date: Wed Nov 4 13:14:53 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: [Fwd: FW: Question] to: Kerry Sloan Kerry, Last email! 1. Warming since 1975 to 2008 is slightly more than 1915-44. It is also more global - in the sense that it is across most latitude bands. The earlier warming was mainly northern high latitude. See Fig 3.4 in this Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J. A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], pp235-336, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Which is Ch 3 of WG1 of IPCC's AR4. As for earlier - millennial temperature estimates have wider error bars for periods before 1850. But if you took any of these series can you find a period where there is such an increase in the a 27 year period (looking at Table 3.3 of the above, so 0.163 deg C per decade over 1979-2005). When were these earlier dramatic rises in global temperature. Any millennial series you consider has to be global (not NH) and has to be the whole calendar year. Most are NH, so your rise has to be even greater in the past than 1979-2005. Cheers Phil At 19:33 02/11/2009, Kerry Sloan wrote: Phil, One last question (while you're contemplating the answer to my last question about the data to support the conclusion that the warming is happening faster than ever before). If we were to select the temperature data set from 1915 through 1940, wouldn't that data show that the Earth is warmed more than it has in the last 25 years? Furthermore, the Earth has had far greater temperature swings in the last 1,000 years than we are experiencing now --- no one can dispute that. The VERY modest .7C temperature increase in the last 20 years is the fastest rate change in history? Where is the data to support this claim? Kerry Sloan -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[1]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 8:30 AM To: Kerry Sloan Subject: RE: [Fwd: FW: Question] Kerry, The point is that the rate of change is quicker now than it has ever been in the past. You can't prove that it isn't. C02 does warm the planet - we'd be 33 deg C cooler if it didn't! Phil > Phil, > > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > But isn't that THE point? Orbit of the Earth changes and continental > drift is occurring daily. > > > > The orbit has been doing what it does for millions of years. We also know > that during these "cycles" the planet's climate changes (ice ages; > expansion/receding glaciers, etc.). We also know that continental drift > plays a huge role with global climate. Have the continents stopped > shifting in the last few hundred years? No, they continually move. So if > we know for a FACT that the above two items have in the past caused > massive shifts in the Earth's climate countless times, why would we > conclude anything different (namely CO2) is causing a slight increase in > temperature today? > > > > Does that make any sense to you? > > > > Furthermore, can't one simple lab experiment be conducted somewhere to > prove that CO2 could cause a retention of heat in the atmosphere for a > long enough period of time to warm the planet? > > > > The point I'm making is this --- NONE of the antidotal evidence pointed to > by AGW proponents (glaciers melting; polar ice caps reducing in size; very > slight increase in global temperatures) are new. They have ALL happened > before....MANY times before all due to natural reasons. There is not one > single piece of evidence that can be solely attributed to CO2. Therefore, > how can we conclude that CO2 is causing the planet to warm? > > > > Kerry Sloan > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[2]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:38 AM > To: Kerry Sloan > Subject: [Fwd: FW: Question] > > > > Kerry, > > We select 1850 as that is the period from which we can calculate global > > mean temperatures based on thermometers. They go back further in Europe > > - to 1659. All earlier measurements are proxies. > > Going back much further then the boundary conditions are different. > > Here the orbit of the Earth around the Sun differs, so results are not > > comparable. Further back - millions of years the continents were in > > different positions, so again not comparable. > > So, we only use thermometer measurements from 1850. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > From: Kerry Sloan [[3]mailto:kerry.sloan@sweci.com] > > Sent: 30 October 2009 16:00 > > To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) > > Subject: Question > > > > I've been following the debate about global warming for many years. I > > have a few questions that I hope someone there can answer for me. > > > > 1. When showing temperature data (specifically graphs) on your > > web site, you begin the data around the year 1850. I assume you do that > > because that is the earliest date actual measurements were taken, I > > understand that. However, there are ice core samples available that > > indicate temperatures for many thousands of years, perhaps even hundreds > > of thousands of years and ocean floor sediment samples that indicate > > temperatures for perhaps millions of years. Why not use as much > > temperature data as possible to increase the sample size? In other words, > > considering how old the planet is (4.5 billion years) using only about 150 > > years worth of data decreases the confidence level to the point of > > implausibility. Why not use all the data available to increase the > > statistical validity of the analysis? > > 2. When using all the data available, what temperature becomes > > the baseline? And therefore what is the level of standard error? On your > > web site you state "Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C > > (two standard errors) for the period since 1951." You also state that > > the standard error increases for data by about a factor of 4 for data from > > the 1850 era. Again, what does the standard error become if you use all > > available temperature data? > > 3. After the standard error is determined when using all > > available temperature data, and the new baseline temperature is > > established --- then we can conclude if current temperature levels are > > "out of the normal" range? > > > > I'm curious to know why this approach has never been taken. This is the > > only way to determine if there is an "abnormal warming trend" occurring > > beyond anything that has happened in the Earth's history. Wouldn't you > > agree? > > > > The simple question is --- Is the planet getting warmer? We both know > > that we can not look at the last 30 years to draw a conclusion. We also > > both know we can not look at the last 150 years and draw a valid > > conclusion...considering the planet is 4.5 billions years old. No > > reputable scientist in the world would conclude anything based on > > 0.00000001 worth of data. Or have they been doing that very thing? > > > > If we selected only temperature data from 1940 through 1975 it would show > > a distinct cooling trend, correct? How is talking about the last 30 years > > temperature data any different? > > > > I eagerly await your response and thank you in advance. > > > > Kerry Sloan > > > 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------