Wednesday, May 2, 2012


date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:21:19 -0700
from: Chick Keller <>
to: Chick Keller <>, Richard Somerville <>, Kevin Trenberth <>, Tom Wigley <>, "Howard Hanson, LDRD" <>, "James E. Hansen" <>, Michael Schlesinger <>, Phil Jones <>, Thomas R Karl <>, Ben Santer <>, Tom Crowley <>, <>, <>, <>, Keith Briffa <>, Tim Osborn <>

Dear Mike,

eyes are seeing quite insightfully. Just a few comments.

Agree Ben's rising tropopause is one stick to hit them with. But ask
what you mean by UAH doesn't take rising T into account which would
bias their results--does RSS take it into account?

Also, I'm confused about RSS results. They don't look at

MODEL FINGERPRINTS--okay so you explain some of lack of arctic
warming, but not the antarctic where the sea ice in some places is
actually increasing. I tend to point to a neat paper by Sue Solomon
et al where they show that ozone deplection leads to increased
strength of circum polar winds leading to cooling inside the vortex
and warming outside it. Comments by anyone?
ON ARCTIC ICE MELTING--last I heard was that original estimates were
not correct and that ice melt was much less. Any recent references ?


name two! Mountain glaciers are retreating but ambiguously--could be
century trend, not primarily due to last 30 years, and some aren't
retreating. Any good references to quantify this one?

Got a second one? butterflies heading north? what else.

I was hoping Tom Karl might have pursued his seminal work of a decade
ago looking for changes in extreme weather but haven't seen any
recent published work???


Got the ref on that Amazon work just in the news?

Thanks to all for your comments,

Dear Chick--

You have been wrestling around in the mud too long with all these folk--your
eyes must be seeing a bit less insightfully:

> Models: no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from
> others! Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of
> latitude yet the Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65�N), and high
> latitude Antarctic (excepting for the peninsula) is actually cooling
> slightly.
First, the circum-Arctic is warming. We'll have diagrams of that in the
Arctic Asmt. Second, the ice is thinning, and just as for a glass of ice
water, the volume going down is evidence of warming. The SKeptics keep
thinking back to the original equilibrium model changes for CO2 doubling,
not the time-dependent warming that shifts poleward and from the transition
seasons into winter over time as snow and ice melt back.

> Models: As you say need AGHG forcings to simulate last 30 years of
> observed warming. But, they counter, UAH satellite reductions show
> no such warming so don't need AGHG forcing (or at least don't need
> effects of positive feedbacks and just increases in AGHGs don't cause
> so much warming).
First, RSS gets different results; second, lots of other things are changing
to indicate warming is occurring.

> Solar forcing--not able to generate last 30 years of observed
> warming. Same counter as last one--"See, they say, no increased
> solar in last 25 years is consistent with no warming!!
> Also, since no warming since 1945,

This is pure garbage--they like to contrast one year in 1940s with present
decades. See Figure 2.7 in IPCC WG I TAR, for example--there has been a good
deal of warming since the 1940s, in both hemispheres.

> MWP most likely to have been as
> warm as now and thus sun can indeed explain (with proper lags)
> observed warming thus far.
They have done no comprehensive analysis of the past warm period--Soon and
Baliunas is seriously flawed.

> Their model--climate varies depending on solar activity. all
> observations are consistent with this.
> Models predict that any surface warming will be seen in the
> troposphere. Since UAH satellite reduction shows no such warming--1.
> models are wrong and/or no warming at surface just lousy observations.
> 2. If no warming at surface in last 30 years AGHG forcing predictions
> by models is incorrect probably due to poor cloud/water vapor
> modeling--no positive feedbacks to speak of.
Santer et al paper showing tropopause rising is pretty convincing. The UAH
record would be biased by changes in tropopause height--they don't correct
for changes, for example. Plus their record can be biased by changes in
lower strat due to ozone changes.

> Sooooo, you can say all you want that all the prestigious societies
> and folks say it's AGHGs, but they've been bamboozled by a few of
> elitist scientists. As long as satellites show no recent warming,
> the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic
> molecules don't cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because
> there are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the
> "right" answer.
> So, what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed
> correct (UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation
> is correct).
Well, how about all the ecosystem changes (species ranges) that are
consistent with the warming?

> Now, Richard, toss in large effects of land use changes

Pielke Sr. does not like to really make point that land use changes cause
both ups and downs. The local change in one direction or the other may be as
large as the global warming influence, but the global total seems pretty

> and of black
> soot forcing changing earth's albedo, and you now have additional
> forcings which may be causing warming but can't be countered by
> reducing AGHGs.
Of course, increased soot comes mostly from burning fossil fuels--and
proposal is to reduce fossil fuel use.

> Soooo, it still ain't all that easy to convince an audience that the
> Singer's of this world aren't on to at least part of the problem.
> AND keep in mind that increased CO2 is good for us--more agriculture, etc.
Well, read the recent paper on how increased CO2 is changing the Amazon (and
this is from the Smithsonian--that bastion of Baliunas and Soon, a low
blow)--not clear increased CO2 is good for us. And in US, more crop
production means more tax money used to provide subsidies--it costs us

> Nope it just ain't that easy. So any information--graphics, etc on
> these issues will be greatly appreciated.

Come now Chick--go get 'em.

> Regards to all,
> chick

> Hi Chick and friends,
> Good to hear from you, Chick. I'm busy, like all of us, and
> responding to Singer is not my cup of tea, so I'm glad you and others
> are willing. I hate to be in the same room with him, frankly. He's
> a third-rate scientist and is ethically challenged, to say the least.
> From others on your email list, I am sure you will receive tons of
> useful information. However, I think your entire basic strategy for
> confronting Singer might not be optimal. Sometimes the most pressing
> issues in the research community, or the most interesting questions
> scientifically, are not necessarily the best ways to carry on the
> public conversation. I am thinking in particular of your statement:
> "Perhaps the most important is that satellites don't show much
> warming since 1979 and disagree substantially with the surface
> record, which must then be incorrect. Were we able to resolve this
> conundrum, I think most of the other objections to human generated
> climate change would lose their credibility."
> For what it's worth, here's my take on your approach. I
> respectfully disagree with you that hammering away on reconciling the
> MSU data with radiosonde and surface data is the right way to go in
> dealing with the Fred Singers of the world. Even though much of the
> differences may now be apparently explained, it's still a terribly
> messy job. The satellite system wasn't designed to measure
> tropospheric temperatures, the calibration and orbital decay and
> retrieval algorithm and all the other technical issues are ugly, and
> nobody knows how much the lower stratospheric cooling ought to have
> infected the upper troposphere, among other points one might make.
> No matter what one does on trying to make the MSU data tell us a
> clean story, there are remaining serious uncertainties. That's
> basically what the NAS/NRC study chaired by Mike Wallace concluded,
> and it's still true, in my view. Plus the data record is so short.
> In addition, as you say, you are retired, and research on these
> things is not what you have first-person experience with, so when you
> try to study up on the latest published results, you're at a
> disadvantage compared with the Singers of the world, whose full-time
> job is to cherry-pick the literature for evidence to support their
> preconceived positions.
> One of the tactics of the skeptics is to create the impression among
> nonscientists, especially journalists, that the entire science of
> climate change rests on the flimsy foundation of one or two lines of
> evidence, so that casting doubt on that foundation ought to bring
> down the entire structure. For temperature, that approach is clearly
> behind the attacks on the "hockey stick" curve over the last 1,000
> years or the satellite vs. in situ differences over the last 25
> years. Refuting the errors of the papers by Soon and Baliunas or by
> McIntyre and Mckitrick doesn't faze these people. They just shift
> their ground and produce another erroneous attack. Their goal is not
> to advance the science, but to perpetuate the appearance of
> controversy and doubt.
> I don't think the skeptics should be allowed to choose the
> battlefield, and I certainly don't think the issue of whether
> anthropogenic influences are a serious concern should be settled by
> looking at any single data set. I do think the IPCC TAR was right to
> stress that you simply can't plausibly make GCMs replicate the
> instrumental record without including GHGs (and aerosols). I also
> think the recent AGU and AMS public statements, which you will
> doubtless find on their web sites, are right on target. Many of us
> were pleasantly surprised that our leading scientific societies have
> recently adopted such strong statements as to the reality and
> seriousness of anthropogenic climate change. There really is a
> scientific consensus, and it cannot be refuted or disproved by
> attacking any single data set.
> I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific
> uncertainties work both ways. We don't understand cloud feedbacks.
> We don't understand air-sea interactions. We don't understand
> aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that
> uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be
> ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these
> uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against
> change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit
> of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback. Meanwhile,
> the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent
> with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical
> colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science
> dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining
> uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.
> People on airplanes, when they find out what I do for a living,
> usually ask me if I "believe in" global warming. It's not religion,
> of course. What I actually tend to believe in, if they really wanted
> to try to understand, is quantum mechanics. CO2 and CH4 and all
> those other interesting trace gases have more than two atoms, and
> that fact simply has inescapable consequences. You just can't keep
> adding those GHG molecules indefinitely without making the atmosphere
> significantly more opaque in the IR. The "debates" in the reputable
> research community are all quantitative. If skeptics don't worry
> about doubling, they ought to be pressed to tell us why they are
> unconcerned about tripling or quadrupling or worse. That's where the
> planet is headed. The fact that remote sensing and model building
> are hard work, and that much remains to be done, shouldn't be allowed
> to obscure the basic obvious facts.
> Bonne chance et bon courage,
> Richard
> --
> Prof. Richard C. J. Somerville
> Scripps Institution of Oceanography
> University of California, San Diego
> 9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224
> La Jolla, CA 92093-0224,USA
> Phone: 858 534-4644
> Fax: 858 534-8561
> --
> Charles. "Chick" F. Keller,
> Visiting Scientist at
> IGPP, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics
> MS-C305
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Los Alamos, NM 87544
> (505) 667-0803 or 667-0920
> FAX (505) 665-3107
> Home phone 505-662-7915
Charles. "Chick" F. Keller,
Visiting Scientist at
IGPP, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87544
(505) 667-0803 or 667-0920
FAX (505) 665-3107
Home phone 505-662-7915


No comments:

Post a Comment