Whoo boy… just a few days ago it was argued in a new peer reviewed paper published in Science that climate sensitivity might be lower than the IPCC stated in AR4. Now we have this damning admission from Dr. Tom Wigley of NCAR that it can’t be determined at all from the data we have. Of course they’d never tell anyone publicly such things.
Bold mine. From email 0303.txt
cc: Simon Tett <sfbtett@meto.xxx>
date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:30:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.xxxx>
subject: Re: PRESCIENT: Draft plan — updated
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.xxx>
Keith and Simon (and no-one else),
Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity
(as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word. The whole
point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are
manifestly incorrect. This is *not* mere pedantry. If you can tell me
where or why the above statement is wrong, then please do so.
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims.
Tom
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Dear all ,
> I should first say that I have communicating directly with Simon on a
> few points, but realize that it is better to send these comments to
> everyone. My only feeling now is that we are tinkering too much at the
> margins and have passed the point of diminishing returns for this effort
> some time ago. As long as the plan does not give a false impression of
> exclusion to some of the community , it is time to get it out. The open
> meeting will provide an opportunity for soliciting the full range of
> potential proposals. The SSC will then have to decide on the balance of
> priorities. The plan expresses the rationale of the Thematic Programme well
> enough now.
> In the area of pedantry, however, I do not like the inclusion of the
> statement
> saying that palaeo -data are not likely to be able to inform us directly about
> climate sensitivity . This is a moot point , and even if true , is not needed.
> However, I do feel we need to put a limit on discussion and issue this call
> now.
> At 04:22 PM 6/30/00 +0100, Simon Tett wrote:
> >Dear All,
> > I got some more faxed comments from Tom and have incorporated
> > them into
> >the draft. I attach it for you all to look at.
> >Tom made two comments which I think need to be drawn to your attention.
> >
> >1) The current draft has a tone that suggests that model development and
> >simulations would not be funded by PRESCIENT. I don’t think that was our
> >intention so I’ve added some text which I hope reduces that danger. Some
> >of that added text is ugly! (it was friday after all!) Please let me
> >know what you think!
> >
> >2) Tom also made a comment about paleo-estimates of climate sensitivity
> >– the current text reflects (I hope) his faxed comment. However, I
> >don’t think I agree with it! Comments please.
> >
> >3) The draft contains various comments which I’d appreciate responses on
> >as well.
> >
> >Simon
>
> —
> Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
> Phone: xxxx
>
>
**********************************************************
Tom M.L. Wigley
Senior Scientist
ACACIA Program Director
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
USA
Phone: xxxx
Fax: xxxx
E-mail: wigley@xxxx
Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
**********************************************************
According to MODTRAN, doubling [CO2] only slightly widens its absorption bands.
At the same solar input, a temperature rise of only 0.66 deg C would compensate,
about half of that blue curve above. This is all that the radiation-laws want, not 3-5 degrees.
This is far less than the semiannual forcing by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity, e = 0.0167,
which causes a aphelion-to-perihelion delta T given by eccentricity * mean Temp,
0.167 * 288 = 4.8 deg C……….EIGHT TIMES AS MUCH!!!
So why doesn’t the dread positive feedback run off with this and boil us every January?
Oh, I see, this forcing is too short-term, so the Team can ignore it in the averaging.
Guess again.
During the much-touted last interglacial (Eemian),
warmer and higher sea level,
when eccentricity was 0.037 at 134 kya and 0.044 at 115 kya,
the semiannual forcing was about 12 deg C the entire time.
Perihelion was in late October at 134 kya,
and moved forward through nearly the whole year,
through northern winter to early September at 115 kya.
When the Team trots out their ‘Eemian horror story’,
they conveniently forget that it didn’t get really hot
when perihelion was in January as it is now,
but rather when perihelion had moved into summer,
the total opposite of our situation.
The summer heat probably drove more CO2 out of the Eemian oceans as well,
so the ‘climate sensitivity’ back then could have been higher than now.
A seafloor methane burp would be too short to even show up in the glacier bubbles.
Call us back when perihelion gets back to June, in 10,000 AD.
I’ll also bet that the extreme seasonality was the reason agriculture wasn’t tried back then.
Thus at the peak of the last interglacial we had July perihelion,
so that the 12 deg forcing led to more extreme seasonality.
Crosspatch
Warren Meyer’s diagram was only an illustration which assumed that all of the 20Century warming was due to CO2 and even then sensitivity was way below alarmist predictions.
Warren knows full well that many other factors are involved.
Prescient Weather LTD is owned by a John A. Dutton in State College, PA. Mr. Dutton is the only employee and is a professor Emeritus at Penn State in Meteorology. Mr. Dutton is also on the UCAR advisory committee for NCEP (UCACN).
Interesting web being woven here.
We will be well into the next glacial by then.
Want some fun? Get a load of 4991.txt and 4471.txt (in that order).
Some grad student has Jones a bit shaken!
@Cardin Drake
Would give them a chance at a career change…they could always “Break Bad”.
Thank you, Dr. Watkins. So, I take it, that would be a “all else being equal and given only a change in CO2” sort of scenario.
Roscoe,
Ground-level measurements, even on mountaintops, are affected by all sorts of factors, including; high-level haze, atmospheric pressure/turbulence (pushing the top of the atmosphere higher), aphelion/perihelion, and I’m sure others I wouldn’t know about.
And regarding aphelion/perihelion, anyone wanting to measure it’s effect on climate need only look south.
Hey Crosspatch, I think you found Harry in 4471. Ian Harris. He is referred to as such in 0320.txt:
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0320.txt
We have a new version of this (CRU TS 3.0) that Ian Harris (Harry) is finishing off. It runs from 1900 to 2006.
In this same email, they admit Pielke Sr. has a point:
Arguably, anthropogenic forcings
over land are more spatially heterogeneous than over oceans (e.g., no
changes in land surface properties over oceans!).
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0868.txt
Hi Phil
Sorry to miss you this morning.
Just to let you know that I’ve found several potentially-major
problems with the anomaly program anomdtb, which as far as I know was
used to produce CRU TS 2.1.
There is more, a good read.
AYZ “Of course you can’t quantify climate sensitivity directly, without doubling CO2 and waiting to see what happens” …. And that’s always assuming we could also hold all other things equal.
We don’t have laboratory conditions to isolate cause and effect. And we never will.
There are statistical methods which can tackle this type of problem, but they rely on some pretty strict conditions on the statistical properties of the signal and noise. Equally important, we need to know the values of the properties. These problems multiply if the statistical behavior of climate is time variant.
It’s a safe bet to say that climate data doesn’t fit the bill for those methods. Wigley has a point – sensitivity cannot be measured.
I would go further. Sensitivity lacks a sound theoretical basis in physics. Measurement issues are like counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
It can’t be quantified because it doesn’t exist.
http://drtimball.com/2011/ipcc-climate-claims-falsified-by-2010-record-high-co2-levels/
@ur momisugly crosspatch says:
November 28, 2011 at 2:49 pm
I wonder if Carlos Bustamante is related to Cruz Bustamante? Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Mainstream Dem challenger to Arnold Shwarzeneggar was moving to position himself as the anti-AGW candidate.
Lots to correct here.
first off lets start with harry
“We have a new version of this (CRU TS 3.0) that Ian Harris (Harry) is finishing off. It runs from 1900 to 2006.”
People often talk about the harry readme and assume that the mails are discussing Hadcrut
They dont.
harry read me has nothing to do with HADCRUT. It has to do with CRU TS
if you dont know what CRU TS is do some research. Its an entirely different dataset constructed an entirely different way for entirely different purposes.
harry and his his readme are a diversion from the main story. By focusing on harry you detract attention from the real story
The whole point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are manifestly incorrect
I think you would only say something like that when the rest of your text is shaded, distorted, selective, biased in subtle but academically defensible (and in-defensible) ways, and you just can’t afford to let a real black and white lie get out there to be attacked. Stick with the shades of grey type of lying, and if all of our judgments and errors tip the scale to the same side every time, close your eyes and think of the greater good. For The Cause.
Tucker says:
November 28, 2011 at 2:23 pm
With regard to Prescient- John Dutton was also the cochair of the NOAA Scientific Advisory Board’s Climate Partnership task force. Not weaving anything here– just wondering what was meant by “The current draft has a tone that suggests that model development and
simulations would not be funded by PRESCIENT.”
Interstellar Bill says:
November 28, 2011 at 2:02 pm
“During the much-touted last interglacial (Eemian),”
You’re on it Bill. I have been waiting some time to see how this get handled, if it ever does.
The many issues related to the last 10 or so percent of the Holocene and how the “data” has been bludgeoned to death, while important to this miniscule moment in time, become mere pixie dust compared to what HAS normally happened right at the ends of the other extreme interglacials. Some of the best evidence has been gleaned from many corners of the world for MIS-5e, the best preserved since it is the most recent, and the Bahamas for MIS-11. Realistically MIS-5e scored at least a +6M highstand during the second close-spaced thermal at the end-Eemian, MIS-11 may have hit +21.3M at its end!
Which makes the entire debate sound like “two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they are riding on” to quote Crocodile Dundee.
Good data, feel free to focus your efforts on the end extreme interglacials. I for one would be very interested in your data and opinions.
William
Wigley could have said that “Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot EVER be done.” The impossibility of quantifying the climate sensitivity follows from the fact that its numerical value is a ratio in which the numerator is the change in the equilibrium temperature from a specified change in the CO2 concentration. The equilibrium temperature is not an observable feature of the real world and it follows that claims regarding the numerical value of the climate sensitivity are insusceptible to refutation by instrument readings, thus lying outside science.
>> Rosco says:
November 28, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Please someone – where did the other three quarters go ? It was there a millimeter above the atmosphere/space boundary – I know there is no distinct cut off. <<
I would guess it's because the sun shines on circular area pi R squared but the surface of the Earth is 4 pi R squared. (approximating the Earth as being a sphere)
Rosco;
Please someone – where did the other three quarters go ?
About 30% reflects back into space.
1340 x 0.7 = 938
Of what is left, divide by two because half the planet is in the dark and the other half facing the sun.
938 x 0.5 = 469
Of that, it is only 469 in the tropics where the sun shines nearly perpendicular. as you get to higher latitudes it is at an increasingly sharp angle until it gets to close to 0 w/mw at the poles. So, divide by 2 again (roughly)
469 x 0.5 = 234.5
0 w/m2 not w/mw
no idea what a w/mw is, but as long as we have zero of them, shouldn’t make a big difference.
That same extreme minimization of the significance of their flubs (and knavishness) carries over to events in the public sphere too, like Himalaya-gate and Climategate.
DirkH says:
November 28, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Q: How do you know an IPCC scientist is lying?
A: He talks to the press.
===================
a. His lips are moving.
Rosco says: November 28, 2011 at 1:03 pm
It is this incoming solar radiation is a quarter rubbish that supports the whole of the rest of the gibberish.
Please someone – where did the other three quarters go?
Precisely.
“science” built on either stupidity or a lie – take your choice !
More like: Kindergarten Science built on stupidity and lies.
Rosco says: November 28, 2011 at 1:23 pm
The equipment these guys had was probably not as sophisticated as today but they weren’t corrupted by a crusade – in this case I’ll take their word for it and believe the so called “solar constant” isn’t !
Totally agree.
After all our Sun is known as a “variable” star so why should anything be constant ?
Elementary, My Dear Watson.
Kindergarten Science diagram of a sunny day on Fantasy Island with 342 W/m2 incoming solar radiation.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
Unfortunately, there is no Climate Science diagram of a sunny day on Planet Earth with 1,365 W/m2 incoming solar radiation.
Just been looking through email #2972.
I see the WWF wanted to push the “dangerous warming of 2C” aspect.
Must be me, i dont see the problem.
Theyre stating that ecosystems and flora and fauna cant possibly adapt to rapid changes in climate, yet the obvious evidence these clowns seem to miss (along with the idiots in the government and MSM) is that large variations in temperatures are very easily accomodated by all life and that is the way it has to be to survive.
After all, the temperature in summer can be as high as 30 degrees C and yet a couple of months later it can be -20c and yet life adapts and flourishes between even these two extremes of 50C!
Maybe someone should point that out to these fools worrying about 2 degrees C!