date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:34:30 -0400 from: Bob Webster subject: Re: Greenhouse gas warming question to: Phil Jones Phil, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. I particularly appreciated the paper you included regarding the cooling issue during the 1970s. Just a few comments on my perspective: As a scientist (BS, Mathematics) whose interest in meteorology, climatology, geology and astronomy began before my teen years (an age when most of my friends would guess that a meteorologist was someone who studied meteors!) and included a subscription to the old US Weather Bureau's "Daily Weather Maps" (which lasted into my late 20s), I've long had an interest in scientific issues, especially earth sciences. I was in my mid-30s in the 1970s when major newspapers and news magazines were proclaiming the dangers of global cooling and the possibility that humans were bringing on a new ice age. I recall vividly Carl Sagan's TV show wherein he spoke of this issue and certainly seemed much more than neutral in regard to the global cooling issue. I noticed your paper cited him as being "neutral" (at least in his published work). Perhaps there is a good reason to distinguish between scientific literature and mass media, but when the mass media were being fueled by a number of scientists including Sagan and Steven Schneider (in a published paper): "Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an increase in atmospheric CO[2 ]... Even an eight-fold increase over present levels might warm the Earth's surface less than 2 degrees Centigrade, and this is unlikely in the next several thousand years." So understand that to many who heard the doomsayers proclaiming through the media that global cooling was a distinct possibility if we didn't do something about industrial aerosol pollution, there is a vivid memory of the claims despite the evident lack of a majority of scientists writing journal-level papers in support of the cooling claim. Perhaps more of the warming scientists should have spoken up, but then, they might have encountered Dr. Schneider's rage and simply preferred to keep silent in public. I understood the quotes I cited from your website were from the IPCC Report, but appearing as they did, clearly they are endorsed by you and CRU. I do not find the IPCC's report convincing. The evident lack of any serious attempt to put recent climate change in perspective with natural climate variability (or to even attempt to understand natural variability) is a major weakness of the IPCC position. In short, no problem-solving expert would ever endorse an approach that starts with a "solution" and work backwards to support the pre-conceived solution (the course apparently taken by the IPCC). Logically, the question of recent climate change needs to be addressed by first understanding past climate change. No theory should be put forth that is inconsistent with climate change as evidenced in the geologic record. Yet there is little attempt to understand climate change over any meaningful past timeframe, whether it be the drivers of ice age cycles/interglacials, or of ice epochs, or of ice eras. Certainly, earth's typical climate needs to be addressed and some understanding of what causes such variations. While continental drift/creation/destruction will certainly influence climate at any given spot on the planet, it is unlikely that it can explain why much of earth's history has had atmospheric CO[2] at substantially higher levels: Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\co2-levels-over-time1.jpg" If carbon dioxide was insufficient at 4500 ppm to significantly warm the planet 450 million years ago, why should it be any different today? In a nutshell, what I find difficult to accept is a wholly theoretical view being held as scientific reality when, in fact, the only validation of the AGW theory is by suspect computer models driven by assumptions and conjecture and supported by suspect "methodologies" designed to prove things that empirical observations are better-suited to determine, such as the predicted mid-tropospheric tropical warming "signature" of greenhouse gas warming (not observed by either satellite or radiosonde measurements!). Other gimmicks (e.g., the Mann, et al, "Hockey Stick" curve designed to eliminate the inconveniences of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and to certify a claim of "unprecedented" for late 20th-century warming) simply ring hollow upon close examination of all other accepted measures of climate history. While I freely admit I am a climate realist (or skeptic, but then all scientists should be skeptics) as opposed to climate alarmist, I have no interest in being wrong about this. Because my interest in climatology and geology armed me with knowledge of how continental drift changes the face of the earth significantly in as little as 25 million years, and that earth's typical climate (when not in an ice age cycle/ice epoch/ice era) is substantially warmer with no sea-level permanent ice, even at the poles, then it is hard for me to get excited about predictions of temperature rises that, by meaningful timeframes in climatology, are rather ordinary. Compounding my doubts are the geologic evidence of the atmospheric CO2 history and lack of any possible significant greenhouse gas causation for past climate change as illustrated above. I would be interested in your response to Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu's recent paper, "Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming) and (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming)" attached below. Looking at the last seven years of your own chart, a clear cooling trend emerges: Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\gtc2008.gif" If atmospheric carbon dioxide is such a powerful driver (as claimed by the IPCC with their predictions of rapid warmth), then how is it possible to have a seven year cooling trend while carbon dioxide continues its upward march? Too many inconsistencies backed by too many weak assumptions are characteristic of the IPCC debacle. I apologize for failing to be as brief as I had intended. Despite our obvious differences, I do value your perspective and appreciate any helpful views you might have in this regard. Best regards, Bob Webster Vero Beach, FL PS: According to many local long-time residents, Vero Beach has just has one of the coldest winters (in terms of number of low temperature days, not record lows) in at least three decades. Outlook is for a cool, wet summer. On May 20, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Bob, I'd suggest you look at the IPCC Report (AR4). The quotes on some of our pages come from the Summary for Policymakers Report in 2007. You can access the report on this page [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ They seem to have also put up the frequently asked questions. On the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, I'd suggest you look at Ch 2. These show what you say modest changes in CO2 have on the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere. Millions of years ago the continents were in different positions. Also as you mention global cooling - see the attached. This media belief wasn't the scientific concensus in the 1970s. The cooling papers got the media attention, but the majority even then were going for warming. Cheers Phil ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Bob Webster [[2] mailto:bwebster@att.net] Sent: 20 May 2009 01:33 To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Greenhouse gas warming question CRU: The following bold statement is contained on the page: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns' On what bases are the "greenhouse gas" causation and "human" impact claimed? I have read and followed this issue since it arose from the global cooling fears of the 1970s (having taken a keen interest in meteorology and climatology at age 13 in the 1950s and pursued my scientific interests through a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics). Climate history informs us that temperature rates of change (century basis) have ranged far greater than any of the small changes seen during the past several hundred years. Current change is well within nominal rates of change (per century). Most of earth's climate history has been typically far warmer with far higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Ironically, and, apparently inexplicably to the above conclusion, atmospheric CO2 has also been an order of magnitude higher than at present during a most severe ice era! Indeed by comparison to historic levels, earth's atmosphere is CO2-starved and dangerously close to the extinction level for plant life (low 100s ppm). To suggest that modest (by historic standards) elevations of CO2 to 600 or even 1000 ppm would cause significant warming is to deny historic evidence that is without question contradictory (fatally) to that suggestion! Humans have never known earth's typical climate (when it is not in an ice epoch of an ice era as it is at present). The current interglacial, while warm by comparison with an ice age, is still far colder than temperatures when earth is not in an ice epoch and very much colder than when earth is not in an ice era (i.e., ~90% of earth's life-supporting time has experienced far warmer temperatures). Atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been correlated with temperature on the scale that is strongest for the argument of causation (units of tens or hundreds of millions of years). The only scale showing a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is the scale of hundreds of thousands of years and that data clearly show that CO2 responds to temperature changes, it does not lead or cause them (due to ocean outgassing/absorption of CO2 with temperature change). Knowing that greenhouse gases have never been a significant cause of global climate change, it is puzzling to read the bold statement made above. Is there anything other than conjecture that can support the claims that temperature changes are (1) caused by CO2 and (2) primarily due to the CO2 that results from human industry? Thank you for consideration of my inquiry, Robert D. Webster Vero Beach, Florida ________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ IMPORTANT: The sender intends that this electronic message is for exclusive use by the person to whom it is addressed. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, or the use of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender of your inadvertent receipt and delete this message from all data storage systems. 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 [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\petersonetal2008.pdf" Bob Webster "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H.L. Mencken "I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant." -- H. L. Mencken "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -- MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD, Atmospheric Science "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts." -- Sen. Patrick Moynihan "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Abraham Lincoln "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference." -- Harry S. Truman ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ IMPORTANT: The sender intends that this electronic message is for exclusive use by the person to whom it is addressed. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, or the use of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender of your inadvertent receipt and delete this message from all data storage systems.