cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>, Raymond Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu>, Tom Crowley <tcrowleyatXYZxyze.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>, Scott Rutherford <srutherfordatXYZxyz.uri.edu>, Caspar Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.edu>, Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4atXYZxyz.edu>, <jmahlmanatXYZxyzr.edu>, <wuebblesatXYZxyzos.uiuc.edu>, <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, <stockeratXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch>, Urs Neu <urs.neuatXYZxyzw.unibe.ch>, J�rg Beer <beeratXYZxyzmes.emp-eaw.ch>
date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
from: Eric Steig <steigatXYZxyz.washington.edu>
subject: Re: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today
to: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorfatXYZxyz-potsdam.de>
It is perhaps worth noting that there is a strong paleo-argument for CO2
sensitivity being much LARGER than implied by the glacial-interglacial
cycles. No one has to my knowledge been able to get high Eocene
temperatures in the Arctic, even when including 8*modern CO2 levels.
David Battisti has argued that this ought to at least suggest that CO2
sensitivity may be much higher, not lower, than IPCC projections.
Of course, bringing up this "absence of knowledge" could backfire unless
one were very careful about the writing. Still, you might consider asking
David about this.
On another note, I enjoyed reading your "GISP2 clock" paper in GRL. I saw
an very nice poster at INQUA by Linda Hinnov. Seems that the 1500-year
clock is in GRIP as well. (The original timescale shows a bifurcated
spectral peak which she shows is due to artifacts in the dating). I
encourage you to contact her. Seems that the 1500-year event spacing
isn't going away, much as many of us would like it to! I had hoped we
could relegate it to chance but your work and Hinnov's has convinced me
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:02:36 +0200
> From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorfatXYZxyz-potsdam.de>
> To: Michael E. Mann <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
> Cc: Raymond Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>,
> Malcolm Hughes <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>,
> Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu>,
> Tom Crowley <tcrowleyatXYZxyze.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>,
> Scott Rutherford <srutherfordatXYZxyz.uri.edu>,
> Caspar Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>,
> Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>,
> Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.edu>,
> Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>,
> Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>,
> Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4atXYZxyz.edu>,
> Eric Steig <steigatXYZxyz.washington.edu>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
> Urs Neu <urs.neuatXYZxyzw.unibe.ch>,
> "[ISO-8859-1] J�rg Beer" <beeratXYZxyzmes.emp-eaw.ch>
> Subject: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today
> Dear colleagues,
> the Soon&Baliunas paper has given political lobbyists a field day in
> their attempts to confuse the public and decision-makers about the state
> of global warming science. It is quite interesting how a lobby
> organisation like the Marshall Institute manages to get a paper like
> that into the peer-reviewed literature with the help of a sympathetic
> editor, against reviewer concerns, and then capitalise on that right
> away in Senate hearings and the media. There clearly is a wider and
> well-funded strategy behind such activities, which has something to do
> with why the US has backed out of the Kyoto protocol. These same US
> organisations are also active here in Europe trying to influence policy,
> albeit so far with less success.
> In the face of such sophisticated lobbying we scientists should not be
> too naive. Although simply doing good science remains our main job, I
> think at some points we need to intervene in the public debate and try
> to clarify what is science and what is just political lobbying. In
> particular, I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically
> motivated science stand unchallenged in the peer-reviewed literature -
> it is too easy to just shrug and ignore an obviously bad paper. Hence I
> greatly appreciate that Mike and his co-authors responded in Eos to the
> errors in the Soon&Baliunas paper.
> I feel another recent paper may require a similar scientific response,
> the one by Shaviv&Veizer (attached). It derives a supposed upper limit
> for the CO2-effect on climate (i.e., 0.5 C warming for CO2 doubling),
> based on paleoclimatic data on the multi-million-year time scale. This
> paper got big media coverage here in Germany and I guess it is set to
> become a climate skeptics classic: the spin is that GCMs show a large
> CO2 sensitivity, but climate history proves it is really very small.
> Talking to various colleagues, everyone seems to agree that most of this
> paper is wrong, starting from the data themselves down to the
> methodology of extracting the CO2 effect.
> I think it would be a good idea to get a group of people together to
> respond to this paper (in GSA today). My expertise is good for part of
> this and I'd be willing to contribute. My questions to you are:
> 1. Does anyone know of any other plans to respond to this paper?
> 2. Would anyone like to be part of writing a response?
> 3. Do you know people who may have the right expertise? Then please
> forward them this mail.
> Best regards, Stefan
> Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf
> Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
> For contact details, reprints, movies & general infos see: