cc: 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>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>
date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:06:45 -0400
from: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
to: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

   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:
     [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulati
     on/). 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]
     <[2]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
     [3]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin
     g_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 <[4]mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>>

     To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@stanford.edu <[5]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, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
     Friday wrote that theres 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.

     [6]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

     [7]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 <[8]mailto:mann@psu.edu>

     University Park, PA 16802-5013

     website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
     <[9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>

     "Dire Predictions" book site:
     [10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

     --

     ****************

     Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
     <[11]mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu>

     Climate Analysis Section,           www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
     <[12]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 <[13]mailto:mann@psu.edu>

     University Park, PA 16802-5013

     website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
     <[14]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>

     "Dire Predictions" book site:
     [15]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:  [16]mann@psu.edu
   University Park, PA 16802-5013
   website: [17]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
   "Dire Predictions" book site:
   [18]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

