cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , santer1@llnl.gov, Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , myles , Bill Fulkerson date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:18:04 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Tom Wigley , "Thomas.R.Karl" Dear All, Thanks very much for the helpful discussion on these issues. I write to make a point that may not be well recognized regarding the character of the temperature trends in the lowermost stratosphere/upper troposphere. I have already discussed this with Ben but want to share with others since I believe it is relevant to this controversy at least at some altitudes. The question I want to raise is not related to the very important dialogue on how to handle the errors and the statistics, but rather how to think about the models. The attached paper by Forster et al. appeared recently in GRL. It taught me something I didn't realize, namely that ozone losses and accompanying temperature trends at higher altitudes can strongly affect lower altitudes, through the influence of downwelling longwave. There is now much evidence that ozone has decreased significantly in the tropics near 70 mbar. What we show in the attached paper by Forster et al is that ozone depletion near 70 mbar affects temperatures not only at that level, but also down to lower altitudes. I think this is bound to be important to the tropical temperature trends at least in the 100-50 mbar height range, possibly lower down as well, depending upon the degree to which there is a 'substratosphere' that is more radiatively influenced than the rest of the troposphere. Whether it can have an influence as low as 200 mbar - I don't know. But note that having an influence could mean reducing the warming there, not necessarily flipping it over to a net cooling. This 'long-distance' physics, whereby ozone depletion and associated cooling up high can affect the thermal structure lower down, is not a point I had understood despite many years of studying the problem so I thought it worthwhile to point it out to you here. It has often been said (I probably said it myself five years ago) that ozone losses and associated cooling can't happen or aren't important in this region - but that is wrong. Further, the fundamental point made in the paper of Thompson and Solomon a few years back remains worth noting, and is, I believe, now resolved in the more recent Forster et al paper: that the broad structure of the temperature trends, with quite large cooing in the lowermost stratosphere in the tropics, comparable to that seen at higher latitudes, is a feature NOT explained by e.g. CO2 cooling, but now can be explained by the observed ozone losses. Exactly how big the tropical cooling is, and exactly how low down it goes, remains open to quantitative question and improvement of radiosonde datasets. But I believe the fundamental point we made in 2005 remains true: the temperature trends in the lower stratosphere in the tropics are, even with corrections, quite comparable to that seen at other latitudes. We can now say it is surely linked to the now-well-observed trends in ozone there. The new paper further shows that you don't have to have ozone trends at 100 mbar to have a cooling there, due to down-welling longwave, possibly lower down still. Whether enhanced upwelling is a factor is a central question. No global general circulation model can possibly be expected to simulate this correctly unless it has interactive ozone, or prescribes an observed tropical ozone trend. The AR4 models did not include this, and any 'discrepancies' are not relevant at all to the issue of the fidelity of those models for global warming. So in closing let me just say that just how low down this effect goes needs more study, but that it does happen and is relevant to the key problem of tropical temperature trends is one that I hope this email has clarified. Happy new year, Susan At 6:13 PM -0700 12/29/07, Tom Wigley wrote: >Tom, > >Yes -- I had this in an earlier version, but I did not want to >overwhelm people with the myriad errors in the D et al. paper. > >I liked the attached item -- also in an earlier version. > >Tom. > >+++++++++++++ > >Thomas.R.Karl wrote: > >>Tom, >> >>This is a very nice set of slides clearly >>showing the problem with the Douglass et al >>paper. One other aspect of this issue that >>John L has mentioned and we discussed when we >>were doing SAP 1.1 relates to difference >>series. I am not sure whether Ben was >>calculating the significance of the difference >>series between sets of observations and model >>simulations (annually). This would help offset >>the effects of El-Nino and Volcanoes on the >>trends. >> >>Tom K. >> >>Tom Wigley said the following on 12/29/2007 1:05 PM: >> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a participant. >>>He was not on the speaker list, but, in >>>advance of the meeting, I had thought >>>he might raise the issue of the Douglass et >>>al. paper. I therefore prepared the >>>attached power point -- modified slightly since returning from Rome. As it >>>happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did not use >>>the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members >>>of this group so I am sending it >>>to you all. >>> >>>Please keep this in confidence. I do not want >>>it to get back to Singer or any >>>of the Douglass et al. co-authors -- at least >>>not at this stage while Ben is still >>>working on a paper to rebut the Douglass et al. claims. >>> >>>On slide 6 I have attributed the die tossing >>>argument to Carl Mears -- but, in >>>looking back at my emails I can't find the >>>original. If I've got this attribution >>>wrong, please let me know. >>> >>>Other comments are welcome. Mike MacCracken and Ben helped in putting >>>this together -- thanks to both. >>> >>>Tom. >>> >>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >>-- >> >>*Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* >> >>*/Director/*// >> >>NOAA's National Climatic Data Center >> >>Veach-Baley Federal Building >> >>151 Patton Avenue >> >>Asheville, NC 28801-5001 >> >>Tel: (828) 271-4476 >> >>Fax: (828) 271-4246 >> >>Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov >> > > > >Attachment converted: Junior:Comment on Douglass.ppt (SLD3/«IC») (0022CEF5) Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ForsterOzoneCooling.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ThompsonSolomon2005.pdf"