date: 26 Jun 2007 12:42:52 -0400
from: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>
subject: Re: Armstrong
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

I'll try and go to the presentation on thursday if I can sneak into
their conference... I suspect a mere publicity stunt for an upcoming
book.

With respect to Keenan, he is clearly a man on a mission. So engaging
him and trying to appeal to his more rational side is a waste of time.
Other than that, I'm not sure what to recommend...

gavin

On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 09:04, Phil Jones wrote:
>   Gavin,
>      Just quickly read an awful paper by Armstrong. Have got a quick
>   response from Kevin Trenberth. Kevin says you may run with this
>   on RC?  Might be worthwhile. He seems to have got some
>   bad advice somewhere, or he's a republican. Kevin's response
>   is on the button.
> 
>     By the way - on Keenan - I have spoken to Pascal. According to
>   Pascal, though, he's gone further than he went with him (grapes) on this
>   Chinese urbanization issue.
> 
>   Cheers
>   Phil
> 
>   Gavin,
>       I see CA has some threads about GISS ModelE. The discussion
>   just shows how little they know. Models are verified against obs
>   data and parameterizations changed/improved. Do they not realize
>   that any parameterization will likely affect most grid boxes and
>   not just ones they are looking at!
>      Nice to know that the GISS ModelE has some 91K lines of code!
>   Also they on the ball with Kenneth Trenberth!
> 
>      I see that CA is taking adverts. I have seen a few times, one for
>   the MSc Climate Change course at the University of Exeter. Maybe
>   if you deign to reply (I wouldn't but on RC some time) you should
>   suggest some of them take the course!
> 
>      On teaching, we are experiencing a massive upsurge in applications
>   to do our MSc on Climate Change. We have made offers to over 80
>   people. Based on a conversion rate from past years of 50%, we may
>   likely have about twice as many people doing course cf previous
>   years. It doubled to about 20 only 3 years ago from 10 during 1998-2004.
> 
>   Cheers
>   Phil
> 
> 
> At 23:32 22/06/2007, you wrote:
> >It would indeed be nice if they would do something constructive like
> >write an actual paper, but it's extremely unlikely that they'll bother.
> >As we've discussed before, this isn't really about the science - it's
> >more of a way to shift the topic of conversation away from physics and
> >on to perfidious scientists, totalitarian bureaucracies and freedom of
> >speech. Those subjects resonate with a lot of people who are looking for
> >reasons not to want to trust the IPCC.
> >
> >Keenan is extremely unpleasant - much more so than McIntyre. Ask Pascal
> >Yiou the next time you see him!
> >
> >There is unfortunately no good way to deal with this micro-parsing - but
> >don't let anything you do allow them to shift the focus onto 'hiding'
> >data etc.
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >gavin
> >
> >On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 03:58, Phil Jones wrote:
> > >   Gavin,
> > >      So you do look at CA occasionally!  Yes nice emails
> > >   welcomed all the time. CRU gets a number of emails each
> > >   week from interested amateurs (the public). I'm much more
> > >   careful how I reply to these.
> > >     I won't be replying to CA. McIntyre's email wasn't too bad.
> > >   The really awful one with threats came from Douglas Keenan.
> > >     The only issue I can see they are complaining about is that
> > >   we said we used 84 sites (42 rural and 42 urban) and that
> > >   we chose those with the fewest site changes. They have found
> > >   site histories for some of them and there are site moves! They
> > >   have yet to look at the temperature data that I sent them! So
> > >   their claim is nothing about the analysis in the paper!
> > >      They don't seem to realise that when you spend ages doing all
> > >   the site adjustments they only make differences locally. At
> > >   large scales they tend to cancel each other out. In
> > >   Brohan et al. (2006) Figure 4 you can see a histogram of
> > >   adjustments - the average of which is close to zero!
> > >    Adjusting is useful as it improves the continuity of spatial
> > >   patterns.
> > >      The real issues are the biases like urbanization, buckets
> > >   and the exposure issues from pre-Stevenson screen days.
> > >   Jim will have realized this ages ago, as I did around the
> > >   mid-1980s.
> > >
> > >     If only they would write a paper, then I'd know what to deal
> > >   with. I reckon they are trying this new tack now (blogs,
> > >   personal attacks and maybe complaints to our employers)
> > >   as they realize they can't write papers (the MM ones re MBH
> > >   were poor), and they see their new approach as being more
> > >   productive for them.
> > >
> > >     So more nice emails every now and then.
> > >
> > >   Cheers
> > >   Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > At 17:21 20/06/2007, you wrote:
> > > >yeah, I've been noticing... Well, just let me know if I can do anything
> > > >- even if it's just sending the occasionally nice email!
> > > >
> > > >Gavin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 05:59, Phil Jones wrote:
> > > > >   Gavin,
> > > > >     Thanks. Yours was the nicest email I got overnight.
> > > > >   Cheers
> > > > >   Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At 20:02 19/06/2007, you wrote:
> > > > > >Refs for my section - note that the first Goosse reference should be
> > > > > >Goosse et al 2006, and the second was in error and shouldn't be there
> > > > > >any way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Gavin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >References
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Collins, W. D., et al., Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse
> > > > > >gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental
> > > > > >   Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J.
> > > > > >Geophys. Res, 111, 2006.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Dickinson, R., Solar variability and the lower atmosphere, Bull. Amer.
> > > > > >Meteor. Soc., pp. 12401248., 1975.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Gerber, S., F. Joos, P. P. Bruegger, T. F. Stocker, M. E. Mann, and S.
> > > > > >Sitch, Constraining temperature variations over the last
> > > > > >   millennium by comparing simulated and 
> > observed atmospheric CO2, Clim.
> > > > > >Dyn., 20, 281299, 2003.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Goosse, H., O. Arzel, J. Luterbacher, M. E. Mann, H. Renssen, N.
> > > > > >Riedwyl, A. Timmermann, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner, The origin
> > > > > >   of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate of the Past, 2,
> > > > > >99113, 2006.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Haigh, J. D., The impact of solar 
> > variability on climate, Science, 272,
> > > > > >981984, 1996.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, 
> > M. Nouger, P. J. van der Linden,
> > > > > >X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, Climate Change
> > > > > >   2001: The scientific basis, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Lean, J., Evolution of the sun's spectral irradiance since the Maunder
> > > > > >Minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 24252428, 2000.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >LeGrande, A. N., G. A. Schmidt, D. T. 
> > Shindell, C. Field, R. L. Miller,
> > > > > >D. Koch, G. Faluvegi, and G. Hoffmann, Consistent simulations
> > > > > >   of multiple proxy responses to an 
> > abrupt climate change event, Proc.
> > > > > >Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 837842, 2006.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Oman, L., A. Robock, G. Stenchikov, G. A. Schmidt, and R. Ruedy,
> > > > > >Climatic response to high-latitude volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys.
> > > > > >   Res., 110, 2005.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Ruddiman, W. F., The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of
> > > > > >years ago, Clim. Change, 61, 261293, 2003.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. A. Schmidt, R. L. Miller, and D. Rind, Northern
> > > > > >hemisphere winter climate response to greenhouse gas, ozone,
> > > > > >   solar and volcanic forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 71937210, 2001.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. Faluvegi, R. L. 
> > Miller, G. A. Schmidt, J. E. Hansen,
> > > > > >and S. Sun, Solar and anthropogenic forcing of tropical
> > > > > >   hydrology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 2006.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 05:55, Phil Jones wrote:
> > > > > > >   Gavin,
> > > > > > >      Thanks for this. I'll incorporate this into a revised draft
> > > > > > > later this week
> > > > > > >   and then send around. Gene has sent me something as well.
> > > > > > >     Can you send the refs if you have them?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     Thorsten will likely send a reminder around as he's being
> > > > > > >   pressurized by Larry from EPRI.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Cheers
> > > > > > >   Phil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 09:51 28/05/2007, you wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Hi Phil, sorry for the long delay. 
> > But here is a first draft of the
> > > > > > > >forcings and models section I was supposed to take the lead on.
> > > > > > > >Hopefully, we can merge that with whatever Caspar has.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Gavin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >================
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >4 Forcing (GS/CA/EZ)  4-5pp
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Histories (CA)
> > > > > > > >How models see the forcings, especially wrt aerosols/ozone and
> > > > > > > >increasing model complexities (GS)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >An important reason for improving
> > > > climate reconstructions of the past few
> > > > > > > >millenia is that these reconstructions can help us both evaluate
> > > > > > > >climate model responses and sharpen our understanding of important
> > > > > > > >mechanisms and feedbacks. Therefore, a parallel task to improving
> > > > > > > >climate reconstructions is to assess and independently constrain
> > > > > > > >forcings on the climate system over that period.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Forcings can generically be described as external effects on a
> > > > > > > >specific system. Responses within that system that also themselves
> > > > > > > >have an impact on its internal state 
> > are described as feeebacks. For
> > > > > > > >the atmosphere, sea surface temperature changes could
> > > > > > > >therefore be considered a forcing, 
> > but in a coupled ocean-atmosphere
> > > > > > > >model they could be a feedback to another external factor or be
> > > > > > > >intrinsic to the coupled system. Thus
> > > > the distinction between forcings and
> > > > > > > >feedbacks is not defined a priori, 
> > but is a function of the scope of
> > > > > > > >the modelled system. This becomes 
> > especially important when dealing
> > > > > > > >with the bio-geo-chemical processes in climate that effect the
> > > > > > > >trace gas concentrations (CO2 and CH4) or
> > > > > > aerosols.  For example, if a model
> > > > > > > >contains a carbon cycle, than the CO2 variations as a function of
> > > > > > > >climate will be a feedback, but for 
> > a simpler physical model, CO2 is
> > > > > > > >often imposed directly as a forcing 
> > from observations, regardless of
> > > > > > > >whether in the real world it was a 
> > feedback to another change, or a
> > > > > > > >result of human industrial activity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >It is useful to consider the 
> > pre-industrial period (pre-1850 or so)
> > > > > > > >seperately from the more recent past, since the human influence on
> > > > > > > >many aspects of atmospheric 
> > composition has increased dramatically in
> > > > > > > >the 20th Century. In particular, aerosol and land use changes are
> > > > > > > >poorly constrained prior to the late 20th Century and have large
> > > > > > > >uncertainties.  Note however, there may
> > > > conceivably be a role for human
> > > > > > > >activities even prior to the 19th 
> > Century due to early argiculatural
> > > > > > > >activity (Ruddiman, 2003; Goosse et al, 2005).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In pre-industrial periods, forcings can be usefully separated into
> > > > > > > >purely external changes (variations of solar activity, volcanic
> > > > > > > >eruptions, orbital variation), and 
> > those which are intrinsic to the
> > > > > > > >Earth system (greenhouse gases, aerosols, vegetation etc.). Those
> > > > > > > >changes in Earth system elements 
> > will occur predominantly as feedbacks
> > > > > > > >to other changes (whether externally 
> > forced or simply as a function of
> > > > > > > >internal climate 'noise'). In the 
> > more recent past, the human role in
> > > > > > > >affecting atmospheric composition 
> > (trace gases and aerosols) and land
> > > > > > > >use have dominated over natural 
> > processes and so these changes can, to
> > > > > > > >large extent, be considered external forcings as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Traditionally, the 'system' that is 
> > most usually implied when talking
> > > > > > > >about forcings and feedbacks are the 
> > 'fast' components atmosphere-land
> > > > > > > >surface-upper ocean system that, not 
> > coincidentally, corresponds to
> > > > > > > >the physics contained within atmospheric
> > > > > > general circulation models (AGCMs)
> > > > > > > >coupled to a slab ocean. What is not
> > > > > > included (and therefore considered as a
> > > > > > > >forcing according to our previous 
> > definition) are 'slow' changes in
> > > > > > > >vegetation, ice sheets or the carbon 
> > cycle. In the real world these
> > > > > > > >features will change as a function 
> > of other climate changes, and in
> > > > > > > >fact may do so on relatively 'fast' (i..e multi-decadal)
> > > > > > > >timescales. Our choice then of the appropriate 'climate system' is
> > > > > > > >thus slightly arbitrary and does not 
> > give a complete picture of the
> > > > > > > >long term sensitivity of the real climate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >These distinctions become important 
> > because the records available for
> > > > > > > >atmospheric composition do not 
> > record the distinction between feedback
> > > > > > > >or forcing, they simply give, for instance, the history of CO2 and
> > > > > > > >CH4. Depending on the modelled 
> > system, those records will either be a
> > > > > > > >modelling input, or a modelling target.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >While there are good records for 
> > some factors (particularly the well
> > > > > > > >mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 
> > and CH4), records for others are
> > > > > > > >either hopelessly incomplete (dust, 
> > vegetation) due to poor spatial or
> > > > > > > >temporal resolution or non-existant 
> > (e.g. ozone). Thus estimates of
> > > > > > > >the magnitude of these forcings can 
> > only be made using a model-based
> > > > > > > >approach. This can be done using 
> > GCMs that include more Earth system
> > > > > > > >components (interactive aerosols, chemistry, dynamic vegetation,
> > > > > > > >carbon cycles etc.), but these 
> > models are still very much a work in
> > > > > > > >progress and have not been used extensively for paleo-climatic
> > > > > > > >purposes. Some initial attempts have 
> > been made for select feedbacks
> > > > > > > >and forcings (Gerber et al, 2003; Goosse et al 2006) but a
> > > > > > > >comprehensive assessment over the millennia prior to the
> > > > > > > >pre-industrial does not yet exist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Even for those forcings for which good records exist, there is a
> > > > > > > >question of they are represented within the models. This is not so
> > > > > > > >much of an issue for the well-mixed 
> > greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4)
> > > > > > > >since there is a sophisticated literature and history of including
> > > > > > > >them within models (IPCC, 2001) though some aspects, such as minor
> > > > > > > >short-wave absorption effects for CH4 and N2O are still not
> > > > > > > >universally included
> > > > > > > >(Collins et al, 2006). However, solar effects have been treated in
> > > > > > > >quite varied ways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The most straightforward way of 
> > including solar irradiance effects on
> > > > > > > >climate is to change the solar 'constant' (preferably described as
> > > > > > > >total solar irradiance - TSI). 
> > However, observations show that solar
> > > > > > > >variability is highly dependent on wavelength with UV bands having
> > > > > > > >about 10 times as much amplitude of 
> > change than TSI over a solar cycle
> > > > > > > >(Lean, 2000). Thus including this spectral variation for all solar
> > > > > > > >changes allows for a slightly different behaviour (larger
> > > > > > > >solar-induced changes in the stratosphere where the UV is mostly
> > > > > > > >absorbed for instance). 
> > Additionally, the changes in UV affect ozone
> > > > > > > >production in both the stratosphere and troposphere, and this
> > > > > > > >mechanism has been shown to affect 
> > both the total radiative forcing
> > > > > > > >and dynamical responses (Haigh 1996, Shindell et al 2001;
> > > > > > > >2006). Within a chemistry climate 
> > model this effect would potentially
> > > > > > > >modify the radiative impact of the
> > > > original solar forcing, but could also
> > > > > > > >be included as an additional 
> > (parameterised) forcing in standard GCMs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >There is also a potential effect from the indirect effect of solar
> > > > > > > >magnetic variability on the 
> > sheilding of cosmic rays, which have been
> > > > > > > >theorised to affect the production of cloud condensation nuclei
> > > > > > > >(Dickinson, 1975). However, there have been no quantitative
> > > > > > > >calculations of the magnitude of 
> > this effect (which would require a
> > > > > > > >full study of the relevant aerosol 
> > and cloud microphysics), and so its
> > > > > > > >impact on climate is not (yet) been included.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Large volcanic eruptions produce significant amounts of sulpher
> > > > > > > >dioxide (SO2). If this is injected into the tropical stratosphere
> > > > > > > >during a particularly explosive 
> > eruption, the resulting sulphate can
> > > > > > > >persist in the atmosphere for a number of years (e.g. Pinatubo in
> > > > > > > >1991). Less explosive, but more persistent eruptions (e.g. Laki in
> > > > > > > >1789??) can still affect climate 
> > though in a more regional way and for
> > > > > > > >a shorter term (Oman et al, 2005). These aerosols have both a
> > > > > > > >shortwave (reflective) and longwave (absorbing) impact on the
> > > > > > > >radiation and their local impact on stratospheric heating can have
> > > > > > > >important dynamical effects. It is therefore better to include the
> > > > > > > >aerosol absorber directly in the 
> > radiative transfer code. However, in
> > > > > > > >less sophisticated models, the impact of the aerosols has been
> > > > > > > >parameterised as the equivalent 
> > decrease in TSI. For extreme eruptions
> > > > > > > >it has been hypothesised that 
> > sulphate production might saturate the
> > > > > > > >oxidative capacity of the 
> > stratosphere leaving significant amounts of
> > > > > > > >residual SO2. This gas is a 
> > greenhouse gas and would have an opposite
> > > > > > > >effect to the cooling aerosols. This 
> > effect however has not yet been
> > > > > > > >quantified.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Land cover changes have occured both 
> > due to deliberate modification by
> > > > > > > >humans (deforestation, imposed fire 
> > regimes, arguculture) as well as a
> > > > > > > >feedback to climate change (the 
> > desertification of the Sahara ca. 5500
> > > > > > > >yrs ago). Changing vegetation in a 
> > standard model affects the seasonal
> > > > > > > >cycle of albedo, the surface roughness, the impact of snow,
> > > > > > > >evapotranspiration (through 
> > different rooting depths) etc. However,
> > > > > > > >modelling of the yearly cycle of 
> > crops, or incorporating the effects
> > > > > > > >of large scale irrigation are still very much a work in
> > > > > > > >progress.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Aerosol changes over the last few milllenia are very poorly
> > > > > > > >constrained (if at all). These might have arisen from climatically
> > > > > > > >or human driven changes in dust emissions, ocean biology feedbacks
> > > > > > > >on circulation change, or climate impacts on the emission volatile
> > > > > > > >organics from plants (which also have an impact on ozone
> > > > > > > >chemistry).  Some work on modelling a subset of those effects has
> > > > > > > >been done for the last glacial maximum or the 8.2 kyr event
> > > > > > > >(LeGrande et al, 2006), but there have been no quantitative
> > > > > > > >estimates for the late Holocene (prior to the industrial period).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Due to the relative expense of doing millennial simulations with
> > > > > > > >state-of-the-art GCMs, exisiting 
> > simulations have generally done the
> > > > > > > >minimum required to include relevant solar, GHG and volcanic
> > > > > > > >forcings. Progress can be expected relatively soon on more
> > > > > > > >sophisticated treatments of those forcings and the first
> > > > > > > >quantitative estimates of additional effects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >=============
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >*------------------------------------ 
> > --------------------------------*
> > > > > > > >| Gavin 
> > Schmidt             NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies |
> > > > > > > >|                           2880 
> > Broadway                            |
> > > > > > > >| Tel: (212) 678 5627       New 
> > York, NY 10025                       |
> > > > > > > >| 
> >                                  |
> > > > > > > >| 
> > gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin         |
> > > > > > > >*------------------------------------ 
> > --------------------------------*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > > > > > Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> > > > > > > School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> > > > > > > University of East Anglia
> > > > > > > Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> > > > > > > NR4 7TJ
> > > > > > > UK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > > > Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> > > > > School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> > > > > University of East Anglia
> > > > > Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> > > > > NR4 7TJ
> > > > > UK
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> > > School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> > > University of East Anglia
> > > Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> > > NR4 7TJ
> > > UK
> > > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >
> > >
> > >
> 
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                 
> 
> 
