greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
hiding the decline.
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.
to publicly release the passphrase.
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
included and what is left out.
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.
the tornadoes group.
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
the site [Real Climate] is about.
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
relations problem with the media
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.
cost of damaged personal relationships
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
all Californian sites.
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[...] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.
skeptics have extreme religious views.
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
tests we’ve applied.
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
doing, but its not helping the cause
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original