From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:43:54 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Jim Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

<x-flowed>
Gavin,

I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties
and the possibility of compensating errors.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gavin Schmidt wrote:
> Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the
> fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal
> variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple
> individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more
> suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is
> great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability
> does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison. 
> 
> The kind of things we are hearing "no model showed a cooling", the "data
> is outside the range of the models" need to be addressed directly.
> 
> Gavin
> 
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
>> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
>> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
>> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
>> community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
>> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
>> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
>> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
>> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
>> what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
>> notwithstanding),
>>
>> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
>> all),
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>>
>>> Tom.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> thanks Tom,
>>>> I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
>>>> mike
>>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
>>>>> recent
>>>>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
>>>>> look at
>>>>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
>>>>> trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
>>>>> is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
>>>>> observed data.
>>>>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
>>>>> second
>>>>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>>>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
>>>>> Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack
>>>>> of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
>>>>> do not
>>>>> agree with this.
>>>>> Tom.
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
>>>>>> warming?  We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
>>>>>> broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
>>>>>> record.  We had 4 inches of snow.  The high the last 2 days
>>>>>> was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
>>>>>> previous records for these days by 10F.  The low was about 18F
>>>>>> and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
>>>>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
>>>>>> was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
>>>>>> freezing weather).
>>>>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
>>>>>> planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in
>>>>>> Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
>>>>>> doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>>>>>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at
>>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.  The CERES data
>>>>>> published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
>>>>>> should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
>>>>>> Our observing system is inadequate.
>>>>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.  People
>>>>>> like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
>>>>>> correlated with ENSO.  Most of what they are seeing is the
>>>>>> change in ENSO not real PDO.  It surely isn't decadal.  The
>>>>>> PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino.  The PDO
>>>>>> index became positive in September for first time since Sept
>>>>>> 2007.   see
>>>>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
>>>>>>> BBC.  its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard
>>>>>>> Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
>>>>>>> can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met
>>>>>>> Office.
>>>>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile
>>>>>>> it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say
>>>>>>> about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural
>>>>>>>> variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to
>>>>>>>> this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC?  As we enter an
>>>>>>>> El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their
>>>>>>>> temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt
>>>>>>>> per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be
>>>>>>>> another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard
>>>>>>>> someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot
>>>>>>>> of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the
>>>>>>>> past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis
>>>>>>>> still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000
>>>>>>>> year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in
>>>>>>>> big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do
>>>>>>>> need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.
>>>>>>>> Such "fun", Cheers, Steve
>>>>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider
>>>>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary
>>>>>>>> Environmental Studies,
>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Biology and
>>>>>>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
>>>>>>>> Mailing address:
>>>>>>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
>>>>>>>> 473 Via Ortega
>>>>>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978
>>>>>>>> F:  650 725 4387
>>>>>>>> Websites:  climatechange.net
>>>>>>>>          patientfromhell.org
>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@stanford.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>>
>>>>>>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@stanford.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:shs@stanford.edu>>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00
>>>>>>>> US/Canada Pacific
>>>>>>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
>>>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC˙s
>>>>>>>> reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there˙s
>>>>>>>> been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations
>>>>>>>> will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not
>>>>>>>> outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics˙
>>>>>>>> views.
>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
>>>>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
>>>>>>>> BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside
>>>>>>>> the US.
>>>>>>>> Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from
>>>>>>>> a scientist?
>>>>>>>> Narasimha
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate,
>>>>>>>> Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and
>>>>>>>> Resources (E-IPER)
>>>>>>>> Stanford University
>>>>>>>> Tel: 415-812-7560
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann
>>>>>>> Professor
>>>>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>>>>>> Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814)
>>>>>>> 863-4075
>>>>>>> 503 Walker Building                              FAX:
>>>>>>> (814) 865-3663
>>>>>>> The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:mann@psu.edu>
>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>>>>>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
>>>>>>> <http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>
>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>>>>>>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> ****************
>>>>>> Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu>
>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section,
>>>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html>
>>>>>> NCAR
>>>>>> P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
>>>>>> Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>>>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
>>>>> <Wigley-RecentTemps.doc>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Michael E. Mann
>>>> Professor
>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>>> Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
>>>> 503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
>>>> 865-3663
>>>> The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
>>>> <mailto:mann@psu.edu>
>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
>>>> <http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>
>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>>>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
>> 503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
>> The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
>> "Dire Predictions" book site: 
>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


</x-flowed>

