Latest facts
Latest...
Login
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Leo Tolstoy
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Phil Jones
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
Keith Briffa:
Briffa:
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.
Scandinavia
RUTI Scandinavia

Fig1. This writing shows the temperature data from the above areas with a combined area nearly 2 mio kvm2, almost the same size as Greenland. Working with Scandinavian temperature series is very rewarding due to the fact, that we have the Nordklim data series in addition to GHCN. This has a lot of consequences, first of all great data availability, but also we see many temperature series from GHCN and even Hadcrut without large adjustments. Nordklim data ends at latest in 2002 – has sadly not been updated for long time – and therefore the coupling Nordklim-GHCN can give us the complete data series.
Nordklim is also marvellous because we don’t constantly have to deal with interrupted time series, periods taken out of time series etc. Nothing left out in Nordklim, not one single data series in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and more has been interrupted. Fantastic.
Nordklim is created as a corporation between all Scandinavian national meteorological institutes.
Bravo! Click to go to Nordklim homepage.
In most cases, there is hardly any difference between GHCN, Hadcrut and Nordklim:
Fig2. Scandinavia is covered well, perhaps except one country: Denmark – see later. Another critique from me is that Nordklim has far more southern Swedish stations placed in the Baltic on islands than within the main land, the large bulk of Sweden.
And more: In the station overview of Nordklim online today there are more stations listed than actually available to download right now (!?)
Stations thus apparently now missing are:
Finland: Huittinen Hattula Heinola Virolahti Lavia Virrat Orivesi Vaasa Ylistaro Aehtaeri Maaninka Joensuu Kestilä Yli-Ii Pudasjärvi (all rural except Vaasa?)
Norway: Skjaak Reinli Nedstrand Vetti Oerskog Lien I Selbu Bodoe Kraakmo (All rural except Bodoe?)
Sweden: Lund Havraryd Krokshult Haavelund Vaenersborg Linköping Aalberga Vaesteraas Lisjoe Malung Graengesberg Soesjoe Sidsjoe Junsele Leipikvattnet Loevaanger Tjaamotis Kiruna (mostly rural)
1) DENMARK
Fig3. For Denmark, certain coastal areas – especially the west coast of Jutland – may not appear to be best choice for representing temperatures for the bulk of Denmark, especially the warm periods with SW to W winds. (DMI Pictures taken from Swedish fine article: http://helahavetstormar.nu/urban-varmeo-runt-kobnhamn/)
The weakness for the west Jutland coastal stations might be that in cold periods they equals average Danish temperatures well while in warm periods they don’t show the heat well.
(More on Coastal temperature stations, see RUTI Coastal temperature stations)
The Danish temperature stations used by GHCN and Nordklim:
Fig4. From GHCN we have 4 rural temperature stations shown in blue. From Nordklim we have 2 rural stations shown in green. These 6 stations are relevant, but we also need stations from the inland bulk of Denmark. Red stars: We also have 1950-2010 from the Urban station Alborg in North Jutland and data 1880-2010 from large urban Copenhagen area is available as the only GHCN station in Denmark.
Fig5. Taken from: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr99-13.pdf
There are plenty of rural inland meteorological stations in Denmark, but not online available data it seems?
In addition, GHCN data for all stations except the large Urban Copenhagen temperature series are cut with the effect that we cannot compare today’s temperatures with the warm 1925-45 period. In fact, it is mostly years after 1970 that are missing in data. As if the Danish temperature data suddenly got too poor and useless after 1970?
With these comments in mind, here are my so far best attempt to create a Danish temperature series:
Fig6. Green stars: Nordklim / Blue stars GHCN. As you can see, not a single rural or near rural station representing the bulk of Denmark: The inland of Jutland, Fyn and Zealand.
To improve quality I exchanged Copenhagen data 1880-1990 with Swedish Falsterbo data, rural,
Falsterbo:

Results:
Fig8 A s mentioned: The weakness for the west Jutland coastal stations might be that in cold periods they equals average Danish temperatures while in warm periods they don’t show the heat well.
However, this issue is not present in the smaller Danish waters like Kattegat.
From the Article “Hansson D, Omstedt A (2008) Modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate on centennial time scale; temperature and sea ice. Climate Dynamics, 30, 763-778, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0321-2.”
We have an estimate of temperatures for the central Danish waters “Kattegat” and “Skagerrak” based on measurements from ferries:
Fig9. These data are pretty close to the Danish results so far, perhaps a 0,2-0,3 K colder trend over 100.
2) SOUTHERN SWEDEN

Fig10. Green stars: Nordklim / Blue stars GHCN.
Here are some of the public available GHCN data from Southern Sweden:
Fig11. GHCN do deliver some useful data from Swedish town Jonkoping but otherwise its mostly the Nordklim database we can use for Southern Swedish temperatures. When nothing is written, data is from Nordklim:
Fig12. The Southern Swedish temperature data matches the Kattegat-Skagerrak temperatures, slightly colder trend than the Danish mostly coastal data.

Fig13. Green stars: Nordklim / Blue stars GHCN.
3) CENTRAL AND NORTHERN SWEDEN
Stations with both blue and green star are Nordklim data until around year 2000, and then GHCN until 2010.
Fig14 . Fine agreement for example in Haparanda, but for example in Karesuando (Not that far from Haparanda) GHCN data suggests year 2000 to be a full Kelvin warmer than Nordklim data. No other station in the area has such a warm year 2000 peak:
Fig15.
Temperature trends:

Fig16. We see a slightly colder trend in central and Northern Sweden than in Southern Sweden and a significantly colder trend than for Denmark. None of the Swedish temperature series from Nordklim shows a peak in year 2000 as GHCN suggested for Karesuando.
Notice how homogene data are for such a large area. These data must “homogenized” perfectly? And yet it is hard to claim much trace of unprecedented heat recently?
4) SOUTHERN NORWAY
Fig17. A very strong peak around 1989-1991 (See RUTI adjustment of the French and Austrian peak) and we don’t see recent temperatures significant warmer than previous warm peak.
5) CENTRAL NORWAY

Fig18. Rather similar to the above series for central Norway.
Fig19. Finland And Karel (RU)
6) NORTHERN FINLAND-KAREL(RU)
In general, the Northern Russian temperature series (and Siberian) are rather intact from GHCN, and thus we can include the Karel area data too.

Fig20. Same picture as for most Scandinavia, allthough the warm peaks of the 1930´ies appears stronger than in recent years.
7) SOUTHERN FINLAND-KAREL(RU)

Fig21. In Southern Finland-Karel, temperatures of recent decades are similar to the warm peak before 1950..
CONCLUSION
For the entire Scandinavian land area - including the Russian Karel part – there is no warming measured by thermometers. The area has approximatel same size as Greenland. Any extraordinary warming claims for the Scandinavian therefore would have to be based on massive changes in data, even though practically all thermometers tell a very similar story indeed. It’s a tough job to claim that all Scandinavian thermometers not only has errors, but errors that result in very similar “error” trends. No, the conclusion is: No extraordinar warming in Scandinavia at this point.
OK, for Denmark .based on coastal ocean-wind sensitive temperature stations from 15% of the country, we did see a slight warming in recent years compared to to the pre 1950 peak. I would very much like to see long temperature trends from the more central parts of Jutland, Sealand or Funen.
Perhaps the area of Scandinavia with most cooling trend was area 6, the most northern area of Scandinavia. Was not the Arctic supposed to warm extremely fast?
See also: “RUTI Greenland, Iceland and Spitsbergen” And “RUTI Siberia”.
COMING UP:
- A graph of the 7 Scandinavian areas for compare.
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Leo Tolstoy
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Phil Jones
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
Keith Briffa:
Briffa:
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.