subject: McK & Michaels
Yesterday Chris F. asked me to talk to David P. about a response to
McK & Michaels that Chris thought you and David and perhaps me should be
writing. I'd love to be involved, but I doubt if I would have enough
free time during the next 6 months to contribute significantly. David
didn't seem certain that he'd be involved. So I thought I should pass on
a few ideas I had for your consideration (I won't feel hurt if you toss
out all of them).
The bottom of page 14 says that de Laat and Maurellis (2004, 2006)
have presented evidence that even MSU data exhibit some contamination by
socioeconomic activity, so this first suggestion might not be helpful
even though in the conclusions they write that "economic activity have
significant explanatory power on the pattern of trends published
climatic data measured at the Earth's surface, but not in trends
measured in the lower part of the atmosphere". My first suggestion is
to compare MSU TLT trends with sfc trends spatially to show how similar
the patterns are.
The second was to run a climate model driven solely by observed
SSTs. Obviously, observed SSTs aren't influenced by the spatial
distribution of world economies. So if the model reproduces most of the
spatial features of observed land surface warming it would show local
economies aren't driving the obs.
The third would be to do a simple economy - MSU stratospheric temp
spatial correlation. The farther we go away from the sfc, the harder it
is for even unreasonable people to think the relationship is causal.
Lastly, one might try normalizing all the trends based on the grid
box variability. As I recall, you did this many years ago and on a
normalized basis warming in the tropics shows up more while northern
warming decreases. This makes sense to me as I recently normalized
summer and winter changes in extremes for North America and they both
show about the same amount of warming. The point I'm making by that in
my paper is that it is not surprising that the most warming is occurring
where the variability is greatest (as Fred Singer once implied that to
me). The problem would then be explaining the meaning of normalized
results and relevance to economic analyses.
Anyway, those are my specific thoughts. It does seem like someone
needs to write a paper on the topic in general to give clear scientific
support for positions IPCC, etc., have to take ignoring such nonsense.
I'd enjoy helping as time permits. But I'd also be happy to just sit
back and wait for your to publish a paper on it.
Warm regards from soggy Exeter (I'm leaving the Met Office at 1PM