viz. Huang et al., Nature 403, 756-758 (2000) ).

The Figure 4 has three frames that each shows a reconstructed five-century Northern Hemisphere geothermally derived temperature trend. The upper two frames are for the entire Northern Hemisphere and the lower frame is for the Arctic. This lower frame presents data originally from Overpeck et al. (ref. Science 278, 1251-1256 (1997) ).

The frame of Overpeck's Arctic temperatures indicates that the Arctic temperature has fluctuated through a range of about 2°K during the last 500 years. Importantly, the Arctic temperature shows substantial cooling of about 0.5°K during the most recent 50 years when GCMs say greenhouse warming should have provided significant warming to the Arctic region.

As usual, it pays to look at the data.

All the best      Richard

Return to "Still Waiting For Greenhouse" Main Page