date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:20:41 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: intense precip to: m.hulme@uea Mike, I replied to this guy on our behalf. I thought I'd bring you back into the picture - he wants to approach the Environment Agency to suggest a joint UEA-EA-WeatherAction project to sort out the greenhouse vs. solar problem. Not quite sure how to respond - any suggestions? Tim >From: "hilles" >To: "Tim Osborn" >Subject: RE: intense precip >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:34:56 -0000 Dear Tim, Thank you for your reply of the 6 November, very much appreciated. Could it simply be that the solar signal is being produced by a combination of the improved resolution of your most recent winter precipitation data, together with the ever increasing levels of CO2 providing now greater and more pronounced greenhouse effects? I have also asked Weather Action at SBU to provide longer time series correlations between solar activity and terrestrial weather related factors. We have used WA forecasts for planning the arable farming on 2500 acres here in Glos for several years - and they have been of great benefit. They seem to achieve similar accuracy to conventional forecasts at 5 days range, yet are produced months ahead, and are usually best at showing overall trends, as well as extreme storm events. I appreciate such forecasts could be produced by purely mathematical means; but the WA people seem very sincere in their claim that these forecasts are produced by correlations with solar activity - and certainly those graphs I originally sent you would indicate (well beyond the chance of coincidence) that such links do exist. May I also mention my own perspective and vested interests, in addition to my Agenda 21 work. As a countryman and keen fisherman I have done what I could over the last twenty years to prevent the obvious deterioration in our local environment. It has become apparent that in addition to the greenhouse gas/solar debate on climate change and weather - there are also significant terrestrial factors that have a role, not only in the amelioration of the effects of weather/climate extremes, but also probably in the moderation of the actual weather extremes. I see little in the media relating to this and I strongly believe that we are thus failing to produce a cohesive and convincing strategy to meet such changes. The graphic below, taken from one of my local studies shows some of these principles, to enable a relatively 'cheap' response to climate change: I have had contact also with the Environment Agency regarding these issues, ranging from their neglect of the natural water management principles detailed in the graphic above through to their equally apparent disregard of the clear drought/flood cycles detailed in the public domain information I originally sent you. Such cycles have long been noted in the water industry; but not acted on. Dr Richard Bailey (former CIWEM president) tells me he was fully aware of the solar signal apparent in Yorkshire river flows over 30 years ago. I am aware that there is a great difference of opinion regarding global warming between your department at UEA and Weather Action at SBU. Between you both you will have the expertise and data to more fully investigate the atmospheric/solar links - and WA has expressed to me a willingness to collaborate with you in this respect. May I suggest to the EA that they should commission a joint UEA/WA/EA study of such links? Could I introduce you to WA researchers to develop such a proposal, if not for the EA, then I might find other sponsors? I thank you in anticipation of your consideration of this. With kind regards, Julian Jones -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 November 2000 10:03 To: hilles@easynet.co.uk Subject: Fwd: intense precip > I am very concerned by the strong correlations between UK Winter Rainfall >and solar activity and the failure of the authorities to incorporate such >data in their forward planning - we appear to be paying a bitter price for >this here in Gloucestershire. > > Your rainfall data had been previously been published to illustrate >increasing UK rainfall due to Greenhouse Gas emission led Global Warming - >there would appear to be a strong solar component to this also. > > By failing to acknowledge this and incorporate this in our plans we are >also failing to produce a cohesive argument for Sustainable Development - >certainly as far as the petrol protesters are concerned! Dear Julian, Mike Hulme asked me to reply to your email (copied above). The possible link between solar variability and winter precipitation intensity is very interesting - one of the scientific reviewers of our paper in fact asked us to add some comments about it to our original scientific paper. We declined to do so, however, mainly because we had a second record that covered the period from 1931-1997, though based on only 63 weather stations rather than 120 stations used to create the figure that appeared in the media. The second record showed a very similar trend to our main results over 1961-1995, and also showed the 11-year variability that indicates a link to solar activity over this period. *But* over the 1931-1960 period it showed no link at all to solar activity. It is quite possible that the 11-year oscillations over 1961-1995 are purely coincidental, and that the solar-climate link is weak or non-existent. The range of scientific opinion is quite broad on the topic of how much climate variability and change is driven by solar variations. Nevertheless, as more observational data and improved statistical analysis techniques become available, it is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important. For temperature, many scientists now feel that natural solar variations were the main contributor to the early 20th century warming that occurred between about 1910 and 1950. The dramatic warming since 1980, however, cannot be explained by changes in solar output. So, the role of solar variability is starting to be acknowledged, though it cannot explain all changes, and is much more uncertain than the greenhouse effect (in terms of quantifying past changes and in understanding physical/chemical mechanisms that can amplify a small change in radiation into a large climate response). It also does not imply that the greenhouse effect is necessarily weaker than is currently believed, so the best way to think of it might not be that climate change scenarios due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are wrong, but just that the level of natural variability that should be superimposed upon them is larger if solar variability is included. This is, of course, my personal opinion. Best regards Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089 Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784 Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk School of Environmental Sciences | web-site: University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock: UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sustainwater.jpg" Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089 Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784 Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk School of Environmental Sciences | web-site: University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock: UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm