Tuesday, May 15, 2012

4245.txt

date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:28:11 +0100 (BST)
from: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
subject: [Fwd: Weekend activity by climate change deniers]
to: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk


Clare,
Maybe mention that Carter admits here he's not a climate expert.
He didn't say that on R4 on Friday.

Phil


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Weekend activity by climate change deniers
From: "Ward, Bob" <Bob.WardatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, April 24, 2006 12:43 pm
To: "Ward, Bob" <Bob.WardatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
"Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)"
<john.f.mitchellatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
Tim.PalmeratXYZxyzwf.int
"john mitchell" <jfbmitchellatXYZxyzoo.co.uk>
john.houghtonatXYZxyz.org.uk
"Alam, Tanzeed" <Tanzeed.AlamatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
"Garthwaite, Rachel" <Rachel.GarthwaiteatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
"Heap, Richard" <Richard.HeapatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
"Quinn, Rachel" <Rachel.QuinnatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
"Windebank, Sue" <Susan.WindebankatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
"Pope, Vicky" <vicky.popeatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
"Phil Jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
"Kingston, Clare" <clare.kingstonatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am forwarding Bob Carter's responses below to some points I put to him
last Friday after his interview on the 'Today' programme (thanks again to
Phil Jones for agreeing to go head-to-head with Carter).

I would be grateful for views on whether it is worth responding to any of
these points, or whether we should just note them to prepare for any
further encounters in the future.

Carter was also a signatory to a joint letter published in 'The Sunday
Telegraph' at the weekend, which criticised the President of the Royal
Society for describing the evidence of man's contribution to climate
change as "compelling".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1593&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0

You will see that most of the signatories also signed the open letter to
the Canadian Prime Minister that was published in the 'Financial Post' a
few weeks ago, calling on him to reject Canada's Kyoto targets.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Many of them are also members of the 'Friends of Science' pressure group
that was set up a couple of years ago to oppose Canada's Kyoto
commitments. David Adam, the environment correspondent for 'The Guardian',
spoke to a representative for them last week - he denied that they ahd
organised the letter to the Canadian PM, although they had helped to
collect signatures. They also admitted that they receive funding from the
Canadian oil industry, a fact that is conspicuously not mentioned on their
website. They produced a slick DVD about their views which was distributed
a few weeks ago to the Canadian media (and some in the UK as well) by one
of Canada's leading PR companies.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2


Bob Ward
Senior Manager
Policy Communication
Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Carter [mailto:bob.carter@jcu.edu.au]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 00:31
To: Ward, Bob
Subject: Global warming


Dear Mr Ward,

Thank you for writing again.

Here are my answers to your questions.

Q1. As I understand it, you believe that the overall annual trend of
global average temperate will not continue upwards over the next few
years.

A1. I neither disbelieve it nor believe it: que sera, sera.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reading the tea leaves, however, (a) all deterministic models say that
temperature should start increasing again: but then they would say that,
wouldn't they?; and (b) other, empirical and Lorenzian, computer models
say that temperature will go down; (c) a glance at the decadal-scale
patterning exhibited by the ancient climate record also suggests that
temperature is due to cycle down.

Q2. I was a bit surprised that you didn't mention in your article that
1998 was the warmest year since records began in 1861 and that it was an
El Nino year.
------------------------------------------------------------
A1. I didn't mention it because it is not relevant to the factual
statement I make, and question I pose. Which is: global average
temperature has not increased in the 7 years since 1998, yet anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions have continued their growth. How come?

Q3. Do you really not think that the fact that 2005 was the second warmest
year on record and that eight of the ten warmest years have occurred since
1995 suggest that the warming trend has continued .....
-----------------------------------------------------------
A3. These facts - which to my astonishment are endlessly repeated as a
mantra in the press - are simply irrelevant. Given that the late 20th
century warming trend at the moment appears to mark the culmination of
recovery from the Little Ice Age, of course "8/10 of the warmest years"
will cluster around the turnaround point. And this is supposed to be an
argument for AGW?

Q4. ..... and that a new record is likely to be set during the next El
Nino year, if not before?
------------------------------------------------------------
That depends on all sorts of factors that neither you, nor I, nor anyone
else can foresee. It largely hinges upon whether 1998 really was the
culmination of the post-LIA warming. If not, then one can expect a
slightly higher temperature to register during one or another forthcoming
El Nino.

Q5. During your interview, you appeared to accept that global average
temperature increased by 0.6 centigrade degrees during the 20th century
and that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been
increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such as
the burning of fossil fuels. However, you do not believe that the rise in
carbon dioxide has been a major cause of the rise in temperature which you
think is due almost entirely to natural factors. Is that an accurate
summary of your views?
------------------------------------------------------------
A5. Yes, though of course with caveats. One of which is that even the best
extended global temperature curves based on direct measurements (CRU,
GISS) are known to be biased and in conflict with one another (this is not
a criticism of their authors, whose herculean efforts I admire, but a
statement of fact), i.e. we do not know how accurate is the estimate of a
0.6C rise during the 20th century. But, for the purposes of discussion, it
is the best estimate that we have. And yes, I do not know of any
substantial evidence that the rise in human emissions was the prime cause
of 20th century temperature changes, including that overall rise: indeed,
the opposite conclusion seems more probable, which is that anthropogenic
CO2 emissions have no measurable effect (and please note that that doesn't
mean "no effect").

Q6. I was also surprised to hear you be so scathing in your interview
about computer simulations of climate trends (or "computer games" as you
described it).
-----------------------------------------------------------
A6. Not being expert in this area, I rely upon advice from those who are.
They tell me (i) that none of the major GCMs are validated, and (ii)
neither do they have any forecasting skill, (iii) that is precisely why
they are termed "scenarios", and (iv) therefore, it is quite improper to
use them in the public domain - as for instance Sir David King does - as
if they were predictions.

In Australia (we're a large country) the situation is worsened by
continual use of models to make regional climate "predictions", which are
then endlessly trumpeted by GW evangelists and the press. Not one
modelling expert that I know of believes that there is any useful
predictive value in regional climate models.

Q7. Do you really reject the computer simulations of the recent past
climate, reviewed for instance by Jones and Mann (Reviews of Geophysics,
volume 42, 2004) which apear to show that the recent warming can only be
explained by a combination of natural factors and the rise in greenhouse
gas concentrations due to human activities? They appear to show good
agreement with the instrumental record and proxy data and appear to be
based on fairly robust methodologies.
------------------------------------------------------------
A7. Such papers are simply exercises in technologically advanced, but
scientifically naive, curve-fitting. Of course the model hindcasts agree
with the empirical data; years of tinkering by some very intelligent
people have gone into making them fit!

Those who maintain that they understand enough about the physics of
climate change to specify it all in a model exhibit astonishing hubris.
They also reveal a lack of imagination regarding the many factors and
feedbacks that effect climate that are not included in their models - some
for the very good reason that they haven't been discovered yet.

Q8. Are there any model results that you think are more accurate?
-----------------------------------------------------------
A8. So far as I know, no-one has any reason to choose one GCM as superior
to another. Though all serve a strong heuristic value (which is exactly
why they are appropriately described as "games"), they are simply not
appropriate for use as predictors of the real world. Many of their
devotees are living in an imaginary world of virtual reality.

As well summed up by Richard Lindzen:

" "The GCM models are just experimental tools, and now these tools are
(being) forced to make predictions that they are not able to ..... There
is nothing wrong with the GCM modellers, they do the best job they are
able to. The problem is that too many people believe in the unreliable
predictions. The problem is thus not scientific, it is political."

I hope these comments help lessen your puzzlement a bit.

My own puzzlement has less to do with the intricacies of the science,
challenging and important though they are. Rather, I am puzzled as to why
the Royal Society - of all bodies - chooses to take a public stance of
advocacy on behalf of the AGW cause.

Kind regards.

Professor R.M. Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University
Townsville, Qld. 4811
AUSTRALIA

Phone: +61-7-4781-4397
Fax: ��+61-7-4781-4334
Home: �+61-7-4775-1268
Mobile: 0419-701-139

Web home page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:32:19 +0100
>From: "Ward, Bob" <Bob.WardatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
>Subject: RE: Request for reprint
>To: "Bob Carter" <bob.carteratXYZxyz.edu.au>
>
>Dear Professor Carter,
>
>Many thanks for sending me this information.
>
>I am still a bit puzzled by a few things contained in your article and
mentioned during your interview this morning on BBC radio.
>
>As I understand it, you believe that the overall annual trend of global
average temperate will not continue upwards over the next few years. I
was a bit surprised that you didn't mention in your article that 1998 was
the warmest year since records began in 1861 and that it was an El Nino
year. Do you really not think that the fact that 2005 was the second
warmest year on record and that eight of the ten warmest years have
occurred since 1995 suggest that the warming trend has continued, and
that a new record is likely to be set during the next El Nino year, if
not before?
>
>During your interview, you appeared to accept that global average
temperature increased by 0.6 centigrade degrees during the 20th century
and that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been
increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such
as the burning of fossil fuels. However, you do not believe that the rise
in carbon dioxide has been a major cause of the rise in temperature which
you think is due almost entirely to natural factors. Is that an accurate
summary of your views?
>
>I was also surprised to hear you be so scathing in your interview about
computer simulations of climate trends (or "computer games" as you
described it). Do you really reject the computer simulations of the
recent past climate, reviewed for instance by Jones and Mann (Reviews of
Geophysics, volume 42, 2004) which apear to show that the recent warming
can only be explained by a combination of natural factors and the rise in
greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities? They appear to
show good agreement with the instrumental record and proxy data and
appear to be based on fairly robust methodologies. Are there any model
results that you think are more accurate?
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Bob Ward
>Senior Manager
>Policy Communication
>Royal Society
>6-9 Carlton House Terrace
>London
>SW1Y 5AG
>
>Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
>Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
>Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Carter [mailto:bob.carter@jcu.edu.au]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 20:19
>To: Ward, Bob
>Subject: Re: Request for reprint
>
>
>Dear Mr Ward,
>
>Thank you for your interest in my recent Opinion piece in the Telegraph.
>
>Of course, the piece was not based upon my own original research but
rather on generally known and long-established public material. To the
best of my knowledge, none of the factual information given is new or (in
contrast to the opinions) controversial.
>
>Other opinion pieces that I have written, similarly based on widely known
material, are posted at:
>
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm
>
>My professional interest is not in modern climate change per se, but in
the stratigraphic interpretation of ancient environments and climates.
You can find reprints of various papers at:
>
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
>
>and pdf's of the more recent ones are available there for downloading.
Should you wish for a copy of any of my earlier publications, just let me
know and I shall gladly send one.
>
>Thanks again for writing.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>
>Bob Carter
>
>Professor R.M. Carter
>Marine Geophysical Laboratory
>James Cook University
>Townsville, Qld. 4811
>AUSTRALIA
>
>Phone: +61-7-4781-4397
>Fax: ��+61-7-4781-4334
>Home: �+61-7-4775-1268
>Mobile: 0419-701-139
>
>Web home page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:19:30 +0100
>>From: "Ward, Bob" <Bob.WardatXYZxyzalsoc.ac.uk>
>>Subject: Request for reprint
>>To: <bob.carteratXYZxyz.edu.au>
>>
>> Dear Professor Carter,
>>
>> I was interested to read your recent article in 'The
>> Sunday Telegraph' here in the UK. You presented a
>> number of interesting points, although of course
>> your conclusions are greatly at odds with those of
>> the majority of climate researchers. I was wondering
>> whether you had produced any journal papers that set
>> out your views in greater detail which you could
>> kindly send to me?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Bob Ward
>> Senior Manager
>> Policy Communication
>> Royal Society
>> 6-9 Carlton House Terrace
>> London
>> SW1Y 5AG
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346
>>
>> ******************************************************************************
>> The information contained in this e-mail is
>> confidential and may also be subject to legal
>> privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s)
>> named above. If you are not named above as a
>> recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose,
>> forward or otherwise use the information contained
>> in this e-mail.


No comments:

Post a Comment