Thursday, March 22, 2012

2731.txt

date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:23:00 +0100
from: "chris bradley" <chrismb68atXYZxyzmail.com>
subject: Re: An enquiry on climate change technical information.
to: p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk

<x-flowed>


I am very grateful for you spending your time to reply when you have other
urgent matters. Please do not let my questions hold you up.

I will look in depth into these particular documents. I am still nervous
over measurement accuracy, when considering humidity instruments, but the
argument is much more complete with these factors included.

The oceanic trends are very convincing. Sea level rise, argued as sea
temperature rise, is a strong scientific cause-and-effect that I find sound,
though I understand that rise rate has been linear and constant for over 100
years, along with a long thermal-inertia time-lag, suggesting a
non-anthropogenic effect?

If all energy indicators are +ve including sea level, atmospheric height,
wind speed AND humidity, then the ~+1C rise is a severely under-representing
statistic of increasing net energy flux!?

best regards,

Chris MB.


>From: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>To: "chris bradley" <chrismb68atXYZxyzmail.com>
>Subject: Re: An enquiry on climate change technical information.
>Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:51:14 +0100
>
> Dear Chris,
> I'm off after today until May 14, so rushing to get a few things
>done,
> so a brief reply. First you might be interested in the chapters from
> the WG1 report of the IPCC, which are now freely available (see below).
> For Atmospheric Obs you want Ch 3.
>
> A few other thoughts
>
> 1. Max and min temperature are changing at the same rate now.
> So large scale temperature changes are representative of both,
> at large spatial scales.
>
> 2. I have had a student just finished a PhD on humidity. She is
> writing up a couple of papers from the work, but you can see
> her thesis as it is now online.
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/
>
> In this she shows that specific humidity (at the surface) is
> going up the rate expected from the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship,
> about 7% per degC. Relative humidity has remained much the
> same over the period of records (which is only 1973-2003). Most of the
> thesis is about sorting out the humidity data.
>
> 3. There is a measure called Apparent Temperature, which includes
> humidity and also wind speed. This is going up just like temperature,
> slightly more but not significantly more, as humidity is going up.
> There is more on this in Ch 3.
>
> 4. On total energy, you might look on google for Ocean Heat Content. This
> is where much of the extra heat is going. This is discussed in Ch 5 of
> the IPCC Report.
>
> Sorry this is brief
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>Dear Authors and Review Editors
>
>We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and layout
>corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a result we
>are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all Chapters, and
>Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, List of acronyms)
>publicly available from the WG1 home page ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ )
>today. The supplementary material (for those chapters that have it) is
>nearly complete and will be added shortly.
>
>You are of course very welcome to use and now distribute any of this
>material. In some cases figures have been adjusted slightly here by our
>graphics designer and we intend to create separate Powerpoint files soon
>with the final figures from each chapter as a convenient resource for your
>use as well.
>
>An index is being prepared by a professional indexer; we still need a
>Foreword from the Secretariat; and we are discussing the cover layout with
>CUP. A complete package should go to CUP for publication on May 7 as
>planned and when we know what the book printing schedule is likely to be we
>will let you know.
>
>We cannot easily communicate the sense of accomplishment that this brings.
>We are extremely grateful for all your hard work that has created a superb
>report and one that we truly believe now sets a higher standard for all
>future assessments.
>
>Thanks and best regards from
>Susan, Martin, Melinda M, Kristen, Melinda T, and Roy (IPCC WG1 West)
>Dahe and Zhenlin (IPCC WG1 East)
>
>--
>Recommended Email address: mmanningatXYZxyznoaa.gov
>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
>NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479
>325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628
>Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>_______________________________________________
>Wg1-ar4-las mailing list
>Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu
>http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las
>
>
>At 12:51 01/05/2007, you wrote:
>
>>Phil,
>>
>>Thank you for the email exchange we had last year, and the info you sent
>>through. Because we were both busy at the time I did not pursue the
>>discussion but would like to do so. The issue to hand that I am raising is
>>a matter of a paradigm shift, and such things are always a little
>>difficult to put across in a few emails.
>>
>>The point in the discussion that I was aiming to get to is whether the
>>'average temperature' has any useful and physical reality along with it,
>>and I believe I may paraphrase your responses as being that its use is
>>purely for convenience as it forms a convenient comparator between given
>>atmospheric systems and models (and also between systems or models
>>themselves). I believe you did not dispute that the 'average temperature'
>>might be a measure that might equally capture an increasing minimum
>>temperature whilst the maximum temperature is stable, but that the use as
>>a comparative statistic is still valid.
>>
>>It is the notion of this validity I would like to probe a little.
>>
>>I think I may summarise the essential basis for the theory of CO2 driven
>>global warming is that more energy is now entering the earth's atmospheric
>>system than is leaving it, because of anthropogenic CO2. A scientific
>>basis for evaluating if this essential statement is right or wrong would
>>be to find measures for the sum total of energy in the earth's atmosphere.
>>You have published widely on the average temperature and I need to
>>understand why this is seen as a complete measure of energy in and out of
>>the system and/or how it supports models which include all such factors.
>>
>>I am not thinking of conflicting with your use of average temperature, as
>>above, that it can be used as an essential marker to determine equivalence
>>with other systems (ie past and future) and models, but the paradigm issue
>>at hand here is whether those models also go on to analyse and simulate
>>for all the other factors that contribute to 'atmospheric energy'.
>>
>>Specifically, and most significantly, I am thinking of humidity. The heat
>>capacity of dry air is approx 1J/gK. If we take a global average
>>temperature of 18C and look at 1% humidity, this would be equivalent to
>>0.16g/m3. So to heat up 1m3 of dry air by 1K would take 1000J. To add 1%
>>humidity would take 2272J/g (lat. heat fusion) x 0.16g = 363J. So (based
>>on a 18C estimate) a change of a little under -3% humidity is equivalent
>>to +1C of atmospheric temp.
>>
>>I work in a UKAS accredited measurement laboratory, and if we could
>>measure accurately to 3% humidity, then we'd let NPL know as they have
>>difficulty resolving to this level of accuracy themselves. Therefore I
>>know, as a matter of fact, that even if humidity was measured alongside
>>the temperature records you have processed, then the measurement accuracy
>>of field humidity instruments is equivalent to +-2C, if converted to an
>>equivalnet temp. This exceeds the statistical range of ave temp depicted
>>for last century.
>>
>>April has been a warmer month than usual, but also seems much less humid
>>to me. Compare this April with previous with a T-3xH statistic (T=deg C,
>>H=%RH) instead? Have you tried applying humidity data to your temperature
>>data in this way?
>>
>>Other such major factors, I think, are global air speeds and height of
>>atmosphere versus QNH pressure.
>>
>>I think I have made the point sufficiently now. I do not see an issue
>>within the temperature data collected, but is it sufficient to say
>>anything about the net energy flux within the atmosphere? The paradigm
>>shift is that the average temperature is not a measure of atmospheric
>>energy and so should not be used as such. Surely it can only be used in
>>association with, and to support, the findings of other models that, then,
>>derive a full J/m2 (equivalent energy over a given area of the globe)
>>value. It is this J/m2 value that needs to be considered and quoted in
>>arguments, which may even prove to show a much more distinct effect?
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Chris MB.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
>>Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/

</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment