date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:32:56 -0000 (GMT)
subject: Re: Two questions
to: "Ellen Mosley-Thompson" <thompson.4atXYZxyz.edu>
What it is is this.
The black line is the HadSST2 (i.e.e what we're using now).
The grey is the raw data - showing the bucket/intake correctsions
we have been applying for years up to 1941 - in fact
right up to Pearl Harbour.
The red is what global SST will look like after we make
the adjustments. This is still being worked on. We
are adding in extra British data for the years 1938-1950 as
the same time. These data have yet to be added.
This is SST, so when the land is added, the difference will
be reduced by about 40%.
So the cooling is moved to slightly later by about 10 years.
I'll also send a pdf
> Thank you very much for the reply regarding question 2.
> I look forward to your slide highlighting the effect.
> I will share it with John Brooke (assume that is acceptable).
> I regret that we will not see you in Toronto - but I am sure we will
> cross paths somewhere else in the near future.
> Best regards,
> At 05:31 PM 3/23/2009, you wrote:
>> I'm at a meeting in Puebla, Mexico this week.
>> The answer to 1) is no. I had a long standing engagement
>> for a meeting in Finland - on the same day.
>> On 2) I can send you a ppt when I get back to the hotel.
>> What will happen to SSTs is that they will be warmer during the
>> period from 1945 to about 1955. Then they will cool.
>> This is better for the sulphate aerosol argument , as
>> industry did not really pick up until the early 1950s
>> following WW2. It was always quite difficult to explain
>> the rapid cooling 1945/46 from the sulphate aerosol
>> > Hi Phil,
>> > I have two questions - one easy and quick and the other slightly more
>> > involved.
>> > 1) Are you planning to attend the Joint Assembly in meeting in Toronto
>> > May?
>> > 2) This question has to do with the paper published in mid 2008 by you
>> > others in Nature with David Thompson as the lead author. I have not
>> > the paper - it somehow did not get on my radar screen until now, so I
>> > be reading it soon. The paper came to my attention through a
>> colleague of
>> > mine here at OSU. John Brooke is a Professor of History who is very
>> > interested in the relationship between climate and human history.
>> John is
>> > writing a book that is nearing completion. In his discussion of 20th
>> > century climate history and the mid-century (1940s to 1960) period in
>> > which
>> > temperatures remained relatively flat or cooled slightly, he was
>> > the increase anthropogenic sulfate aerosol argument. Then he
>> > onto your paper in Nature. He has sent me a question (see below) but
>> > having read the paper in question I am reluctant to comment. Would
>> you be
>> > willing to provide John with a brief summary of your thoughts
>> > the
>> > intersection of this measurement difficulty versus sulfate aerosol
>> > forcing? I could have asked John to contact you directly but I
>> > if
>> > maybe with an introduction from me you might be more inclined to
>> reply. If
>> > you want to reply to this message I would be happy to forward it, but
>> > alternatively you might just add John to the reply. His email is
>> > email@example.com.
>> > I hope you might shed some light on whether this is a major issue for
>> > anthropogenic sulfate argument. I am also interested in this as I just
>> > finished teaching my honors course on climate change and I used the
>> > argument myself. If it is in doubt then I need to modify my class
>> > for next year.
>> > Thank you in advance for any help you might provide.
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ellen
>> > Here is John's question:
>> > Dear Ellen:
>> > > I have run into a problem. In the last several weeks I have
>> > at
>> > the 20th century, in my manuscript, with the end in sight.
>> > > BUT.... I find that the understandings about decadal temperature
>> > warming
>> > and cooling in the 20th century have been cast in some doubt by the
>> > article
>> > by David Thompson, et al., in Nature, May 2008, who demonstrate that
>> > big 1945 cooling is an anomaly produced by too many British sailors
>> > dipping
>> > too many buckets in the water during the war (or their retreat from
>> > oceans with post-war budget cuts]. Thus the cooling might be a
>> > and
>> > the sulfate argument for that cooling might be up in the air. This
>> > creates
>> > a few problems for my finishing this up quickly... I find that this
>> > all so recent that there is nothing published yet, providing a
>> > recalculation of temperature, or a reanalysis of forcing factors....
>> > > Would you have any ideas as to what is going on, and who might
>> > something that might give me an advance picture of the emerging
>> > "consensus"?
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\forellen.ppt"