“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020”
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?
And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Maybe he needs a backup plan:
MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When will Norfolk Constabulary start feeling a few collars..? Surely ‘Misappropriation of public funds’ will do for a start..?
R. Gates
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention”
This, in light of all the emails is not a plausbile explanation, rspecially sense his own words show he does not really care about the consequences. “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
This statement is both political and selfish and unscientific. Alas Gates, you still defend the indefensible.
David L. says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:10 am
“So switching to low sulfur coal in our power plants was actually a bad thing?”
No! Warming is a good thing.
“Now to put the sulfur back into the gasoline and the “problem” is solved!!!!”
If you consider warming to be a problem then yes that will solve it. In any objective evaluation where the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few warming is beneficial by a rather large margin.
John Moran says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:04 am
MacCracken has an interesting outlook on sulphates vs ocean acidification:
“Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). “
—————–
I noticed that plus cc to John Holdren.
How chummy are these guys?
son of mulder says:
December 1, 2011 at 3:02 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Son of Mulder
Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read.
I still think that the point I made at richard verney says: November 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm is valid.
From eyeballing the graph set out in your link, the graph suggests that the US started curbing/ reducing sulphate emissions around 1975 and Europe around 1980. Levels of Sulphate emissions remained high throughout the 1980s since initially the reduction by the US and more particularly by Europe was modest at first and then during the latter part of the 1980s emissions from other developing counties began to escalate.
The net effect of this is that there were high levels of sulphate emissions throughout the entire period of the 1970s and 80s and the question that has to be answered is why did these sulphate emissions not suppress/nullify the warming induced by the CO2 emissions during this period, ie., during the period 1970 to end of 1989 (assuming that CO2 emissions cause warming)?
I can accept, in principle, the argument that Sulphate emissions diminished sufficiently during the 1990s so that they were no longer sufficient to suppress/nullify the CO2 induced warming (assuming that CO2 emissions cause warming) and hence during the 1990s global warming was observed.
I can accept the argumate that Sulphate emissions due to the growing emissions from developing countries means that they mask the warming now taking place due to current CO2 emissions (assuming that CO2 emissions cause warming). This in principle could explain the lack of observed warming during the 2000s.
However, the real problem is that the sulphate emissions today are no higher than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. If they were not sufficient in the 1970s and 1980s to suppress/nullify warming caused by CO2 emissions back then (ie., 1970 to end of 1989) how come are they able to suppress/nullify warming caused by CO2 emissions today?
This is a particular problem since the total atmospheric CO2 levels in the 1970s and 1980s were less than today so it would therefore have been easier for the sulphate emissions to suppress/nullify any warming caused by CO2 levels back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Do you have any views/comments?
In my opinion there is a serious inconsistency with the sulphate emission argument. It does not stack up to proper examination.
we now have the same level of emissions that were present
Moderators
Please correct if possible.
My last para should have read
“In my opinion there is a serious inconsistency with the sulphate emission argument. It does not stack up to proper examination since we now have the same level of sulphate emissions that were present in the 1970s and 80s and yet that level of emissions did not supress/mask any CO2 induced warming.”
I think the USA should pay the entire $100,000,000,000 to fund the CAGW agenda.
But, only if they take it out of our current budgeted without increasing taxes.
(figure the odds)
Plan B’s are for politics.
Science doesn’t have a “plan B”.
In science, the results, support our premise, are ambiguous, or fail to support, the THEORY.
Debate, and interpretation of results, are “the crucible” of science.
In science there is no need for a “team”, or a “cause”. Those are politcal concepts that are anathma, to the curiosity that leads to scientific discovery.
Where is the curiosity?
Where is the desire to understand?
Where is the scientific method?
You won’t find them in these emails, and that is what the pubilc was paying for.
Jones talks and acts like he believes (from faith not from reason) the science he is in charge of can be ‘framed’ (?aka gamed?) to serve the ends of his non-scientific based ideological cause. He is a profoundly unenlightened man. His ‘framing’ of science both destroys science and the case for any rational basis of his ideological cause.
Skeptical (aka independent) thinkers could not have had a more useful person than Jones in charge at UEA CRU because he became the prima fascia evidence against his own science and his own ideological cause.
Likewise, the same result with Mann at both UVa and at PSU. Both his behavior and Jones’ will be the albatrosses hung shamefully around the necks of their ‘framed’ science and malignant ideology.
Their scientific ‘framing’ and ulterior motives for their ’causes’ are the gifts that keep on giving validation to the critiques of independent thinkers.
John
“richard verney says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:16 am ”
Richard, The move of aerosol production from west to east will tend to have some local effects eg tend to cause warming where there is a reduction and cooling where there is an increase because of the relatively short life of sulphates in the atmosphere it won’t get well mixed. Additionally, globally I view the redistribution of production like a giant butterfly in lorenz’s analogy of the chaotic nature of climate. I don’t know how much impact such a move would have on the measured average global temperature where there is a predominance of weather stations historically in the west but there will be some skewing of effect. Also there would be a tendancy to suppress daily high temperatures more than daily minimums whereas CO2 would have the opposite effect in raising daily minimums more than daily highs. There is surely some information svailable from such analysis of raw temperature highs and lows.
Until such analysis is available (i don’t know of it) it puts a massive question mark into the middle of standard AGW theory.
=?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= ???@263.net
From: “Phil Jones”
To: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4”
Phil
At 08:56 19/10/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote:
From: “Phil Jones”
To: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4”
From: “Phil Jones”
To: “Rean Guoyoo”
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” , <
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0554.txt&search=yahoo.com+kulmala
The fact that there is no warm spot in the atmosphere radiating heat down onto the ground not only puts a massive question mark on the AGW hypothesis, it basically nullifies it. Atmosphere must warm first. If you have anomalously high surface temperatures but no corresponding anomaly in the atmosphere at altitude, then you are not seeing GH warming, it must be something else.
AGW absolutely requires an increase in atmospheric temperature that has never been spotted to date. And I believe all measures of back radiation to the ground were pretty much invalidated when they learned that the IRTs (infrared thermometers) they were using were specifically calibrated NOT to show the wavelengths we would expect to see from an AGW signal. In fact, they were calibrated to show everything BUT those wavelengths.
To R. Courtney, Duster, John H., or anyone else.
Regarding the mechanism of sulphate emissions damping the warming from GHGs:
Duster (at Nov. 30 – 10:56 am) seems to suggest that the mechanism requires that the SO2 (Duster, did you really mean “SO3”?) molecules nucleate ice droplets/crystals at high altitudes, and it is the latter which reflect incoming Solar short wave back into space. Is it the case that the sulphate molecules on their own cannot/do not reflect incoming Solar? Can both sorts of effect occur, say depending on altitude?
UHI at China.
“Dear Phil,
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0044.txt&search=%3D%3Fgb2312%3FB%3FJUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA%3D%3D%3F%3D+
Leigh B. Kelley:
At December 1, 2011 at 10:33 am you ask me among others:
” Regarding the mechanism of sulphate emissions damping the warming from GHGs:
Duster (at Nov. 30 – 10:56 am) seems to suggest that the mechanism requires that the SO2 (Duster, did you really mean “SO3″?) molecules nucleate ice droplets/crystals at high altitudes, and it is the latter which reflect incoming Solar short wave back into space. Is it the case that the sulphate molecules on their own cannot/do not reflect incoming Solar? Can both sorts of effect occur, say depending on altitude?”
I answer,
Q1. yes mostly
Q2. yes.
Richard
Global warming, manmade warming, climate change . . . call it what you wish – it’s an ideologically driven political movement that has nothing to do with real science. The Climate Liars are fascists pushing an insane political agenda by scaring people into believing the world is going to end unless we do what they want. It doesn’t hurt that they are backed by the sleazy lamestream media who are either clueless about the ‘science’ behind the scam or know what’s going on but support the political agenda of the Climate Liars. I am apalled, disgusted and have been nauseated many times by the Climate Liars propaganda. I hope the world wakes up before it’s too late. I don’t relish the idea of trying to survive in a Ecofascist state, freezing in the dark to save the planet from a nonexistant problem.
Are Chinese weathes stations rural, or not?
“>
>> Dear Qingxiang,
> I haven’t heard anything yet from JGR – it will likely take
>about 3 months.
> I’ve been talking to Wei-Chyung Wang on the phone over the weekend.
> He wondered if you can help him. He is hopeful you can send me
> (and I can send on) any site history information you have about
> the 42 sites (both rural and urban that we used back in 1990.
> Back in September last year you sent me the monthly temperature
> data fro these sites. I could see which ones had been adjusted and
> which hadn’t. What Wei-Chyung and I would like from you is any
> site history information for these 82 site (you could only find
> the temperature data for 82 and not all 84 we had used originally).
> Ideally this would be information on site moves etc., but if you just
> had information on the number of moves that would be useful.
> This is more important for the stations we had said were rural in 1990.
>
> I’ve cc’d Wei-Chyung on this email, so you could reply directly to
> him to say what you can, could or might be able to send to us – in Chinese!
>
> Best Regards
> Phil”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1003.txt&search=%25D5%25C5%25C0%25F2%25C3%25F4
thinkinglazy says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:14 am
I actually read somewhere that the global warming thing is a cyclical event that happens every so-and-so millions of years, which actually explains a lot of geological events..
_____
Might want to figure out where that “somewhere” was that you read this. Doesn’t sound like a scientific statement. Milankovitch forcing happens on the order of tens of thousands of years. Something that would be cyclical on the order of millions of years would have to be galactic in origin and not simple Milankovitch cycles.
If the models, AGW projections, climate sensitivity estimates…. have not proved to be correct and snow isn’t a whimsical thing of the past and the snows of Kilimanjaro have returned and the glaciers have started expanding again, and the polar bears are doing fine and its raining as usual in the Amazon and the sea level rise has stopped and the barbeque summers didn’t materialize in UK and frozen crocs, llama, fishes, domesitc animals in Brazil, Ecuadora weren’t supposed to happen and 250 children froze to death in Peru from the worst cold on record and substantial snows in Johannesburg and Capetown surprised citizens and Lake Chad began to fill up again and hurricanes frequency and damage declined and their has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years and the Hudson River parkway is still above water…..and you never predicted one iota of these things, why would one be so adamant that the science is solid? Why would you keep faith in the models if the future continues to unfold as a surprise? These are not Tablets from the Mountain. The task isn’t to MAKE the theory work, to find fanciful explanations as to why it is not predicting what is happening. You need to scrap useless models and try to redo the job, making adjustments (such as chopping down climate sensitivity, etc.) and, if the best model turns out to indicate that there is no disaster awaiting us, then so be it.
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation.” …
R. I liked you better as a feisty, clever combatant. Please don’t become an apologist and spin doctor to make charlatans into high minded philosophers.
I not a scientist but anyone qualifies as a political analyst.
It is more than fair to state that, these e-mails reveal more politics than science.
Put bluntly, these schemers have the wind up their skirts because their attempted coup has failed……not a coup d’etat…..but a coup de monde….
richard verney says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:20 am
Moderators
Please correct if possible.
My last para should have read
“In my opinion there is a serious inconsistency with the sulphate emission argument. It does not stack up to proper examination since we now have the same level of sulphate emissions that were present in the 1970s and 80s and yet that level of emissions did not supress/mask any CO2 induced warming.”
____
Are all the other variables identical? This is the problem with something as complex as the climate. You have multiple factors, each with their own unique set of feedbacks, leading to a complex dynamical system. CO2 and human sulphate emission are only two of a larger set of factors that must be considered.
A few things to consider:
1) What was the status of solar output at all energy levels at the time?
2) What was the status of the major longer-term ocean cycles such as the PDO and NAO?
3) What was the status of volcanic activity?
Very hard to compare two time periods without knowing and looking all the factors that make up the longer and shorter term climate in such a comparison.
Jimbo says:
December 1, 2011 at 4:12 am
R. Gates
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention”
Belief has nothing to do with it. He is either right or wrong, and increasingly the observed evidence is against him. Jones is not an honest scientist. He is a political scientist doing his best to drive the agenda forward. Future generations will read your posts and come to understand how self delusion illustrates itself.
____
Since I am not the subject of the emails, it would be hard for my posts to illustrate “self delusion”. I simply suggested an alternative explanation for Dr. Jones’ statements that is consistent.
I’d put this in the Tips area but it locks up my computer something horrible. But tracks with this thread also.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_935_en.html
[quote] GENEVA/DURBAN, 29 November 2011 (WMO) – Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.[/quote]
R. Gates says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree with your comments.
However put in context, the upshot of those matters is to suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is modest:
IF CO2 levels – Sulphate levels for the period 1970 to end of 1989 did not exceed CO2 levels – Sulphate levels for the period 2000 to date AND IF there was significant warming during the former period but no significant warming during the latter period then what drove the warming during the earlier period were forcings due natural variables as opposed to CO2.
Finally i´found it. ——————————————– is a person, and hot stuff.
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: Simple model as a policy tool
to: “Griggs, Dave”
As you know, our (Sarah Raper, me and Mike Hulme) MAGICC model does all
of
the things you want in a user-friendly shell. Early versions included
CO, NOx, VOCs and individual halocarbons, but the current version has
essentially turned off the user options to tweak these emissions—for
scientifically justifiable reasons.
As I have noted previously, another reason for making such a model more
generally available is to get away from dependence on GWPs. Papers by
myself (GRL 25, 2285-2288, 1998) and myself and Steve Smith (Climatic
Change, in press) have shown how flawed GWPs are when applied to
realistic emissions control issues.
Sarah (with people at the Hadley Ctr.) has been looking carefully at the
performance of MAGICC vis a vis O/AGCMs and it is likely that
improvements will be made over the next few months. Sarah is really the
lead player in MAGICC currently.
As a final point, you may not realize or remember that some of the early
development work on MAGICC was funded by the UK Dept. of the Environment
(at that time, MAGICC was called “STUGE”). Significant funding support
since then has come from the EC, the US Dept. of Energy, and the US
National Science Foundation.
*************************************************************************************’
Welcome to my homepage, and nasumusa.
http://www.youtube.com/user/nasumusa#p/a/u/0/xXBISRHeXUA
https://sites.google.com/site/myteurastaja/home