PS: Already this morning there have been (another) two quite strong earth tremors here in Manchester. It’s hard to see the connection but I just wonder whether climate change may have some invisible role in these events too. B.Professor B. E. Launder, FRS, FREng

I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap.I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)
Keith

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2463

Since we last corresponded it has become clear that 2007 will be another year in which the global temperature has not risen significantly, the 6th year on the HadCRUT3 data series. During this period the atmospheric
CO2 level has continued to rise steadily at 1.9ppm/year and, according to Hansen, sulphate aerosols have declined equally steadily thus reducing global dimming.

The period has therefore been relatively quiet in atmospheric terms except for the solar insolation which has declined coincidentally by the full solar cycle 23.

The paper by Camp and Tsung in GRL July 2007 analyses the last four 11 year cycles and obtains a global warming signal of lmost 0.2K for each cycle. Similarly Scafetta and West in JGR November 2007 identify a scenario in which the Sun might have contributed up to 50% of the observed global warming since 1900. These and other papers
suggest that IPCC figure of about 8% solar contribution is a significant under estimate of a factor which could go a long way to explaining the static global temperature data. It is surely important to try to get this science right in view of the current emphasis on CO2 mitigation policies.

Roger Coe.

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=364

Phil,

Sorry for the delay in replying to yours of 01 June 2007, I have been away.

II have also perused as many of the papers you referred to that I am able to access.

Particularly useful is the Introduction/Review by Joanna Haigh to the 2005 ISSI workshop on Solar Variability and Planetary Climates. Here she comments that the construction of a TSI composite remains controversial, a view supported by the latest statements of Frohlich and
Richard Willson on their respective websites. Hence the AR4 SectionREDACTEDdismissal of the ACRIM composite to be instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial.

Similarly IPCC in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in the ISSI
workshop.

All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2 for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

I wonder how Judith Lean would comment on the latest developments.

Regards

Roger
_________

“http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=13

“date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:50:12 -0600
from: Tom Wigley
subject: [Fwd: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper]
to: Ben Santer , Phil Jones

Hi Ben & Phil, No need to push this further, and you probably realize this anyhow, but the
RealClimate criticism of Doug et al. is simply wrong. Ho hum. Tom.”

Doug et al. probably being:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/abstract

Dear Phil and Chris–

…

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

Best, Mike MacCracken

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4671.txt&search=if+the+sulfate+hypothesis+is+right%2C+then+your+prediction+of+warming+might+end+up+being+wrong

… As I noted, my observations of the NRC committee members suggest rather strongly to me that they now have serious doubts about tree-rings as paleothermometers (and I do, too… at least until someone shows me why this divergence problem really doesn’t matter). –Richard

date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:24:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: ???@ucar.edu
subject: [Fwd: CCNet: “COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?” EUROPE’S CARBON CREDITS MAY
to: ???@uea.ac.uk

Keith,

See the last item. Why don’t you just give these people the raw data?
Are you hiding something — your apparent refusal to be forthcoming sure
makes it look as though you are.

Tom.
==========

The last item referred to above is this:

(10) AND FINALLY: SCIENCE SHENANGIGANS GO ON
Steve McIntyre, 9 May 2006

It’s the last item in a list of news items originally sent by Benny Peiser to a “cambridge-conference” email address and then forwarded by Tom Wigley at UCAR to Keith Briffa at UEA.

The item refers to this post at CA: http://climateaudit.org/2006/05/09/more-ob-confidential/