date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:30:15 +0100 (BST) from: Ed Addis subject: Re: Climate change to: Phil Jones Thanks for your reply Phil It's kind of you to take the time to answer some of these questions, but I notice that you don't attempt to answer the first one - the actual evidence for CO2 fuelled GW. Of course we all know that computer models aren't evidence. I've always understood that there is a fundamental difference between weather and climate, so I'm quite surprised just to hear you say that the same code is used for both types of model. For one thing, the time frames are very different - I wouldn't expect to be able to obtain meaningful predictions of climate from a weather model or vice versa. In any event the predictions are only as good as the underlying scientific understanding, which in my opinion - for all the alleged improvement in weather forecasting - is still no better than rudimentary. You'll recall that I only said that the absorption bands are *near* saturation. I believe that even the outer ones are partly saturated. The relationship between CO2 increase and greenhouse forcing is very slow - logarithmic, I've read recently. Hardly anything to panic about, particularly in the light of the historical evidence that CO2 has never caused warming before - but I haven't had time yet to look at your suggested reference yet on this last point. It's the dogmatic, doom-laden nature of the media coverage of this that really irks, and I feel that scientists like yourself should be injecting a note of moderation into the debate rather than talking up scenarios that are not realistically predicated by the facts. Fiscal and regulatory changes are being brought in as a result of speculatory ideas about carbon emissions, and are not justifiable with the current state of factual evidence. Regards Ed Phil Jones wrote: Ed, I don't think I'm going to convince you, but I'll try briefly with a few points. 1. I'm sure you'll agree that weather forecasts have improved over the last 30 years. For the Hadley Centre model that produces the climate simulations, the code is exactly the same as the weather model. Getting weather forecasts right is down to the dynamics in the model, but the weather forecasters say that some improvement has come from better thermodynamics, which has come from the 'climate part' of the model. 2. It has been very warm in the UK over the past year. Part of this is favourable circulation, but have you wondered why the sea temperatures are so much warmer around our coasts? As for the saturation of absorption bands I suggest you read Ch 2 of the latest WG1 report from the IPCC. Only some bands are saturated. The other chapters are useful reads as well - especially Ch 1, which shows global temperatures since 1990 (the first report) and the projections for global T made then and in subsequent reports. The IPCC Chapters and SPM can be got from here ([1] http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/) but I'm sure you know this. There are also links to answers to your 3rd question on our web site (climate myths) and also on the New Scientist web site. Finally what is going to convince you? More warm years More glacier retreat More sea level rise Less snow area in the NH Less Arctic Sea Ice The modellers can't get these if they don't increase the CO2, and the increase in CO2 is clearly happening. Best Regards Phil At 18:31 14/06/2007, Ed Addis wrote: Just a quick note after hearing you on the BBC R4 Frontiers programme last night. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to answer a couple of questions for me on this topic? Firstly, could you please let me know what is this huge and conclusive accumulated body of evidence, we hear so much about, that CO2 is causing warming? Obviously, we can't include the results from computer models as evidence, as these are just the results of calculations based on the equations used to build the models and, as such, prove nothing. So what actual hard physical evidence is there? Please note that I'm not asking for evidence that warming is happening - only that increases in CO2 are causing it. Secondly, you will of course know very well that the absorption bands of CO2 that power the greenhouse effect are near saturation, so that adding more CO2 can make little difference to greenhouse forcing. So, why do you climate scientists encourage all the hysteria about carbon emissions/footprints etc? Why don't you tell the media and the politicians that CO2 is not really a problem? Thirdly, you will of course also know that in the hundreds of thousands of years for which records exist, the CO2 changes have always lagged the temperature changes, and so cannot have caused them. Same question as above, really - what makes you think that increases in CO2 are going to cause warming now, when they've never done so before? And why, therefore, do you continue to push the idea that mankind's emissions of CO2 are a problem? Hope you can find time to answer these - if so, you'll be the only climate scientists that I've asked who have. Regards Ed Addis Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, [2]sign up for your free account today. 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the [3]Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.