date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:00:47 -0500
from: Pete Lamb <plamb@ou.edu>
subject: Re: Small request
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

   Hi Phil:

   Many thanks for your detailed response, which will be most helpful.  I'll send you a copy
   of the article if the Editor and I reach agreement on it.
   I'm attaching a couple of other recent newspaper articles on the subject.  The longer one
   (first attachment) appeared as a full-page feature article in The Norman Transcript
   (Oklahoma) last November 1, and the shorter version derived from it was in the Dominion
   Post (Wellington, NZ) on the page opposite the Editorial page on March 28.
   See, I'm going to bat for you Global Warming folk!  Furthermore, I'm sure you also were
   pleased to see the All Blacks thrash England recently at Rugby.  However, if your Cricket
   allegiance is with England, then we had an honorable split.
   Thanks again and best wishes,
   Pete

   Peter J. Lamb

   George Lynn Cross Research Professor

     of Meteorology

   Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for

     Mesoscale Meteorological Studies

   The University of Oklahoma

   120 David L. Boren BLVD.,Suite 2100

   Norman, OK 73072-7304


   Phone 1-405-325-3041

   Fax     1-405-325-3098

   Cell     1-405-823-7483

   Phil Jones wrote:

      Pete,
          Here's the series I would recommend. It comes from this paper
      Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty
     estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850.
     J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.
      and is the one used in the 2007 IPCC report - the chapter I co-ordinated with Kevin.
      Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D.
     Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J. A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007:
     Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The
     Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report
     of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
     Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], pp235-336, Cambridge
     University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
      In the file, there are two lines for each year from 1850 to 2008. Ignore the second of
      each pair of lines - this is the % coverage of the Earth's surface with data.
      For the first line, the first 12 numbers after the year are Jan-Dec. I suspect you'll
      want the annual, so take the 13th number. Ignore the 14th, as this is another
      estimate of the annual.
      The annual values are all wrt 1961-90. All you need to do is plot these against the
      year and put a smoother through them. You should then get something like the
      figure on the CRU home page.  Your smoothing may be different, but the yearly
      values should be exact.
      [1] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
      2008 has data through May and it's annual value based on these 5 months.
      2008 is relatively cool, but this is due to the La Nina, which makes the world
      cooler as El Nino makes it warmer. The 1998 record should go when we have the
      next reasonable El Nino.
      My rule of thumb about the ENSO influence is that if you take our SOI, which
      ranges from ~3 to ~-3, each unit of the SOI explains about 0.06 deg C of global T.
      SOI also leads, so this reg weight comes from looking at high-freq variations
      of annual global T values versus July (of year -1) to June of the current year. So
      1998 was about 0.15 warmer because of the El Nino and 2008 about 0.10 cooler
      due to the La Nina.  2008 should be cooler than 1998 due to ENSO by about 0.25.
        Above just a bit of background as you'll likely have to explain why we're apparently
      not warming. A lot of the skeptics make a big thing about 1998 and apparent cooling
      since then. ENSO influence on the year-to-year temps is large compared to the
      0.02 deg C per year due to global warming if you assume we are warming at 0.2 deg C
      per decade.  2008 should be about 0.2 warmer than 1998 due to global warming.
      The values for 1998 (+0.526) and 2008 (+0.247) don't add up - the ENSO difference
      is about right but the GW part isn't, but as you know there are a lot of other
      circulation and other influences in the climate system - which your article
      will allude to!
       Hope all is well!
      Cheers
      Phil
     At 21:12 02/07/2008, you wrote:

     Hi Phil:
     I'd be very grateful if somebody in CRU could e-mail me an updated version (through
     2007) of your time series of globally averaged surfaced air temperature. I need the
     diagram (or its numerical equivalent) to complete a article for my hometown newspaper in
     New Zealand (Nelson Mail).
     I hope you are doing well. Thanks in advance,
     Pete
     --
     Peter J. Lamb
     George Lynn Cross Research Professor
       of Meteorology
     Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for
       Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
     The University of Oklahoma
     120 David L. Boren BLVD.,Suite 2100
     Norman, OK 73072-7304

     Phone 1-405-325-3041
     Fax     1-405-325-3098
     Cell     1-405-823-7483

     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    [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
     NR4 7TJ
     UK
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   [3][header.jpg]

Global warming -- certainty and uncertainty

   The Norman Transcript

   -- By Peter J. Lamb
   For The Transcript
   Now that the U.S. has taken a first if tiny step towards world leadership concerning global
   climate change -- President Bush's one-day "mini-summit" in Washington two weeks ago -- it
   is opportune to review the varying levels of scientific certainty and uncertainty that
   characterize our understanding of this issue. A major responsibility of scientists is to
   state the uncertainty of their results.
   It is completely certain that the Earth is experiencing ongoing global warming. When
   averaged over the entire planet for individual years, the temperature of surface air has
   increased by about 1 degree Celsius (or 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1910. Approximately
   half of this warming occurred in each of the periods between 1910-40 and 1970-2000. During
   the intervening 1940-70 period, that temperature either decreased (1940-50) or increased
   slightly (1950-70). The same results have been obtained for all continents and the surface
   temperature of the total global ocean.
   This warming did not come as a surprise, since it was predicted by the understanding of
   physics developed during the 1700s and 1800s, and was anticipated by scientists for most of
   the 1900s. During its 4.7 billion year history, the Earth has not become forever
   increasingly hot or cold. This is because the amount of heat the Earth receives from the
   sun always has been closely (but not always exactly) balanced by the heat the Earth emits
   back to Space. Increasing the atmosphere's greenhouse gases delays the return of the sun's
   heat to space, and requires an increase in surface air temperature.
   Consistent with this situation, recent computer model simulations have shown conclusively
   that almost all of the observed 1970-2000 warming would not have occurred without the
   strong simultaneous greenhouse gas increase. The reason for this warming now is as certain
   as the fact of the warming. Furthermore, the environmental evidence of this greenhouse
   gas-induced warming is widespread -- shrinking or disappearance of high altitude mountain
   glaciers in tropical East Africa, New Guinea, and northern South America; decreasing
   Northern Hemisphere snow cover; thinning and contraction of sea ice around the North Pole
   during summer; rising sea levels globally; and ice losses from the edges of Greenland and
   Antarctica. On the other hand, the same computer model simulations suggest that natural
   variability accounted for most of the temperature trends accompanying the slower rate of
   greenhouse gas increase during 1910-40 (warming) and 1940-70 (cooling then slight warming).
   Much more important than the 1 degree Celsius increase in global surface air temperature
   since 1910 will be the rate of further greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase during
   this new century. The above computer model simulations were very successful in reproducing
   the 20th century changes in the global surface air temperature. This is why the same
   computer models then were used to estimate the temperature changes that could occur if
   greenhouse gases continue to increase for the rest of the 21st century. However, this
   computer modeling extension introduces two unavoidable uncertainties. The first uncertainty
   involves the extended application of the models into the new century, for which convincing
   model validation will not be possible for at least 20 years. The second uncertainty stems
   from the need to make assumptions about future increases of greenhouse gas emissions, which
   will be determined by social, economic and political considerations that operate within and
   between nations.
   However, even when accompanied by these uncertainties, the computer model predictions of
   global surface air temperature for later this century are worrisome. Continued increases in
   greenhouse gas emissions at medium rates are suggested to raise the global temperature by a
   further 2 degrees Celsius to 2.5 degrees Celsius by the last decade of this century, with
   that increase being as high as 3 degrees Celsius to 4 degrees Celsius if the emissions
   increase proceeds at a high rate. These projected temperature increases are "best
   estimates" extracted from many computer model simulations. They are just as likely to be
   underestimates as overestimates, with the "likely range" of outcomes extending from 1.0
   degree Celsius to 2.4 degrees Celsius on each side of the best estimate. About half of
   these temperature changes are expected to occur by 2050. Such century-long temperature
   change would be very significant in a historical context -- it would approach or exceed the
   temperature levels characteristic of the Last Interglacial Maximum period of
   125,000-150,000 years ago, and be about half or more of the size of the strong cooling that
   characterized the maximum of the last Ice Age around 18,000 years ago (about 8 degrees
   Celsius colder than today).
   The word "global" appears in the term "global warming" because the fundamental nature of
   the issue indeed is global. It is the Earth as a whole (as opposed to any particular
   region) that closely balances the heat gained from the sun with the heat returned to space.
   This is why we are monitoring the trend in the global, annually averaged surface air
   temperature, which involves just one number per year for the entire Earth. In this purely
   scientific sense, regional variability is not important.
   From the societal standpoint, however, regional manifestations of the overall global
   warming are of paramount importance, especially the associated precipitation changes. And
   it is on this regional scale where the 21st century prediction uncertainty increases,
   especially for precipitation. For surface air temperature, all parts of the Earth are
   predicted to experience warming, with the warming maximizing first in high northern
   latitudes and later also around and over Antarctica. The reasons for this high latitude
   maximization are well understood -- less snow cover would reduce greatly the reflection of
   sunlight directly back to space, and the resulting atmospheric warming would be confined to
   a relatively thin vertical layer of air. For the central United States, including Oklahoma,
   the "best estimate" warming is predicted to reach 1degree to 1.5 degrees Celsius (annual
   average) by the 2020s and 2.5 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius by the 2090s. Not
   surprisingly, the uncertainty of the predicted warming is considerably larger for the 2090s
   than the 2020s.
   A major reason for the higher uncertainty of regional precipitation predictions is the
   relatively poor treatment of thunderstorm rainfall in the computer models developed so far.
   Thunderstorm rainfall is of high intensity and is very important in the tropics and also in
   mid-latitudes during the warm season. Unfortunately, model precipitation is overly biased
   towards much lower (non-thunderstorm) rates, especially drizzle. The well publicized
   predictions of greater precipitation variability for later this century are model-based,
   and so include this uncertainty, which often has been glossed over.
   For the last 20 years, earlier computer models with additional weaknesses suggested that
   the central United States (including Oklahoma) would become drier as well as hotter during
   summer by the middle of this century. However, the recent partially improved computer
   simulations discussed above are less definite in that regard. While the areas poleward of
   50 degrees latitude (including Canada) are predicted to become wetter in summer, and the
   zones between 15 degrees-30 degrees latitude (including Mexico) are suggested to become
   drier, the models are in much less agreement for the U.S. which lies between 30 degrees-50
   degrees N. Accordingly, Oklahoma and most of the U.S. are placed in an indeterminate
   category for summer rainfall change. However, winter drying is suggested more strongly by
   those simulations for the southwestern U.S., including Oklahoma. Such change would not be
   good for Oklahoma wheat production.
   Recent news reports were quick to blame "global warming" and "climate change" for the
   abundant 2007 summer monsoon rain in South Asia and West Africa. This conclusion is
   premature at best. Both regions experienced similarly large monsoon rainfall at times
   during the 1900s when greenhouse gases were lower. Also, research has related such monsoon
   rainfall extremes to global sea surface temperature patterns including those given by El
   Ni?os and La Ni?as. Such causes likely prevailed in 2007.
   Interestingly, former Vice President Gore's book (pages 116-117) suggests a completely
   opposite global warming causal argument for the West African monsoon -- that the drought
   there in recent decades has been due to greenhouse gas increases and climate change. This
   possibility was investigated thoroughly in a recent computer modeling study, where it was
   not substantiated. Instead, the findings further endorsed the role of shorter-term sea
   surface temperature variations.
   In similar vein, Oklahoma's record breaking summer 2007 rainfall should not be blamed on
   global warming, just like our recent sequence of not-too-hot summers does not disprove
   global warming. Oklahoma is a very small part of the Earth.
   On Aug. 10, The Norman Transcript editorialized negatively about the "Doubters among us"
   concerning climate change. The results summarized above come from the creative endeavors of
   600 scientists from around the world. The "doubters," in contrast, are very small in number
   and have produced few or no relevant research results themselves. Instead, in the recent
   words of a correspondent to my hometown newspaper (Nelson Mail, New Zealand, Sept. 13),
   "anti-climate change groups ... in our society ... deny, set up a smokescreen of deliberate
   misinformation, and drag in as many red herrings as possible." In a much larger article,
   the Aug. 13 Newsweek cover story probed revealingly "inside the denial machine" of the
   "well funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change." The
   same negative approach was long used by the tobacco industry and continues to be employed
   by anti-evolution creationists and advocates of so-called "Intelligent Design."
   It is revealing to compare President Bush's recent one-day "mini-summit" with the great
   American accomplishments of the 20th century that were based on superior science and
   technology. Those accomplishments included the automobile, flight, the Manhattan project
   and winning World War II, the Marshall Plan and reconstruction of Germany and Japan, the
   Space Program, computers, winning the Cold War, and the Internet. The nation that achieved
   all this because of the combination of its ingenuity and work ethic has a responsibility to
   provide world leadership to address the difficult challenge of global warming. While a case
   can be made for the U.S. non-ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, much less excusable
   is the subsequent near total inaction under Presidential Administrations and Congressional
   Majorities of both major political parties. The second reason generally given for the poor
   regard in which the U.S. currently is held by the rest of the World, after the Iraq War, is
   its lack of leadership on environmental issues, especially global warming.
   There are some other certainties. One is that constructive U.S. engagement will be needed
   before China can be persuaded to address its ever growing and now world leading
   contribution to the global warming problem. Another certainty is that the North
   Pole-to-Antarctic ice and snow melting and global sea level rise that have accompanied the
   1 degree Celsius global temperature increase will be followed by more dire environmental
   and ecological changes if that temperature increase proceeds relentlessly to 2 degrees
   Celsius, which is projected to occur by mid-century. Uncertainties about the details of
   such environmental and ecological change no longer should be used as excuses for inaction.
   That time certainly has passed, which is another certainty.
   Peter J. Lamb is a George Lynn Cross Research Professor of Meteorology and Director of the
   NOAA Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies at The University of
   Oklahoma. This article is based on presentations he has been making in a variety of forums,
   including to several Norman civic groups, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, U.S.
   National Weather Service forecasters from Kansas and Nebraska, and (last Wednesday) the
   Global Fusion Oklahoma Centennial Business Conference and International Festival in
   Oklahoma City.

   Copyright  1999-2006 cnhi, inc.

   Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Dominion Post Global Warming
   Article08032809510.pdf"

