Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 854306192.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: druid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Gordon Jacoby)
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Russia
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:16:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Keith:

As you are aware, the situation in Russia is very uncertain with their
unfortunate economic condition, especially science support. There is
interest, hope, and dots on maps showing intent but actual activity is
difficult to judge. In the particular area I am interested in, the Taymyr,
there is no current active tree-ring research going on although it has been
previously sampled and some reports are in preparation. Ed probably told
you that I have submitted a proposal to do work there. My understanding is
that unless there is some external funding support, such as my project,
tree-ring sampling there is in abeyance. Several people, including
yourself, recognize the great potential in the region. From my perspective
it seems that the Polar Urals are being studied, Yokutia to the far east is
being studied, some work has been done by Szeicz and Macdonald at the Lena
but there is need for more intensive effort in Taymyr. I would like to hear
your perspective on the situation.

In a related topic, I am thinking of using the option in Ed's new ARSTAN to
use the regional standardization method. In Russia and other locales the
establishment of trees is episodic. In particular, in Alaska Glenn Juday
has data showing cohort groups being established in favorable times. In
Taymyr also, the establishment of trees is not evenly distributed through
time. There are times of growth and times of demise. This concerns me as it
could affect the development of a regional curve. do you see problems
arising from this?

I am also curious to hear any comments you care to make about my recent
letter to Fritz Schweingruber. He obviously will pursue any style of
sampling and analyses he chooses to. My only contention is that he should
not represent his data as the definitive tree-ring information,
particularly ring-width data. His opinions are influential but there is an
accumulating body of ring-width data that clearly shows him to be missing
much important information with his style of sampling. Scientists and
others should be aware of this fact.

Cheers, Gordon

Original Filename: 881356379.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stepan,Eugene
Subject: papers/Holocene/etc.
Date: Fri Dec 5 16:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: fritz.schweingruber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Stepan and Eugene
I don't know whether you have received your copies of the 1996 issue of Dendrochronologia yet but in case not I have seen the issue and it looks very good. Your two papers on Yamal and Taimyr are there and they both look excellent. Stepan I received receipt for money and the data and photographs your sent . I am very grateful for all . Thankyou. Again I can only say sorry about the problems of money transfer.
The first thing I wish to say is that I know we have been unsuccessful with our recent applications to INTAS and COPERNICUS . However , if you agree , I would like to resubmit a new proposal to INTAS in March to continue the development of the long chronologies. I will write it and stress the success todate and the need to carry on the formal collaboration. What is your joint opinion on this?
The Nature paper on the decline story is now officially accepted and I still hope it may come out before Christmas or at least shortly afterwards. I will be writing a story about increasing basal area on the long term as I showed in Krasnoyarsk and I also intend to submit this to Science or Nature and you will be coauthors on that. We also have done a lot of work on the growing season degree day reconstructions and will write up another joint paper on this soon - but I am trying to get the ringwidth data produced by you two incorporated with the ringwidth data produced from the density measurements - because Stepan told me these may be longer and anyway they will help the quality of the ringwidth data anyway. You may therefore get some messages or questions from Harry (Ian Harris) who works for me asking about the locations. Please be patient and try to help him with this if necessay.
Unfortunately, next year I have several major meetings to attend and present our joint results. Each of these meetings is very important. In March, I must give a major review paper at the PAGES open Science meeting in London. This must cover all dendro - or at least the best of it - which of course includes our own work! Early next year I will ask for the full data sets as they then stand, for Yamal and Taimyr so that I can try restandardising and calibrating against regional mean climate data. If there are not likely to be more data than I already have , can you let me know. Also in March, I will go to Copenhagen for an European Community meeting of project leaders of projects dealing with Arctic climates. This is the sort of meeting I must attend and put on a good show if we hope to get further funding in 1999 onwards. Later in the year there is a big climate conference here at which I must give a review of dendroclimatic research.
By January , we are supposed to exchange data within the project for possible research - but with the proviso that nothing can be written about work using others data without full collaboration and coauthorship. Are you both willing to let your chronologies as published be released to the rest of the group at that time?
Finally, I have got permission (provided I can find the money to pay for it) to have a special issue of The Holocene dedicated to the results (todate) of the ADVANCE-10K project. It will contain a series of major articles describing each piece of the work and I wish these to include large ,detailed papers on the Yamal and Taimyr chronologies , and perhaps a separate paper on the Northern Urals work. I hope to get a firm committment now from Both of you that you will be prepared to do this. I would be happy to help with specific ideas and some analysis and plotting of all Figures and retyping if you wish. The provisional deadline for the production of the papers would be late summer or autumn at the earliest.
I am of course very keen to continue our collaboration and next year as soon as I know more about the details of the European Community Framework 5 plan ( which , incidently now contains a heading 'Global Change') I will be putting together another application. I will try my best to include you both as full partners in this if it is at all possible.
After the Krasnoyarsk meeting I heard nothing about the final decision regarding an application for a Transect Office in Krasnoyarsk ( at some time someone had asked me would I coauthor an application) . Has this idea died? Also will there be a proceedings book arising out of the meeting ? Do I have to prepare something?
Eugene, I have a revised version of the paper you gave me to read some time ago about the cell growth model work. Do you intend me to send this to Dendrochronologia or just send the annotated manuscript back to you? I have a question about meaning that held me up and needs your answer - can I fax you something?
Finally , - I wish you each and everyone in your laboratories and all your families the very best christmas and new year .
Keith

Original Filename: 907525054.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Michael Prather <mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: TAR_scenarios <scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, penner <penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Prentice <colin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ramaswamy <vr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, derwent <rgderwent@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, isaksen <isaksen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ehhalt <k.sieben@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: TAR/SRES urgent use scenarios
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:17:xxx xxxx xxxx

xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
Prather's comments on SRES emissions regarding the four WGI
chapters on radiative forcing.

THIS ADDRESSES ONLY THE URGENT NEED
TO GET THE CLIMATE SCENARIOS STARTED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

OVERALL: It is CRITICAL that the WGI chapters are involved in
and make decisions regarding the mapping of "emission scenarios"
onto "trace-gas/RF scenarios" (to then be used in generating
"climate scenarios"). This is needed so that the eventual
chapters will back these preliminary (and hurried) approaches and
present a consistent but updated (and more complete!) set of
similar RF calculations in the TAR. We should not be adding new
"volunteers" to calculate these forcings as has been suggested by
last week's notes until we clearly agree on the
rules/algorithms..


CO2: (WGI-Ch.3)
-----------------------
I have not heard from colleagues on Ch. 3 regarding carbon-cycle
models for these scenarios that would be consistent with their
pending chapter..


non-CO2 GASES: (WGI-Ch.4)
--------------------------------------
We need to make sure that the COMBINATION of adopted "atmospheric
chemistry" and emissions is consistent with recent observations.
It does not mean the total burden is on emissions. Once having
chosen the chemistry (i.e., 120 year "lifetime" for N2O today),
however, the current emissions are tied by observations. So we
will do as already stated "make emissions match observations" but
must be careful in the chapter to note this.

I see no obvious need to change the OH lifetimes (CH4, HFCs) and
the N2O lifetimes from the SAR. The debate over a trend in OH is
important for later analysis in the chapter. The key here is
for consistency with the past decade. The budget of 560 Tg(CH4)
/y is thus a balanced (steady-state) budget to match abundances
of about 1710 ppb, and the current increase of about 1-2 ppb/y
would then add about 3-5 Tg to this amount. Thus the rate of
growth of CH4 emissions in the SRES in one concern, but the
absolute level in the late 1990s is the most critical.

The IPCC97 Mosier & Kroeze N2O budget stands: natural = 9.0
TgN/y and anthrop = 7.2 TgN/y. Thus ALL of the N2O scenarios
need to be scaled. Is this by a time-independent offset (e.g., +
5.5 TgN/y for B2)? or do we multiply the anthropogenic by a
constant factor (e.g., 3 for B2)?

HFCs cannot be included as a bulk emission values since their
lifetimes are so varied. What could be done is to focus on a
single one as a surrogate, e.g., HFC-134a is the dominant RF from
the IS92a options calculated in the SAR. Is this still so? We
need to look at the projected HFC industry as in the last WMO
report.

O3 - as part of the IPCC/Aviation assessment (under SAR, now in
final government review) we spent considerable effort in
calculating the changes in O3 and the associated RF. This
included both changes due to aircraft alone and that due to
increases in CH4, CO, NOx, VOC described in IS92a. The 3-d
tropospheric chemistry models generally agreed upon the O3
changes, and it looks as though we shall be able to take the SAR
to the next step and predict changes in tropospheric ozone with a
community consensus. (The results were only for IS92a 2015 and
2050 atmospheres, RF's not fully analyzed for background , of
order 0.2 W/m2 for 2050.)
For the AOGCM scenarios I propose that we use these 2050 delta-O3
scenarios to "deliver" a zonal, annual mean O3 RF as a simple
function of latitude. It would be easier that transmitting the
perturbed O3 patterns to the AOGCMs and would accomplish the
primary goal of including the O3 RF. The IS92a 2050 pattern
would be scaled to the amount of NOx emitted and CH4
concentration (maybe). This is probably OK for now, but of
course the correlation of NOx and CO emissions in generating O3
and OH changes is "current science" that needs to be evaluated in
the chapter. Also the regional aspects of CO and NOx emissions
affect the O3 perturbation.

*****************************************************************
I would PROPOSE that WGI-Ch.4 define the algorithms (e.g., CH4
lifetime @ 1700 ppb plus
feedback factor and how to implement it) along with the
constraints of the 1990s and then let
the SRES scenario builders come up with a consistent set and send
these on to the AOGCMs.
*****************************************************************


SULFUR & other AEROSOLS: (WGI-Ch.5)
-------------------------------------------------------
The AOGCMs should NOT use their own sulfur cycle for the first of
the climate scenarios. There is little doubt that all will
produce vastly different negative RFs and hence different
regional climate response. As I remember listening to the
arguments for preparing these climate scenarios, the PRIMARY goal
is to assess how well/consistently we can predict future climate
and especially regional changes given a set of forcings.
Likewise, we do not want these scenarios generated from different
time lines for CO2, CH4, and O3 because the models have different
cycle for these gases. So why S? While many of these models may
have scientifically excellent S cycles and include indirect
impacts on cloud formation, this task (i.e., comparison of S
models in GCMs) should be the second tier of experiments.

Given the primary goals of these climate simulations by the
AOGCMs, it would seem best to specify a simple albedo/RF by lat-
long, ONE THAT Chapter 5 of the new TAR would advocate and
support in its chapter. (e.g., what is suggested by Chapter 4
for O3 above) For example, the current geographic pattern of
direct sulfate forcing has been studied and will obviously be
reviewed/summarized by WGI - Chapter 5; this could be scaled to
total S emissions, especially since they are dropping in most of
the SRES emission scenarios. It would still provide a basic test
of our predictions of regional climate across the AOGCMs.

There is nothing here to develop scenarios for other
anthropogenic aerosol forcings that appear to be important (i.e.,
organics and soot).


summary RF: (WGI-Ch.6)
-------------------------------
A potential issue here is the ability to de-convolve the
emissions and RFs per sector.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


--
Michael J. Prather, Prof. mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Earth System Science Dept xxx xxxx xxxx/fax-3256
UC Irvine, CA 92xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.ess.uci.edu

Original Filename: 938712073.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jim Fairchild-Parks <jparks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: crossdating difficult tree-ring series
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Forumites,

Ouch, my hackles are rising so high, it hurts. (Just what exactly are
hackles, anyway?).

Yes, computer crossdating ring series with special problems is always
dangerous. But this is where good old skeleton-plot dating with
intensive and thorough visual examination of the WOOD becomes the way
to go.

I don't know about Thuja, but with the Juniperus species in the U.S.
I've worked with, rings piching in and out can be a problem. You can
lose xxx xxxx xxxxrings that way, sometimes. However, a different radius of
the sample may possess all those absent rings. It's nice to have
a cross-section of the subject tree, though I know this isn't always
possible.

I don't understand physiologically what's going on with the Canadian
cedars, but dendrochronologically speaking, absent rings are absent
rings, no matter what the reason for the rings not forming on any
given portion of the tree. I'll leave the reasons to scientists like
Frank Telewski.

I do know that with some dying trees -- like the pinyons from New
Mexico that died in the Great 1950s Drought -- the ring series on the
outside became so suppressed that individual rings were
indiscernable. Fortunately, other trees growing in more favorable
spots had distinguishable -- though still suppressed -- rings.
Traditional skeleton-plot croosdating -- along with its concomitant
intensive visual analysis -- made it possible to sort though these
problems.

I am not, however, an America-centrist skeleton-plot-dating bigot! I
have a true appreciation for computer crossdating where it is
appropriate and indeed necessary. I myself was recently involved
dating high-elevation bristlecone pine from northern Arizona, U.S.A.
The multi-millenial length of the chronology -- as well as the
freedom from absent rings and the presence of frost-year marker rings
-- made computer crossdating advisable. Of course every significant
computer dating correlation was thoroughly checked out on the WOOD,
and if the visual characteristics of the tree rings themselves did
not support the computer dating, we threw out the date -- right out
the window. Discarded computer dates collected on the parking lot
beneath our offices and needed to be hauled off to the dump everyday.

I apologize for the aggressive (though sincere) tone of this message,
but every few years I feel the need to rant and rave about the
importance of WOOD and "pure" forms of crossdating.

Best Regards,

Jim Parks
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
jparks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 966015630.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Mann etal
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:40:30 +0100
Cc: jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Chris and John (and Mike for info),
I'm basically reiterating Mike's email. There seem to be two lots of
suggestions doing the rounds. Both are basically groundless.

1. Recent paleo doesn't show warming.

This basically stems back to Keith Briffa's paper in Nature in 1998
(Vol 391, ppxxx xxxx xxxx). In this it was shown that northern boreal forest
conifers don't pick up all the observed warming since about the late
1950s. It was suggested that some other factor or a combination of
factors related to human-induced pollution (e.g. nitrogen deposition,
higher levels of CO2, ozone depletion etc). Hence in a new paper
submitted to JGR recently we develop a new standardization approach
(called age banding) and produce a large-scale reconstruction
(calibrated over the period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst NH land north of 20N)
back to 1402. If you want a copy of this can you email Keith and he'll
send copies once he's back from holiday.

This background is to illustrate how Singer et al distort things. The
new reconstruction only runs to 1960 as did earlier ones based solely
on tree-ring density. All the other long series (Mike's, Tom Crowley's
and mine) include other proxy information (ice cores, corals,
historical records, sediments and early instrumental records as well as
tree-ring width data, which are only marginally affected). All these
series end around 1980 or in the early 1980s. We don't have paleo data
for much of the last 20 years. It would require tremendous effort and
resources to update a lot of the paleo series because they were collected
during the 1970s/early 1980s.

It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike
sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of
the millennium - and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there
is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn't record the last 20 years
of warming, as we don't have enough of the proxy series after about 1980.

http://www.co2.science.org/edit/editor.html takes the argument further
saying that as trees don't see all the warming since about 1960 the
instrumental records recently must be in error (i.e. this group believes
the trees and not the instrumental records). This piece by Idso and
Idso seems to want to have the argument whichever suits them.

2. Everyone knows it was cooler during the Little Ice Age and warmer in
the Medieval Warm Period.

All of the millennial-long reconstructions show these features, but they
are just less pronounced than people believed in the 1960s and 1970s,
when there was much less paleo data and its spatial extent was limited
to the eastern US/N.Atlantic/European and Far East areas. The issue
seems to revolve around the average temperatures we have for earlier
centuries in the millennium. I use the argument that for the instrumental
period we need sites located over much of the NH (land and marine)
regions in order to claim we have a reasonable record for the whole
hemisphere. We wouldn't dream of extending the NH series based on longer
European records and in the extreme just CET, so with the paleo data we
need records from as many regions as possible. The coverage still could
be better, but it is far better than it was 25 years ago, when the ideas
embodied in the MWP and LIA became sort of mainstream.

The typical comments I've heard, generally relate to the MWP, and say
that crops and vines were grown further north than they are now (the
vines grown in York in Viking times etc). Similarly, statements about
frost fairs and freezing of the Baltic so armies could cross etc. Frost
fairs on the Thames in London occurred more readily because the tidal
limit was at the old London Bridge (the 5ft weir under it). The bridge
was rebuilt around the 1840s and the frost fairs stopped. If statements
continue to be based on historical accounts they will be easy to knock
down with all the usual phrases such as the need for contemporary
sources, reliable chroniclers and annalists, who witnessed the events
rather than through hearsay. As you all know various people in CRU
(maybe less so now) have considerable experience in dealing with this
type of data. Christian Pfister also has a lifetime of experience of
this. There is a paper coming out from the CRU conference with a
reconstruction of summer and winter temps for Holland back to about
AD 800, which shows the 20th century warmer than all others. Evidence is
sparser before 1400 but the workers at KNMI (Aryan van Engelen et al.)
take all this into account.

I hope this is of use and hasn't been a total waste of time.

In Victoria last month, did you discuss how the policymaker's summary will
report the millennial temperature series ? Are there any tentative
phrases you're working on a la Balance of evidence etc ? Is Chapter 12
thinking of a new sentence to supercede the above ? Any sentence on the
millennium record should be in Ch. 2.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Filename: 983207072.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Wally
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:04:32 +0000
Cc: <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,<tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>

Dear All,
I was away over the weekend at Bowdoin College in Maine, giving a
talk about the
last 1000 years. There were three others as well on other paleo aspects,
Richard Alley,
Gary Clow and Wally Broecker ! The latter briefly mentioned to me that
he had had
something in last Friday's Science, which was getting at the Mann et al.
series. He
didn't have a copy so we've not seen it here yet. I tried to get a copy
of Science on
the bookstand at Logan airport last night - I guess it's not sold that way !
Wally was going on about this 1500 yr cycle of Bond's, which seemed
pretty flimsy.
I was showing all the various series in a general talk - and I used some
of the overheads
from the upcoming Science paper. This is due to appear in the issue for
the last week
of April. It is all accepted now. I will forward if you'll all abide by
the Science rules. Both
Wally and Alley seem convinced that the climate of Greenland changed by
10 C in
the space of 2-3 years at times in the past (Y Dryas etc). I had long
talks with both
and they don't seem to have got their heads around spatial scales (local
changes
and hemispheric). Also they don't seem to realise where we are coming
from. He
has a downer on trees (believes all the multiproxy series depend
exclusively on
trees) but he thinks Ed Cook is a great scientist. The latter is true,
but he might
just think that because he's at Lamont. I did tell him that Keith's paper
on the age
banding is out in JGR. I should send him a reprint and maybe ask that great
scientist to go and explain it to him ! Ed's in NZ at the moment. Also
Wally believes
much more in glacier advances/retreats. I'll get Keith to send him
Sarah's paper
where the long Tornetrask reconstruction is shown to agree with Storglaciaren
advance/retreat dates from moraine evidence. Also Sarah's been working on
similar
glaciers in the Swiss Alps with long tree-ring reconstructions. One
interesting
thing was he didn't seem to realise that a lot of the tree-ring
reconstructions use
density. Seemed to think they were all ring widths and there had to be
moisture
changes we were not accounting for.
It is easy to respond to a Perspectives piece. Some of you did it
with respect to
one of mine. I'm not sure it will achieve much - it won't come out before
the paper
in the last week of April. I need to wait to se what he says. Our paper
(me, Tim and
Keith) clearly says that the MWP couldn't have been warmer (for the NH
average)
than the late 20th century.
Another possible reason for not doing anything is that the IPCC
report will be out
soon. The summary is written in pretty clear language.
The above is my first thoughts, not having read the piece and just
got off the
flight back.

Best to ignore Woijcek. All he seems to want to do is deflect us into
responding.

Cheers
Phil



At 11:47 25/02/xxx xxxx xxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>Dear all,
>WHat mechanism does "Science" have for repsonding to Perspective pieces? Most
>of the answer to Wally is contained within his own piece - he comments on the
>ambiguity of the record, which, in various ways, we have all done. What he
>doesn't offer, however, is anything other than an anecdotal alternative. As
>always, he seeks to damn ( in this case with faint praise) the records or
>work
>that don't serve his purpose , and to elevate any scrap of evidence that does
>serve it. I think it will be important for us to stick closely to what we
>have
>written in published papers. CHeers, MAlcolm
>
>Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
>
> > Dear Phil, Ray,
> >
> > What do you guys think. If we're all on board, than an appropriately
> > toned,
> > "high road" response here might be appropriate. We don't want to engage
> > Wally in a personal battle, but simply should correct the record where
> > Wally has muddied it. Again, Phil et al do have a Science article in
> > press
> > that serves this purpose to some extent, so I'm especially interested in
> > what
> > Phil thinks (Phil?)...
> >
> > mike
> >
> > At 02:52 PM 2/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> > >Dear Mike et al., I think we should definitely let Wojick stew in his
> > own
> > >juice - as Mike pointed out to me the other day he, and his like, have
> > a
> > >specific agenda, and anything we write will be pressed into the service
> > of
> > that
> > >agenda. I'm not so sure about Wally. I share Tom's disinclination to
> > get
> > into a
> > >street fight with Wally - generally I take the view that life's too
> > short and
> > >uncertain for such activities. On the other hand, would we let such a
> > shoddy
> > >piece of work(and editing) go by if it were from another author? There
> > are so
> > >many holes in Wally's argument, and such a selective choice of evidence
> > that it
> > >should beggar belief. One of the more obvious holes is that he writes
> > of the
> > >Great Basin droughts of the 10th through 14th centuries as proof of
> > warmer
> > >conditions then, but doesn't explain why we don't have such conditions
> > now.
> > >Interestingly, Larry Benson, Dave Meko and others have good evidence
> > that
> > these
> > >same multidecadal periods were marked by a great excess of
> > precipitation
> > just a
> > >few hundred miles north in northern Nevada and California and southern
> > Oregon.
> > >He just hasn't grasped that the methods that are appropriate for
> > tracking the
> > >consequences of major changes in boundary conditions don't work in the
> > late
> > >Holocene. I've been trying to figure out the issue of "Was there a
> > Medieval
> > >Warm Period, and if so where and when" for a decade or so, and still
> > have the
> > >impression that the records for the 9th through 14th centuries are
> > extremely
> > >mixed. But then, I didn't come to the investigation with a certain
> > knowledge of
> > >the absolute truth, and have had to 'misfortune' to work with people
> > who let
> > >careful analysis get in the way - Henry Diaz, Ray and Mike, and others.
> >
> > >Anyway, the point of this rant is that I think we should give careful
> > >consideration to making a measured response to Wally. Cheers, Malcolm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Tom,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your quick reply. I agree with you entirely. I think its
> > very
> > >> unfortunate he's chosen to disinform the community rather than engage
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> constructive dialogue (we tried the latter w/ him in a series of
> > emails
> > >> last
> > >> year, but clearly to no avail).
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, think that a war of words w/ Broecker would be
> > >> exploited
> > >> by the skeptics, and perhaps we should just try to let this thing
> > die...
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure. I'd appreciate knowing what others think?
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >>
> > >> At 10:25 AM 2/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, tom crowley wrote:
> > >> >Mike,
> > >> >
> > >> >I was not aware of the Broecker piece - I am dismayed but not
> > >> surprised. I
> > >> >do not know what to do - I personally cannot stand the combative
> > >> personal
> > >> >approach Broecker relishes but it does seem as if some rebuttal is
> > >> called
> > >> >for. Maybe you Ray Phil I and Malcolm could pen a response - we are
> > >> >heading to Germany in a week, for a month, so I am not sure how much
> > I
> > >> can
> > >> >keep up on this but it seems as if some response is called for.
> > >> >
> > >> >What think ye?
> > >> >
> > >> >Tom
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>Dear Mike,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks for passing this along.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Wojick of course completely misrepresents Broecker, and puts his
> > >> >>conventional intellectually dishonest spin on this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>That having been said, it is a bit disappointing that Wally
> > continues
> > >> to
> > >> >>cling to some of his flawed beliefs which aren't supported from
> > either
> > >> our
> > >> >>best current understanding of the observations or of the results of
> > >> careful
> > >> >>modeling experiments. My own perception is that the climate
> > community,
> > >> >>modelers as well as observationalists, simply don't take seriously
> > >> anymore
> > >> >>the idea that the history of climate change over the past 1000
> > years
> > >> is
> > >> >>part of an internal oscillation. The sediment core evidence oft
> > cited
> > >> by
> > >> >>Broecker (e.g. Bond et al) for this is tremendously weak, and I, as
> > >> well as
> > >> >>the vast majority of my colleagues, simply don't buy it for even a
> > >> second.
> > >> >>But people don't like to challenge Broecker publically. He can and
> > >> will
> > >> >>play hardball.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>There is an odd irony. Broecker refused to accept the modeling
> > >> evidence
> > >> >>that the 100 kyr ice age Pleistocene variations were part of an
> > >> internal
> > >> >>oscillation paced by insolation variations, favoring instead the
> > >> >>discredited notion that they were a direct response to (too weak)
> > >> >>eccentricity forcing, until the evidence became insurmountable
> > (from
> > >> my
> > >> >>adviser, Barry Saltzman, may he rest in piece, and people like Dick
> > >> >>Peltier). Ironically, Broecker then took credit for the very
> > >> proposition he
> > >> >>had fought w/ tooth and nail.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Broecker is even more wrong, and unfortunately equally stubborn, in
> > >> this case.
> > >> >>And, again, the reason: because his pet theory, that climate
> > >> variability is
> > >> >>a simple millennial oscillation, is finally being challenged w/
> > hard
> > >> data
> > >> >>and hard facts.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Broecker misrepresents the nature of that data that we and others
> > have
> > >> >>used, and misunderstands the source of the muted hemispheric trends
> > >> (there
> > >> >>*is* a hemispheric "medieval warm period" and "little ice age",
> > just
> > >> not of
> > >> >>the magnitude or the distinctiveness that Broecker imagines).
> > >> Individual
> > >> >>regions in our reconstructions, and Phils, and others, vary by
> > several
> > >> >>degrees C, ie, the proxies we use have no problem whatsoever in
> > >> resolving
> > >> >>high-amplitude temperature variations in the past. The problem is
> > that
> > >> when
> > >> >>we look at the different regions we find that periods of cold and
> > >> warm
> > >> >>often occur at very different times in different regions, and so in
> > a
> > >> >>hemispheric or global average, a lot of purely regional variability
> > >> cancels
> > >> >>out. The resulting trends are somewhat smaller. I remained
> > befuddled
> > >> as to
> > >> >>why Wally doesn't understand this point. Its been explained to him
> > >> time and
> > >> >>time again. Maybe he's just not listening, or doesn't want to
> > >> listen...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>In fact, Tom Crowley has clearly shown that the observed millennial
> > >> >>temperature reconstruction is precisely consistent w/ our
> > >> understanding of
> > >> >>*forced* climate change over the past 1000 years (solar changes,
> > >> volcancic
> > >> >>output, and recent greenhouse gas concentrations). There is, simply
> > >> put, no
> > >> >>room for a global millennial internal oscillation. Regionally, such
> > >> types
> > >> >>of climate phenomena, associated for example with changes in the
> > North
> > >> >>Atlantic ocean circulation, are supported by the observations. This
> > >> >>explains why, for example, European temperature variations are
> > >> somewhat
> > >> >>larger than those in other regions not effected so strongly by such
> > >> climate
> > >> >>processes.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Other recent perspectives, by Ray Bradley and myself provide a far
> > >> more
> > >> >>balanced and nuanced (and less dogmatic or defensive) viewpoint.
> > I'm
> > >> not
> > >> >>sure a written response to Broecker is worthwhile (this is,
> > afterall,
> > >> a
> > >> >>"perspective" and everyone understands that a scientist may have a
> > >> flawed
> > >> >>perspective). If Wally wants this to be his legacy, so be it...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Phil and others have a review article coming out in the near future
> > >> which
> > >> >>also provides a much more balanced perspective on the climate
> > changes
> > >> of
> > >> >>the past millennium, and will set the record straight once again
> > (good
> > >> >>timing Phil!). Science's embargo policy prevents me from saying
> > much
> > >> more
> > >> >>at this time, but if Phil or anyone else wishes to comment further,
> > >> I'd
> > >> >>encourage it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Well, I've still got some snow to shovel here in Charlottesville!
> > >> Happy
> > >> >>weekend to all,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>mike
> > >> >>
> > >> >>p.s. For those with electronic subscriptions, Broecker's latest
> > piece
> > >> can
> > >> >>be found here:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> PALEOCLIMATE:
> > >> >> Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
> > >> >> Wallace S. Broecker
> > >> >> Science Feb xxx xxxx xxxx: 1xxx xxxx xxxx. [Summary] [Full Text]
> > >> >>
> > >> >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5508/1497
> > >> >>
> > >> >>While my previous perspective piece is here:
> > >> >> CLIMATE CHANGE:
> > >> >> Lessons for a New Millennium
> > >> >> Michael E. Mann
> > >> >> Science 2000 July 14; 289: xxx xxxx xxxx. (in Perspectives) [Summary]
> > >> [Full
> > >> >>Text]
> > >> >>URL:
> > >>
> > >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5477/253?maxtoshow=&HIT
> S=10&h
> > >>
> > >>its=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Mann&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&
> FIRSTI
> > >> >>NDEX=&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/28/2001
> > >> >>
> > >> >>and Bradley's is here:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> PALEOCLIMATE: Enhanced: 1000 Years of Climate Change
> > >> >> Ray Bradley
> > >> >> Science 2000 May 26; 288: 1xxx xxxx xxxx. (in Perspectives) [Summary]
> > >> [Full
> > >> >>Text]
> > >> >>
> > >> >>URL:
> > >>
> > >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5470/1353?maxtoshow=&HI
> TS=10&
> > >>
> > >>hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Bradley&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_sear
> ch=&FI
> > >> >>RSTINDEX=&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/28/2001
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Dear Michael--The third point below has comments on the
> > controversy
> > >> >>>betweenyou and Broecker--I'd be interested in your response (did
> > >> Wally not
> > >> >>>just understand what your data show?).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Mike
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Three Wojick Pieces on Climate Change.
> > >> >>>I've been busy busy.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>David
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>FIRST, the latest issue of Insight Magazine includes a
> > >> point-counterpoint
> > >> >>>between measly old me and the great Robert Watson. Boy has he got
> > >> >>>credentials! Too bad he's wrong.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>><http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200103143.shtml>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Symposium: Do scientists have compelling evidence of global
> > warming?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Yes: Rising sea levels worldwide and retreating Arctic glaciers
> > are
> > >> ominous
> > >> >>>signs.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>By Robert T. Watson -- chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel
> > on
> > >> >>>Climate Change, chief scientist at the World Bank and former chief
> > >> science
> > >> >>>advisor to the Clinton White House.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>No: Despite the overheated rhetoric, there is no new evidence of
> > >> warming
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>By David E. Wojick -- covers climate policy for Electricity Daily
> > and
> > >> is a
> > >> >>>science adviser to the Greening Earth Society
> > >> >>><http://www.greeningearthsociety.org>, as well as Undereditor of
> > the
> > >> >>>Washington Pest <http://www.WashingtonPest.com>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>SECOND, the February 15 Eco-logic on-line has published "The Black
> > >> Hole of
> > >> >>>Global Climate Government" by David Wojick, my detailed attack on
> > the
> > >> >>>Framework Convention on Climate Change. It includes a lot of the
> > >> actual
> > >> >>>treaty language.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>><http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20010202/wojick.shtml>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>THIRD, here is a draft Electricity Daily article of mine. Seems
> > I'm
> > >> not the
> > >> >>>only one who thinks the IPCC is nuts.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Climate Guru Kicks The Hockey Stick
> > >> >>>by David Wojick (dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Global warming is natural and the recent warming is probably no
> > >> exception.
> > >> >>>This is the controversial argument made by prominent climatologist
> > >> Wallace
> > >> >>>S. Broecker in today's issue of Science.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker's bombshell bears the seemingly innocent title "Was the
> > >> Medieval
> > >> >>>Warm Period Global?" It may seem esoteric, but whether the
> > apparent
> > >> warmth
> > >> >>>reported in Europe about 1000 years ago was global or simply local
> > is
> > >> >>>becoming a central issue in climate science. What makes it
> > >> contentious is
> > >> >>>the recent claims by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
> > >> Climate
> > >> >>>Change that the earth is warmer now than it has been for
> > millennia,
> > >> and
> > >> >>>that therefore human carbon dioxide emissions are to blame.
> > Broecker,
> > >> a
> > >> >>>leading figure at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia
> > >> University,
> > >> >>>questions both IPCC claims.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>The focus of the debate is a 1000-year temperature reconstruction
> > >> known in
> > >> >>>climate circles as the "hockey stick". Produced in 1999 by M. E.
> > >> Mann, R.
> > >> >>>S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, the long handle of the hockey stick
> > shows
> > >> global
> > >> >>>temperatures for the first 8 centuries as basically unchanging,
> > >> followed by
> > >> >>>the sharply up-tilting blade of the last 150 years or so. The Mann
> > et
> > >> al
> > >> >>>hockey stick is the central feature of the recently released IPCC
> > >> working
> > >> >>>group one Summary for Policy makers, which claims to embody the
> > best
> > >> of
> > >> >>>climate science.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker does not like the hockey stick, nor the conclusions the
> > IPCC
> > >> draws
> > >> >>>from it. He says " A recent, widely cited reconstruction (Mann's)
> > >> leaves
> > >> >>>the impression that the 20th century warming was unique during the
> > >> last
> > >> >>>millennium. It shows no hint of the Medieval Warm Period (from
> > around
> > >> 800
> > >> >>>to 1200 A.D.) during which the Vikings colonized Greenland,
> > >> suggesting that
> > >> >>>this warm event was regional rather than global. It also remains
> > >> unclear
> > >> >>>why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the
> > >> emission
> > >> >>>of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth's
> > >> >>>temperature began to rise steeply. Was it a coincidence? I do not
> > >> think so.
> > >> >>>Rather, I suspect that the post-1860 natural warming was the most
> > >> recent in
> > >> >>>a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals
> > >> >>>throughout the present inter-glacial, the Holocene."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker presents the evidence for a global Medieval Warm Period,
> > as
> > >> well
> > >> >>>as for a Little Ice Age from around 1300 to 1860, when the present
> > >> >>>temperature rise begins. He also argues that the "proxy" evidence
> > >> used by
> > >> >>>Mann et al, such as tree ring data, is ill suited to the time
> > period
> > >> and
> > >> >>>temperature variation -- less than one degree C -- in question.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>As he puts it, "In my estimation, at least for time scales greater
> > >> than a
> > >> >>>century or two, only two proxies can yield temperatures that are
> > >> accurate
> > >> >>>to 0.5 C: the reconstruction of temperatures from the elevation of
> > >> mountain
> > >> >>>snowlines and borehole thermometry. Tree ring records are useful
> > for
> > >> >>>measuring temperature fluctuations over short time periods but
> > cannot
> > >> pick
> > >> >>>up long-term trends because there is no way to establish the
> > >> long-term
> > >> >>>evolution in ring thickness were temperatures to have remained
> > >> constant."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker acknowledges that the proxy evidence is necessarily
> > somewhat
> > >> >>>"murky", but his conclusion is that "climatic conditions have
> > >> oscillated
> > >> >>>steadily over the past 100,000 years, with an average period close
> > to
> > >> 1500
> > >> >>>years... The swing from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice
> > >> Age was
> > >> >>>the penultimate of these oscillations." The implication being that
> > >> some, if
> > >> >>>not all, of the present warming is the natural swing out of the
> > >> Little Ice
> > >> >>>Age, and that Mann et al, as well as the IPCC, are mistaken.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>--
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Dr. David E. Wojick
> > >> >>>President
> > >> >>>Climatechangedebate.org
> > >> >>>Subscribe to the free debate listserv at
> > >> http://www.climatechangedebate.org
> > >> >>>Non subscribers can follow the debate at
> > >> >>>http://www.eScribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________________________________
> > >> >> Professor Michael E. Mann
> > >> >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > >> >> University of Virginia
> > >> >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________________________________
> > >> >>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (804)
> > >> xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> >> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Thomas J. Crowley
> > >> >Dept. of Oceanography
> > >> >Texas A&M University
> > >> >College Station, TX 77xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> >xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> >xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
> > >> >xxx xxxx xxxx(alternate fax)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > >> Professor Michael E. Mann
> > >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > >> University of Virginia
> > >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > >>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > >> e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (804)
> > xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Professor Michael E. Mann
> > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > University of Virginia
> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
> >
> >
> >

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1056654269.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Asher Minns" <A.Minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: From Prof. Pachauri
Date: Thu Jun 26 15:04:xxx xxxx xxxx

Asher,
Spoke with Sinclair-Wilson from Earthscan yesterday about this and we agreed one or two
things. We should take next steps on this after the Assembly business has died down.
Mike
At 07:51 19/06/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Mike, this message below id fresh-in from RK Pachauri. He seems keen, and we
have been given a direct contact at TERI. He has made a few interesting
suggestions on content, though nothing on funding as of yet.
Asher
------------------------------
Mr Asher Minns
Communication Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
[1]www.tyndall.ac.uk
Mob: 07xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "R K Pachauri" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <tyndall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Ulka Kelkar" <ulkak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:34 AM
Subject: Dear Prof. Hulme
Dear Prof. Hulme,
Thank you for your letter proposing that the Tyndall Centre and TERI jointly
produce a series of yearbooks on climate change. May I congratulate you on
this excellent idea! I am convinced that a market exists for precisely such
a publication, and am delighted that you thought of TERI as a partner in
this venture.
I am putting down some initial thoughts on the proposed publication and the
suggested contents that you had sent.
While there is a lot of information and related data available on climate
change, it is scattered. On the one hand we have the IPCC assessment on the
state of knowledge about climate change, and on the other the WMO's annual
bulletins. Similarly, the UNFCCC compiles GHG inventory information from
periodically submitted National Communications, while the IEA presents
annual fuel combustion emission statistics. In such a scenario, the metier
of our Yearbook would be to synthesise the current knowledge on climate
change. As mentioned in your note, it would present this information in a
clear and visually appealing manner. Moreover, it would go into climate
change issues in more detail than say, the annual World Resources brought
out by WRI.
The Foreword - and perhaps an Emerging Issues section at the end of the
book - could comment on scientific and political issues, which are otherwise
not discussed in either the IPCC Reports or in the types of publications
mentioned above.
In the draft table of contents, there are two sections that are slightly
different in character from the others. In the chapter on national policies,
we may choose between alternative structures:
1 By Annex I country
2 By type of policy/instrument (e.g. CDM, international trading regimes,
taxation, etc)
The proposed chapter on Social Change and Adaptation is important to
complete the set of topics/issues covered in the Yearbook, but is probably
the most complex in terms of scope/structure. One option that we could
discuss is to cover adaptation policies not in chapter 7, but in chapter 9,
and to highlight studies of community and local government level
implementation.
With such a scope, the media would also be an important part of the audience
for this yearbook
I do appreciate that producing this Yearbook would involve significant
commitment in terms of time and effort if all relevant literature is to be
reviewed. However, by teaming up authors from our two organisations, I am
confident that we will provide an impartial yet balanced North-South
perspective to the Yearbook. For specialised subjects, like the chapter on
business, we may even think of invited chapters, by say the WBCSD.
You may also be interested to know that TERI also brings out a yearbook
focusing on India, called the TERI Energy Directory, Database, and Yearbook
(TEDDY). This publication has a readership of 15xxx xxxx xxxx, reaching out to
government, corporates, individual researchers, and libraries in India and
overseas.
These are just some initial thoughts, and my colleagues can be in touch with
your team to develop this outline further. Ms Ulka Kelkar
(ulkak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) will coordinate this effort on behalf of TERI.
We look forward to working with you on this Yearbook.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.K. Pachauri

References

1. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

Original Filename: 1057941657.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: More on Climate Research.....
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Phil,

In June 2003, Climate Research published a paper by David Douglass et al. The
"et al." includes John Christy and Pat Michaels. Douglass et al. attempt to
debunk the paper that Tom and I published in JGR in 2001 ("Accounting for the
effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature
trends"; JGR 106, 28xxx xxxx xxxx). The Douglass et al. paper claims (and purports
to show) that collinearity between ENSO, volcanic, and solar predictor variables
is not a serious problem in studies attempting to estimate the effects of these
factors on MSU tropospheric temperatures. Their work has serious scientific
flaws - it confuses forcing and response, and ignores strong temporal
autcorrelation in the individual predictor variables, incorrectly assuming
independence of individual monthly means in the MSU 2LT data. In the Douglass et
al. view of the world, uncertainties in predictor variables, observations, etc.
are non-existent. The error bars on their estimated ENSO, volcano, and solar
regression coefficients are miniscule.

Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that
was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate
Research. We rejected it. Prior to this, both Tom and I had engaged in a long
and frustrating dialogue with Douglass, in which we attempted to explain to him
that there are large uncertainties in the deconvolution of ENSO, volcano, and
solar signals in short MSU records. Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments
we made in this exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our
reviews of his rejected JGR paper.

Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of
our previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the
paper for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al.
JGR paper asked to review the Douglass et al. manuscript. I'm assuming that
Douglass specifically requested that neither Tom nor I should be allowed to act
as reviwers of his Climate Research paper. It would be interesting to see his
cover letter to the journal.

In the editorial that you forwarded, Dr. Kinne writes the following:

"If someone wishes to criticise a published paper s/he must present facts and
arguments and give criticised parties a chance to defend their position." The
irony here is that in our own experience, the "criticised parties" (i.e., Tom
and I) were NOT allowed to defend their positions.

Based on Kinne's editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We'll publish this rebuttal in
JGR - not in Climate Research.

With best regards,

Ben
======================================================================================

Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> Finally back in the UK after Asheville and IUGG. Attached is an
> editorial from the
> latest issue of climate research. I can only seem to save it this way.
> Seems like we are
> now the bad guys.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> At 07:51 04/07/xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
> >Mike (Mann),
> >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
> >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
> >people to avoid the journal?
> >Tom.
> >__________________________________
> >
> >Michael E. Mann wrote:
> >>Thanks Mike
> >>It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and
> >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
> >>have to go above him.
> >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
> >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
> >>levels--reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
> >>into oblivion and disrepute,
> >>Thanks,
> >>mike
> >>At 01:00 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:
> >>
> >>>Phil, Tom, Mike,
> >>>
> >>>So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate
> >>>Research is concerned.
> >>>
> >>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>>To
> >>>>CLIMATE RESEARCH
> >>>>Editors and Review Editors
> >>>>
> >>>>Dear colleagues,
> >>>>
> >>>>In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would
> >>>>ask CR editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the
> >>>>reviewers' evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have received and studied the material requested.
> >>>>
> >>>>Conclusions:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
> >>>>detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
> >>>>
> >>>>2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
> >>>>appropriate revisions.
> >>>>
> >>>>3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>>Summary:
> >>>>
> >>>>Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
> >>>>
> >>>>Best wishes,
> >>>>Otto Kinne
> >>>>Director, Inter-Research
> >>>>--
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------
> >>>>Inter-Research, Science Publisher
> >>>>Ecology Institute
> >>>>Nordbuente 23,
> >>>>D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
> >>>>Germany
> >>>>Tel: (+49) (41xxx xxxx xxxxEmail: ir@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>>>Fax: (+49) (41xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.int-res.com <http://www.int-res.com/>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Inter-Research - Publisher of Scientific Journals and Book Series:
> >>>>
> >>>>- Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS)
> >>>>- Aquatic Microbial Ecology (AME)
> >>>>- Diseases of Aquatic Organisms (DA0)
> >>>>- Climate Research (CR)
> >>>>- Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP)
> >>>>- Excellence in Ecology
> >>>>- Top Books
> >>>>- EEIU Brochures
> >>>>
> >>>>YOU ARE INVITED TO VISIT OUR WEB SITES: www.int-res.com
> >>>><http://www.int-res.com /> and www.eeiu.org <http://www.eeiu.org/>
> >>>>
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>______________________________________________________________
> >> Professor Michael E. Mann
> >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> >> University of Virginia
> >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> >>_______________________________________________________________________
> >>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
> >
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: CR.txt
> CR.txt Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: quoted-printable

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCMDI HAS MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING. NOTE CHANGE OF MAIL CODE!

Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Filename: 1065128595.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:03:xxx xxxx xxxx

For those of you who haven't seen it, this is Robert Matthews last article on the topic.
Hence the fairly brusque tone taken...
mike
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists

By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)


Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented"
global warming
have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the
Earth
was warmer during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s,
environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and
faster
than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse
gases
from cars and power stations are causing these
"record-breaking" global
temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said
that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began"
and added: "We
are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and
it's
accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists
at
the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared
that
the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most
comprehensive
study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of
more
than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures
are neither
the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most
extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the
findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as
tree rings,
ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate
temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period
between
the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly
higher
even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300,
during
which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to
warm
up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle
Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as
it
implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time
when
the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of
today's temperature rise.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that
today's
"unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of
examining temperature
change over too short a period of time.

The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment,
has
been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims
of
environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the
Middle
Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and
were
often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.

Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the
University
of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the
discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden
predictions
about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval
Warm
Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows
that it was
a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse
followed
the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the
temperature
started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It
makes
one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
the
official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility
that
today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least
partly caused by the
Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While
the
evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature
continues
to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.

Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the
Meteorological
Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on
the
IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the
significance of existing warming.

Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not
unusual
relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global
phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of
temperature
proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent
warming
of the last 50 years," he said.

Original Filename: 1067596623.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: f055 <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, f055 <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: CLIMLIST
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mhughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thanks very much Tim,
I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
I'll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to
be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of
a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road is
probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent
scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets
let *them* make these charges for us!
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader
case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par. particular.
I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet colleagues,
just so they would have a sense of approximately what we'll be releasing later today--i.e.,
a heads up as to
how MM achieved their result...
look forward to us finalizing something a bit later--I still think we need to get this out
ASAP...
mike
SAt 03:01 AM 10/31/2003 +0000, f055 wrote:

Dear all,
I've just finished preparing a detailed response offline, only to log on to
send it to you all and find new versions from Mike plus more comments
and information. Well, I don't have time to change my message now, so
will paste it below this message. But bear in mind that the new draft may
well have allayed many of my concerns - in particular, a quick glance
shows the figure to be much more convincing than the one Mike circulated
earlier, indeed it seems to be utterly convincing! I'll reply again on
Friday
morning once I've had time to read the new draft. In the meantime, here is
my message as promised.
************************************************************
Dear MBH (cc to CRU),
The number of emails has been rather overwhelming on this issue and
I'm struggling to catch up with them! But I will attempt to catch up with a
few things here...
(1) The single worst thing about the whole M&M saga is not that they did
their study, not that they did things wrong (deliberately or by accident), but
that neither they nor the journal took the necessary step of investigating
whether the difference between their results and yours could be explained
simply by some error or set of errors in their use of the data or in their
implementation of your method. If it turns out, as looks likely from Mike's
investigation of this, that their results are erroneous, then they and the
journal will have wasted countless person-hours of time and caused
much damage in the climate policy arena.
(2) Given that this is the single worst thing about the saga, we must not go
and do exactly the same in rushing out a response to their paper. If some
claims in the response turned out to be wrong, based on assumptions
about what M&M did or assumptions about how M&M's assumptions
affect the results, then it would end up with a number of iterations of claim
and counter claim. Ultimately the issue might be settled, but by then the
waters could be so muddied that it didn't matter.
(3) Not only do I advise against an overly rushed response, but I'm also
wondering whether it really ought to be only from MBH, for three reasons.
(i) It is your paper/results that are being attacked.
(ii) It is difficult to endorse everything that Mike has put in the draft
response because I don't know 100% of the details of MBH and the MBH
data. Sure, I can endorse some things, but others I wouldn't know. Sure,
I accept Mike's explanation because he's looked at this stuff for 4 days
and I believe he'll have got it right - but that's different to an independent
check. That must come from Ray or Malcolm if possible.
(iii) If it does come to any independent assessment of who's right and
who's wrong, then it would be difficult for us to be involved if we had
already signed up to what some might claim to be a knee-jerk reaction to
the M&M paper. If that happened, then you would want us to be free to get
involved to make sure the process was fair and informed.
This sounds like a cop out, but - like I say - I'm not sure about point (3) so
feel free to try to convince me otherwise if you wish. Anyway Keith or Phil
may be happy to sign up to a (quick or slow) response, despite my
reservations above.
I really advise a very careful reading of M&M and their supplementary
website to ensure that everything in the response is clearly correct -
precisely to avoid point (2). I've only just started to do this, but already
have some questions about the response that Mike has drafted.
(a) Mike, you say that many of the trees were eliminated in the data they
used. Have you concluded this because they entered "NA" for "Not
available" in their appendix table? If so, then are you sure that "NA"
means they did not use any data, rather than simply that they didn't
replace your data with an alternative (and hence in fact continued to use
what Scott had supplied to them)? Or perhaps "NA" means they couldn't
find the PC time series published (of course!), but in fact could find the
raw tree-ring chronologies and did their own PCA of those? How would
they know which raw chronologies to use? Or did you come to your
conclusion by downloading their "corrected and updated" data matrix and
comparing it with yours - I've not had time to do that, but even if I had and
I
found some differences, I wouldn't know which was right seeing as I've
not done any PCA of western US trees myself? My guess would be that
they downloaded raw tree-ring chronologies (possibly the same ones you
used) but then applied PCA only to the period when they all had full data -
hence the lack of PCs in the early period (which you got round by doing
PCA on the subset that had earlier data). But this is only a guess, and
this is the type of thing that should be checked with them - surely they
would respond if asked? - to avoid my point (2) above. And if my guess
were right, then your wording of "eliminated this entire data set" would
come in for criticism, even though in practise it might as well have been.
(b) The mention of ftp sites and excel files is contradicted by their email
record on their website, which shows no mention of excel files (they say
an ASCII file was sent) and also no record that they knew the ftp address.
This doesn't matter really, since the reason for them using a corrupted
data file is not relevant - the relevant thing is that it was corrupt and had
you been involved in reviewing the paper then it could have been found
prior to publication. But they will use the email record if the ftp sites and
excel files are mentioned.
(c) Not sure if you talk about peer-review in the latest version, but note
that
they acknowledge input from reviewers and Fred Singer's email says he
refereed it - so any statement implying it wasn't reviewed will be met with
an easy response from them.
(d) Your quick-look reconstruction excluding many of the tree-ring data,
and the verification RE you obtain, is interesting - but again, don't rush
into
using these in any response. The time series of PC1 you sent is certainly
different from your standard one - but on the other hand I'd hardly say you
"get a similar result" to them, the time series look very different (see their
fig 6d). So the dismal RE applies only to your calculation, not to their
reconstruction. It may turn out that their verification RE is also very
negative, but again we cannot assume this in case we're wrong and they
easily counter the criticism.
(e) Claims of their motives for selective censoring or changing of data, or
for the study as a whole, may well be true but are hard to prove. They
would claim that their's is an honest attempt at reproducing a key
scientific result. If they made errors in what they did, then maybe they're
just completely out of their depth on this, rather than making deliberate
errors for the purposes of achieving preferred results.
(f) The recent tree-ring decline they refer to seems related to
tree-ring-width not density. Regardless of width of density, this issue
cannot simply be dismissed as a solved problem. Since they don't make
much of an issue out of it, best just to ignore it.
(g) [I'm rambling now into an un-ordered list of things, so I'll stop soon!]
The various other problems relating to temperature data sets, detrended
standard deviations, PCs of tree-ring subsets etc. sound likely errors -
though I've got no way of providing the independent check that you asked
for. But it is again a bit of a leap of faith to say that these *explain* the
different results that they get. Certainly they throw doubt on the validity
of
their results, but without actually doing the same as them it's not possible
to say if they would have replicated your results if they hadn't made these
errors. After all, could the infilling of missing values have made much
difference to the results obtained, something that they made a good deal
of fuss about?
(h) To say they "used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98" will
also be an easy target for them, since they did use the data that was sent
to them and seemed to have used approximately the method too (with
some errors that you've identified). This reproduced your results to some
extent (certainly not perfectly, but see Fig 6b and 6c). Then they went
further to redo it with the "corrected and updated" data - but only after
first
doing approximately what they claimed they did (i.e. the audit).
These comments relate to random versions of the draft response, so
apologies if they don't all seem relevant to the current draft. I don't have
these in front of me, here at home, so I'm doing this from memory of what
I've read over the past few days. But nevertheless, the point is that a quick
response would ultimately require making a number of assumptions
about what they did and assumptions about whether this explains the
differences or not - assumptions that might be later shot down (in part
only, at most, but still sufficient to muddy the debate for most outsiders).
A quick response ought to be limited to something like:
---------------------------------------------
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims
to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998;
hereafter MBH98). MM03 are unable to reproduce the Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstruction of MBH98 when attempting to
use the same proxy data and methods as MBH98, though they obtain
something similar with clearly anomalous recent warming (their Figure
6c). They then make many modifications to the proxy data set and repeat
their analysis, and obtain a rather different result to MBH98.
Unfortunately neither M&M nor the journal in which it was published took
the necessary step of investigating whether the difference between their
results and MBH98 could be explained simply by some error or set of
errors in their use of the data or in their implementation of the MBH98
method. This should have been an essential step to take in a case such
as this where the difference in results is so large and important. Simple
errors must first be ruled out prior to publication. Even if the authors had
not undertaken this by presenting their results to the authors of MBH98,
the journal should certainly have included them as referees of the
manuscript.
A preliminary investigation into the proxy data and implementation of the
method has already identified a number of likely errors, which may turn
out to be the cause of the different results. Rather than repeating M&M's
failure to follow good scientific practise, we are witholding further
comments until we can - by collaboration with M&M if possible - be certain
of exactly what changes to data and method were made by M&M, whether
these changes can really explain the differences in the results, and
eventually which (if any) of these changes can be justified as equally valid
(given the various uncertainties that exist) and which are simply errors that
invalidate their results.
-----------------------------------------
Hope you find this all helpful, and despite my seemingly critical approach,
take them in the spirit with which they are aimed - which is to obtain a
strong and hard hitting rebuttal of bad science, but a rebuttal that cannot
be buried by any minor innaccuracies or difficult-to-prove claims.
Best regards
Tim

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1068239573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000

<x-flowed>

>From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000
>To: Steve McIntyre <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
>Cc: L.A.Love@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Ross McKitrick <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
>
>Dear Steve
>Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I
>would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but
>'respectful' comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people
>seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of
>such bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between
>Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US adversarial system and too many
>egos??
>As you know ,the contact is Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> and I take
>the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to suggest that this
>is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks to me
>concerning your paper.
>
>We shall get the printed proof, as a single electronic file today, and
>shall look through it early next week. I am sure you do not want to see
>your paper again? I think that adding anymore now (the exchanges
>between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well) is premature
>and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing
>something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
>that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will
>deal only directly with Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with
>litigation...Just keep me in the loop. Thanks.
>
>Sonja
>PS .By the way The Economist has taken up a previous paper from E&E
>(Castles and Henderson, the social science critique of teh emission
>scenarios), and teh Australian and UK Treasuries have become involved.
>I have not seen it yet. As you know, I have always argued that the real
>'driver' of teh IPCC deception, if that is the right word, has been on
>teh social /technology forcing side, with focus of WG III.
>
>In London I heard two days ago that the WTO might make ratification of
>Kyoto conditional for something Russia wants. The source was speaker
>from the Deutsche Bank, a Justin Mundy, former advisor to the EU
>Commission on EU-Russia coordination and once senior advisor to the
>European Centre for Nature Conservation, he also worked for the World
>Bank.)
>Sonja
>
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Steve McIntyre <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sonja,
> >
> > > > The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is
> that it
> > > > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
> > > > simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data. If
> this is
> > > > confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be
> some
> > > > problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that
> these
> > > > problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results -
> the main
> > > > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data. A paper that
> > > > identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
> > > > still be interesting, but if these problems made very little
> difference to
> > > > the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
> > >
> > > (1) IMHO the data issues rise above "some problems". When you're
> doing a prospectus, audit or engineering-level feasibility study, there
> is a concerted effort to eliminate every error. I have never seen such
> sloppy data as MBH98. Perhaps from my business experience, I am used to
> a more demanding approach to data integrity than the above comment
> suggests about academic studies. Even the MBH response criticizes us for
> failing to use obsolete data. How silly is that. Bradley has also said
> that an "audit" should use original data and should not verify against
> source data and says that I should know better. I think that my
> experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than
> Bradley's and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to
> say. After the fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was
> the engineering report in which ore reserves were calculated using false
> data supplied to the consulting engineers by Bre-X, without any
> verification being carried out by the engineers.
> > > (2) There was not a "simple error" of simply not using many of the
> early tree-ring data. The early tree-ring data in question are principal
> components of North American tree ring sites and of Stahle/SWM (also
> North American) tree ring sites . MBH98 states that they used
> conventional principal components methods for temperature. They do not
> explicitly say that they used conventional principal components methods
> for tree ring regions, but, in the absence of disclosure otherwise, this
> is certainly the most reasonable interpretation of the public disclosure
> (leaving aside Mann's refusal to provide clarification in response to our
> inquiries on methods.) A "conventional" principal component calculation
> requires that there be no missing data. Accordingly this indicator became
> unavailable in the earlier years using conventional principal component
> calculations - it was not "left out". MBH now disclose for the very
> first time that they used a "stepwise principal components approach",
> although this is nowhere disclosed in MBH98 or in the SI thereto. They
> have still not disclosed the rosters of principal components involved. If
> this method is material to their results, as they now state, then it was
> a material omission in their prior disclosure. It seems like a very
> strange rebuttal for MBH to say: you're at fault because we made a
> material non-disclosure on methodology in our papers. If I were in MBH's
> shoes, I would be embarrassed at this non-disclosure and mitigating the
> situation by making full disclosure now. . When you do a prospectus, you
> have to sign an affidavit that there are no material omissions. I have
> approached disclosure questions on the basis that prospectus-level
> disclosure is the minimum level of public disclosure in this matter,
> assuming that this level of disclosure would be exceeded.
> >
> > (3) I've redone calculations with a re-calculated US PC1 in and get
> results similar to those in E&E, rather than the MBH response. This is
> not a guarantee that I have fully replicated still undisclosed MBH
> methodology. However, MBH disclosure of their methodology is very
> inadequate and without full disclosure by MBH of their methods, it is
> possible to be somewhat at cross-purposes. This defective disclosure is
> entirely their responsibility. It should be remedied immediately through
> FTP disclosure of their computer programs and full description of their
> methodology.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > > >>It is quite obvious that if the opinion of these three people
> from the
> > > > >>UK University of East Anglia concerning publication of teh M&M paper
> > > > >>had been sought and taken, there would not have been no publication.
> > > >
> > > > Then I suggest you read our commentary again, which does not state
> this at all.
> >
> >
> > Part 2 has been drafted and I would be delighted to obtain comments on
> it from UEA/CRU. Indeed, I think that it would be very constructive,
> since Part 2 is significantly more hard-edged than Part 1. Because we
> have stated that we would post up a reply to the MBH response, we would
> have to disclose something on our websites, but I'd be prepared to deal
> with this. Intuitively, full, true and plain disclosure would be to state
> that we have prepared a reply and submitted it to UEA/CRU for
> comments. I think that the many data errors will be self-evident to
> UEA/CRU; we have organized our materials to show this, as will be the
> material non-disclosures on methodology by MBH. However, if they are
> prepared to comment, this would have to be agreed on very quickly as we
> are very close to finalizing our repy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
>
>----------------------
>Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
>Reader,Department of Geography,
>Editor, Energy & Environment
>(Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
>Faculty of Science
>University of Hull
>Hull HU6 7RX, UK
>Tel: (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx/6341/5385
>Fax: (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1068652882.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: MBH98
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:01:22 +0000

<x-flowed>
Keith and Phil,

you will have seen Stephen McIntyre's request to us. We need to talk about
it, though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with
carefully worded/explained reason) as another interrim stage and prefer to
make our input at the peer-review stage.

In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Mike Mann from
McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do
wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early
responses - the waters are really muddied now. He would have done better
to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before
publicising this stuff. Excel files, other files being created early or
now deleted is really confusing things!

Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
programs, his request that *we* send McIntyre's request to Mann has been
dropped (I would have said "no" anyway).

So it's just the second bit, that we review part 2 of this response, that
needs to be answered.

Cheers

Tim


>From: "Steve McIntyre" <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> "Ross McKitrick" <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: MBH98
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>November 11, 2003
>
>
>
>Professor Michael E. Mann
>
>School of Earth Sciences
>
>University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Professor Mann,
>
>
>
>We apologize for not sending you a copy of our recent paper ("MM") in
>Energy and Environment for comment, as we understood from your email of
>September 25, 2003 that time constraints prevented you from considering
>our material. We notice that you seem to have subsequently changed your
>mind and hope that you will both be able to clarify some points for us and
>to rectify the public record on other points.
>
>
>
>1) You have claimed that we used the wrong data and the wrong
>computational methodology. We would like to reconcile our results to
>actual data and methodology used in MBH98. We would therefore appreciate
>copies of the computer programs you actually used to read in data (the 159
>data series referred to in your recent comments) and construct the
>temperature index shown in Nature (1998) ("MBH98"), either through email
>or, preferably through public FTP or web posting.
>
>
>
>2) In some recent comments, you are reported as stating that we requested
>an Excel file and that you instead directed us to an FTP site for the
>MBH98 data. You are also reported as saying that despite having pointed us
>to the FTP site, you and your colleague took trouble to prepare an Excel
>spreadsheet, but inadvertently introduced some collation errors at that
>time. In fact, as you no doubt recall, we did not request an Excel
>spreadsheet, but specifically asked for an FTP location, which you were
>unable or unwilling to provide. Nor was an Excel spreadsheet ever supplied
>to us; instead we were given a text file, pcproxy.txt. Nor was this file
>created in April 2003. After we learned on October 29, 2003 that the
>pertinent data was reported to be located on your FTP site
><ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub>ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub
>(and that we were being faulted for not getting it from there), we
>examined this site and found it contains the exact same file (pcproxy.txt)
>as the one we received, bearing a date of creation of August 8, 2002. On
>October 29, 2003, your FTP site also contained the file pcproxy.mat, a
>Matlab file, the header to which read: "MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, Platform:
>SOL2, Created on: Thu Aug 8 10:18:xxx xxxx xxxx." Both files contain identical
>data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
>2003, including all collation errors, fills and other problems identified
>in MM. It is therefore clear that the file pcproxy.txt as sent to us was
>not prepared in April 2003 in response to our requests, nor was it
>prepared as an Excel spreadsheet, but in fact it was prepared many months
>earlier with Matlab. It is also clear that, had we gone to your FTP site
>earlier, we would simply have found the same data collation as we received
>from Scott Rutherford. Would you please forthwith issue a statement
>withdrawing and correcting your earlier comments.
>
>
>
>3) In reported comments, you also claimed that we overlooked the collation
>errors in pcproxy.txt and "slid" the incorrect data into our calculations,
>a statement which is untrue and made without a reasonable basis. In MM, we
>described numerous errors including, but not limited to, the collation
>errors, indicating quite obviously that we noticed the data problems. We
>then describe how we "firewalled" our data from the errors contained in
>the data you provided us, by re-collating tree ring proxy data from
>original sources and carrying out fresh principal component calculations.
>We request that you forthwith withdraw the claim that we deliberately used
>data we knew to be in error.
>
>
>
>4) On November 8, 2003, when we re-visited your FTP site, we noticed the
>following changes since October 29, 2003: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had
>been deleted from your FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was
>displayed under the /sdr directory, where it had previously been located,
>although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one
>previously knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file
>named "mbhfilled.mat" prepared on November 4, 2003 had been inserted into
>the directory. Obviously, the files pcproxy.mat and pcproxy.txt are
>pertinent to the comments referred to above and we view the deletion of
>pcproxy.mat from the archival record under the current circumstances as
>unjustifiable. Would you please restore these files to your FTP site,
>together with an annotated text file documenting the dates of their
>deletion and restoration.
>
>
>
>5) We note that the new file mbhfilled.mat is an array of dimension
>381x2016. Could you state whether this file has any connection to MBH98,
>and, if so, please explain the purpose of this file, why it has been
>posted now and why it was not previously available at the FTP site.
>
>
>
>6) Can you advise us whether the directory MBH98 has been a subdirectory
>within the folder "pub" since July 30, 2002 or whether it was transferred
>from another (possibly private) directory at a date after July 30, 2002?
>If the latter, could you advise on the date of such transfer.
>
>
>
>
>
>We have prepared a 3-part response to your reply to MM. The first, which
>we have released publicly, goes over some of the matters raised in points
>#2-#5 above. The second is undergoing review. It deals with additional
>issues of data quality and disclosure, resulting from inspection of your
>FTP site since October 29, 2003. The third part will consider the points
>made in your response, both in terms of data and methodology, and will
>attempt a careful reconciliation of our calculation methods, hence the
>necessity of our request in point #1. Thank you for your attention.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yours truly,
>
>
>
>Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick
>
>
>
>
>cc: Timothy Osborn

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1084017554.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: f037 <M.Hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Aiguo Dai <adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: denial or delusion? ... Aiguo's response
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 07:59:14 +0100
Cc: <jprospero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <plamb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Aiguo,

You've done a great job in putting this together so quickly and clearly. I
have a couple of additional comments to make on it, but can't do so until
Tuesday. You (we?) might also like to think of the reply being
multi-authored, including Phil, Pete, Kevin, Joe and myself.

I must say that when I first read this paper a couple of weeks ago I wrote it
off as so bad (so, so bad) that it didn't even deserve a response. To pretend
that the Sahel drought didn't happen (i.e., a pure artifact of wrongful use of
rainfall data) is the most astounding assertion, almost on a par with
holocaust denial. Try putting that proposition to the millions of inhabitants
of the Sahel in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, many of whom died as a direct
consequence and whose livelihoods were devastated. Adrian Chappell may never
have visited the region, but I know Clive Agnew has (many times) - and he
should know better. I did my PhD research in the region in the early 1980s
and I know exactly what the rainfall conditions were like and how much
oridinary people suffered as a consequence. My PhD was on rainfall
variability and local water supplies in Sudan and I visited and talked to many
villagers in the region.

Anyway, Phil first suggested that a corrective reply was needed and I can see
the value of doing so, especially with IPCC AR4 approaching. It just seems to
me such a shame that such poor science is being done by some people - in this
case I don't think there is a deeper motive on the part of Chappell and Agnew
than pure delusion and incompetence - and, worse, that a journal like IJC will
publish it.

Thanks again for your efforts,

Mike


>===== Original Message From Aiguo Dai <adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> =====
>Dear All,
>
>Soon after I sent out my last email, I quickly realized that there is
>another fundamental error in their rainfall model eq.(1): the regional
>station numbers na and nb should be replaced with regional areas. This
>can be seen clearly in the following example: suppose region a has only
>one station whose long-term mean rainfall happens to be the same as
>region a's mean, and region b has 100 stations. Then their model would
>give the completely wrong estimate of rainfall for region (a+b), while
>the area-weighted version would still work. This is an obvious error, but
>it apparently could be easily overlooked. Their model seems to be
>originated from their incorrect perception that regional rainfall has
>been traditionally derived using the simple arithmetic mean of all station
>data. After reading the leader author's response to Joe's comments, I
>could not believe that they still think previous analyses are simpler than
>theirs!
>
>I also forgot to point out in my earlier draft the fact that even if their
>modelled time series were a reasonable proxy of Sahel rainfall, their
>results would still have had little implications to previous analyses of
>Sahel rainfall. This is because their analysis maximized the effects of
>changing station networks by the design of their model and by choosing
>the boundary of the two sub-Sahel region at 6deg.W, whereas in most previous
>analyses these effects were minimized by area-weighted averaging (Jones and
>Hulme, 1996).
>
>Sorry for the overlook of these issues in my earlier email.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Aiguo Dai
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I was asked by Kevin to work out a rebuttal to Chappell and Agnew
>> (2004). After reading
>> it a couple of times, I found the main reason why they came to their
>> results: they devised a
>> Sahel rainfall model (eq. 1) with a necessary condition that the
>> constants a and b
>> represent the mean rainfall for the west and east part of the Sahel.
>> However, later in their
>> paper, they estimated a and b by a non-linear least-squares fitting to
>> observed rainfall
>> data, and their a (=973mm) and b (=142mm) are nowhere near the actural
>> mean rainfall
>> for these sub-Sahel regions (~645.5 mm and 471.2mm). In essense, their
>> rainfall model
>> and thus their modelled rainfall time series are no longer relevant to
>> Sahel rainfall!
>>
>> I have seen many bad papers, but this one is the worst of all, not only
>> because they
>> misled the reader with their model (intentionally or unintentionally),
>> but also because they
>> made all kinds of unfounded pure speculations about the implications of
>> their results.
>>
>> I did some quick analyses using data extracted from the update GHVN2 and
>> wrote a
>> comment paper, which is attached as Word file. Any comments will be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aiguo
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> Several emails today. Kevin's encouraging Aiguo Dai to write a
>>> response as well,
>>> so it might be worth some co-ordination. 2 responses might be better
>>> than one, though, so I'll
>>> leave it up to you.
>>> They have dug themselves into a bigger hole in their response to
>>> Joe. Joe's assessment
>>> of their reasoning is exactly right. Also you can't write a paper
>>> saying an analysis is flawed and
>>> then say we don't dispute the local evidence for drought ! This is
>>> naive in the extreme and
>>> dumb. I've heard this excuse several times in the past with other
>>> contentious papers.
>>> The one problem there might be in a response is getting a quick
>>> turnaround with IJC.
>>> With the response a strongly worded letter should go to the editor
>>> (Glenn McGregor)
>>> requesting a fast-track review. The journal does this. As Kevin says
>>> any response short
>>> be short and to the point.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> At 18:17 06/05/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Joseph M. Prospero wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "A.Chappell" <A.Chappell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>> To: "Joseph M. Prospero" <jprospero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>> Cc: "Clive Agnew" <clive.agnew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>> Subject: Re: Sahel drought "artifact"
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:13:48 +0100
>>>>
>>>> Dear Professor Prospero,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your email. I read your paper with interest. It does
>>>> indeed show a strong correlation with conventional estimates of mean
>>>> annual rainfall. However, the paper implicitly assumes that the
>>>> mean annual rainfall represents the variation in rainfall for the
>>>> entire region. Our paper shows that those statistics are flawed
>>>> because of the changing station networks and that those regional
>>>> statistics do not show a 'drought' in the Sahel. Our paper does not
>>>> dispute the local scale evidence for drought.
>>>>
>>>> It is too simplistic to average mean monthly rainfall for such a
>>>> large heterogenous region and believe that the rainfall trend is
>>>> precise. What might be interesting is to correlate your results
>>>> against the mean annual rainfall corrected for the changing station
>>>> networks.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Joseph M. Prospero <mailto:jprospero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To:
>>>> a.chappell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:a.chappell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:33 PM
>>>> Subject: Sahel drought "artifact"
>>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>>
>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Aiguo Dai email: adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Climate & Global Dynamics Division phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> National Center for Atmospheric Research FAX : xxx xxxx xxxx
>> P.O. Box 3000, 1850 Table Mesa Drive
>> Boulder, CO 80307
>> homepage: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/
>>
>>

Original Filename: 1113941558.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Chapter 3.4.1
Date: Tue Apr 19 16:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: David Parker <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Brian Soden <bsoden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'David R. Easterling'" <david.easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Kevin,
I plan to look through your 3.4.1 draft tomorrow or later this week. At the same
time I also plan to have a go at section 3.2. David has sent me some new figures
and there are two new papers to add in. I am having difficulty finding some quality
time at the moment, but hope this will come later this week.
I did read all the CCSP report. The review group are having a conf call tomorrow
on this, but they have chosen your afternoon, so I can't take part. There were 6
reviewers of the review and one other almost wrote as much as you. Most were
positive on the review saying that the report authors have a lot to do, particularly for
Chapters 1 and 6. How all this pans out is impossible to tell. The next meeting of the
authors is being scheduled for the week after Beijing.
I agree some of their figures are useful, but I too doubt whether we will have
much useful for the FOD we have to write. We will likely be doing them in parallel -
which is hardly ideal.
I wouldn't send our 3.4.1 to Tom at this time - at least wait till Brian, David and I
have been through yours. Also I wouldn't want Tom passing it on to the CCSP VTT
authors. I think they will have a lot of hard thinking when they get the NRC review, to
worry too much about what we're doing. We do need to have our chapter and their
report meshing at some time, but this might have to wait till the SOD (by which time
their report might be finished).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:35 18/04/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Kevin
Thanks. You have saved me some work because on my journey back from
Geneva I also studied the comments on 3.4.1 (on paper) and was
considering making an electronic revised section. I came to the
conclusion that 3.4.1 should say that there are 2 schools of thought
about Fu et al and other aspects of the temperatures-aloft issue: the
jury is still out. That would be a assessment (as opposed to a review)
of the current state of the science. Fu may not be correct as he seems
to imply upper tropospheric warming rates well outside the error-bars
implied by the radiosondes (though I am aware of their problems too). I
have not yet read your attachment but will consider it in the next few
days.
I looked at the surface temperature comments too and feel it may be best
to wait until in Beijing, as most comments are about what diagrams to
choose. I could try to re-order the urban warming section as reviewers
suggest, but we may still wish to contact Tsutsumi (who didn't reply to
my email a couple of months ago) to write something.
Regards
David
On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 17:13, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Phil and David, and Brian
>
> I believe you three are probably closest to the satellite temperature
> record issue and so I am sending this to you. I have thoroughly gone
> over all the comments we received and I have prepared a revised 3.4.1
> which is attached. This is the cleaned up version. The actual
> version has tracking turned on but the changes are so extensive that
> they are very hard to follow. As you know, I have read the entire
> CCSP report and commented extensively on it. I know Phil was on the
> review team and David was there as a lead author. However David and
> Phil may not be as familiar with the whole report.
>
> Obviously this remains a controversial topic. Many of the comments we
> received were diametrically opposed to one another. The rhetoric was
> disappointing (especially from Peter Thorne). In fact Peter's
> comments are mostly not useful and reveal very strong biases against
> Fu and reanalyses. Previously, you'll recall that David provided most
> of the text and I edited it and updated it with the Fu material in a
> somewhat ad hoc fashion that got almost everyone mad. Probably a good
> thing to do in retrospect, as this next version will look so much
> better. Note that I have done nothing with the appendices at this
> point, so that needs to be addressed. I have taken out all the
> tables??
>
> You will see even in the current text that I have 2 sections I would
> like to delete.
>
> While individual comparisons of radiosonde station data with
> collocated satellite data (Christy and Norris, 2004) suggest that the
> median trends of radiosonde temperatures in the troposphere are
> generally very close to UAH trends and a little less than RSS trends,
> trends at individual radiosonde sites vary and root mean square
> differences of UAH satellite data with radiosondes are substantial
> (Hurrell et al., 2000). Moreover, as noted in 3.4.1.1, comparisons
> with radiosonde data are compromised by the multiple problems with the
> latter, and there are diurnal cycle influences on them over land. In
> the stratosphere, radiosonde trends are more negative than both MSU
> retrievals, especially RSS. [DELETE THIS?]
>
> The problem here is the rhetoric of Christy et al. In his
> contribution Christy justifies the UAH record by saying that "median
> trends agree with those of sondes". But he actually sent to us his
> Fig. 2 showing the lack of agreement in general. It is only the
> median that agrees, the agreement with sondes individually is not good
> and this is just for trends. [Hence the median depends on the
> selection of stations]. It is even worse if rms differences are
> examined (as in Hurrell et al 2000). The only reason to include this
> is to rebut Christy's claim. For most other readers it has no
> business being there. Your suggestions appreciated. Maybe this
> should go in the appendix?
>
> You will see that I have stolen 2 figures from the CCSP report. I
> made up the 3rd figure from data provided from the CCSP report plus
> extra material (only the global is in the current draft). It would
> also be nice to include a spatial map of trends at the surface and for
> the troposphere (T2 corrected as from Fu) but no such figure exists
> anywhere, yet. We can get trends from RSS and UAH for T2. It would
> be good to have access to the originals so we can modify them and
> clean up the terminology. {On that score, I don't think the CCSP
> terminology is tenable given the new retrievals of Fu et al (2005) and
> ours, using T2, T3, and T4 is much easier).
>
> At present the CCSP report is not very useful to us. Some figures are
> useful. It may become so, but I actually have my doubts, given the
> vested interests of the authors.
>
> I am tempted to send this to Tom Karl in his role as editor of our
> chapter, and of course he is head of the CCSP effort, but I would NOT
> want him to use it for CCSP (except that it might highlight the
> differences in assessments). What do you think? Via Tom we might get
> better access to the figures and updates? Also I'l l cc David
> Easterling.
> This would be the main basis for FOD.
>
> Ideally also it is desirable to get the figures updated thru 2004, but
> can we?
>
> Please read this version and let me know what you think? (Please be
> kind, I have put in a LOT of work on this)
>
> Best regards
> Kevin
>
> --
> ****************
> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
> P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
> Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>
> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
--
David E Parker
A2_W052 Met Office FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
email: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Global climate data sets are available from [2]http://hadobs.org

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
2. http://hadobs.org/

Original Filename: 1114008578.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Peter Lemke <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Wed Apr 20 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST, snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there, with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005) work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the degree
of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:

Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:

Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere. This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:

Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
2. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/

Original Filename: 1114025310.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Kevin - ah yes, good fun. Talked w/ Susan about some of this, and we're hoping that Keith
Briffa might be able to participate in "Cluster B" while the rest of our chap 6 team
discusses things that bore Keith. I'll forward this to relevant chap 6 folks. Thx, Peck

Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6. You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now. Some things don't make sense to me: chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America) Also magnitude of implied
early 20Th C warming. What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there,
with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the right
base level

is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:

Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:

Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere. This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:

Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.

I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

Boulder, CO 80305, USA

-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1fde5ff.jpg

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
<http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6. You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From: Phil Jones [1]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: Kevin Trenberth [2]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: [3]<5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [5]<42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[6]<6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [7]<42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss Glacier

people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now. Some things don't make sense to me: chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America) Also magnitude of implied
early 20Th C warming. What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there,
with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:

Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:

Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere. This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*

* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:

Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: [8]mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [9]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [10]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: [11]plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx

[12]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [13]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Untitled 2

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [15]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [16]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [17]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [18]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

--

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

Embedded Content: Untitled 2.jpg: 00000001,648cb53d,00000000,00000000

References

1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
11. mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/
13. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
16. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

Original Filename: 1114040791.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "Martin Manning" <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:46:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Peter Lemke" <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Susan Solomon" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
well spin off at some point. Are there others Phil?
Kevin


> Dear Kevin and Phil
>
> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>
> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
> meeting in Beijing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>Hi Martin
>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts. Last
>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>> and
>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>Kevin
>>
>>Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through
>>> parts of Chapters
>>> 4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
>>>
>>> First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets
>>> broken into two parts.
>>> Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental
>>> record including
>>> borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
>>> snow/temperature.
>>> OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by
>>> Chs 5, 3 and 4.
>>> The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
>>>
>>> Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo
>>> records, particularly
>>> how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental
>>> records is believed
>>> by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few
>>> other regions it
>>> exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century
>>> is, I believe, the key
>>> to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more
>>> should be made of
>>> this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed.
>>> Europe may be a
>>> small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which
>>> have all seasons!) need
>>> to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text
>>> should be there, with
>>> perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
>>>
>>> Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent
>>> Oerlemans (2005) work
>>> - attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg)
>>> comparing this with most other
>>> reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece
>>> of
>>> work should be with
>>> all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this
>>> getting the right base level
>>> is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the
>>> boreholes. Also, the degree of
>>> smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway
>>> message.
>>>
>>> Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
>>>
>>> Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a
>>> web site (distributed?) where
>>> the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not
>>> just the smoothed/plotted
>>> series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes
>>> back
>>> also to a consistent way
>>> of smoothing time series.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
>>>>Dear Martin,
>>>>I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done
>>>>a very good job in listing the most important issues.
>>>>Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this
>>>>on the weekend.
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes I will do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Firstly on cluster A:
>>>>>I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing
>>>>>from water vapor (or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
>>>>>So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean,
>>>>>cryosphere. This may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
>>>>>Issues:
>>>>>*Consistency of:*
>>>>>
>>>>> * sea ice with SST
>>>>> * snow cover with snowfall and temperature
>>>>> * glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
>>>>> * borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
>>>>> * overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
>>>>> * salinity vs precipitation
>>>>> * ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
>>>>> * sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
>>>>> land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
>>>>> radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation
>>>>>records (don't use NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
>>>>>
>>>>>Points of contention:
>>>>>1) consistency
>>>>>2) overlap and redundancy
>>>>>3) where to place integrated assessment?
>>>>>
>>>>> * sea level: Chapter 5
>>>>> * snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
>>>>> * paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
>>>>> * overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
>>>>> * T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
>>>>> retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
>>>>> level rise.
>>>>> * Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E,
>>>>> snowfall.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please see the draft of 3.9.
>>>>>
>>>>>So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
>>>>>1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
>>>>>2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in
>>>>>particular, that 3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters
>>>>> that
>>>>>follow.
>>>>>The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on
>>>>>cross-chapter issues.
>>>>>Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
>>>>>
>>>>>Peter may wish to add or change this?
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin Manning wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Kevin and Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author
>>>>>>meeting on May xxx xxxx xxxx. We will shortly be sending out some more
>>>>>>details on the plans for the meeting and in particular would like to
>>>>>>clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster meetings shown
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the program on Wednesday 11th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the
>>>>>>session on Overlap Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering
>>>>>>observed climate change" and which will involve discussion among
>>>>>>chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the last
>>>>>>page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the
>>>>>> ZOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if
>>>>>>you agree, we would like to ask that you each to specify what in your
>>>>>>view would be the 2 or 3 most important issues to resolve during the
>>>>>>overlap cluster session. We will then use your input to draw up a
>>>>>>specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
>>>>>>CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a
>>>>>>shared understanding of the most important overlap and consistency
>>>>>>issues and the corresponding key decisions that will have to be made
>>>>>>in Beijing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to
>>>>>>help us with this by Wednesday 20th.
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>*Recommended Email address:
>>>>>><mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>>*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
>>>>>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
>>>>>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> 4479
>>>>>>325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>>>>>
>>>>>-- ****************
>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
>>>>><mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>>>>NCAR
>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
>>>>>P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>>>>>
>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>****************************************************
>>>>Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
>>>>Alfred-Wegener-Institute
>>>>for Polar and Marine Research
>>>>Postfach 120161
>>>>27515 Bremerhaven
>>>>GERMANY
>>>>
>>>>e-mail: <mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
>>>>FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>><http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de>http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
>>>>****************************************************
>>>
>>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich Email
>>><mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>NR4 7TJ
>>>UK
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>d85f1d.jpg
>>
>>
>>--
>>****************
>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
>><mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>NCAR <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
>>P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>>
>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
>>
>
> --
> Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
> Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
> NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Boulder, CO 80305, USA

Original Filename: 1114607213.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
Presumably you've seen all this - the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I'm concerned he has the data - sent ages ago. I'll
tell him this, but that's all - no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
I know why he can't replicate the results early on - it is because there was a variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Phil,

In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
publications, I've been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
early periods.

Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
code used in these calculations.

There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2xxx xxxx xxxx.pdf discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
respect to MBH98.

Regards, Steve McIntyre

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:53 +0100
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Keith and Phil,
you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:

(4) GLOBAL WARMING AND DATA
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway, 25 April 2005
[2]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10200
A new paper ([3]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2xxx xxxx xxxx.pdf) from the St. Luis
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive not only
the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks mainly at economic
research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper about the current state of
research for global warming/climate change. One of the hallmarks of scientific research
is that the results can be replicable. Without this, the results shouldn't be considered
valid let alone used for making policy.
Ideally, investigators should be willing to share their data and programs so as to
encourage other investigators to replicate and/or expand on their results.3 Such
behavior allows science to move forward in a Kuhn-style linear fashion, with each
generation seeing further from the shoulders of the previous generation.4 At a minimum,
the results of an endeavor-if it is to be labeled "scientific"-should be replicable,
i.e., another researcher using the same methods should be able to reach the same result.
In the case of applied economics using econometric software, this means that another
researcher using the same data and the same computer software should achieve the same
results.
However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?
Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to
MBH98, but other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this problem is
actually quite serious.
Crowley and Lowery (2000)
After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has
misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions. This
makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he
sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Briffa et al. (2001)
There is no listing of sites in the article or SI (despite JGR policies requiring
citations be limited to publicly archived data). Briffa has refused to respond to any
requests for data. None of these guys have the least interest in some one going through
their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away. I don't see how any policy
reliance can be made on this paper with no available data.
Esper et al. (2002)
This paper is usually thought to show much more variation than the hockey stick. Esper
has listed the sites used, but most of them are not archived. Esper has not responded to
any requests for data. '
Jones and Mann (2003); Mann and Jones (2004)
Phil Jones sent me data for these studies in July 2004, but did not have the weights
used in the calculations, which Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but so far have
been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these papers is based on
correlations to local temperature, as opposed to MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings are
based on correlations to the temperature PC1 (but this is just speculation right now.)
The papers do not describe the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication.
Jacoby and d'Arrigo (northern treeline)
I've got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989
paper, you will see that Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent
red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern
treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other
26 sites have not been archived. I've written to Climatic Change to get them to
intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his
research is "mission-oriented" and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a "few
good" series.
Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp

Original Filename: 1123163394.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Out in latest J. Climate
Date: Thu Aug 4 09:49:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
Gabi was supposed to be there but wasn't either. I think Gabi isn't
being objective as she might because of Tom C. I recall Keith
telling me that her recent paper has been rejected, not sure if outright
or not.
Gabi sees the issue from a D&A perspective, not whether any curve
is nearer the truth, but just what the envelope of the range might be.
There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error
bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether
they are right or how they are used. Changing timescales make this
simple use impractical.
We have a new version of HadCRUT just submitted, so soon
the'll be HadCRUT3v and CRUTEM3v. The land doesn't change much.
This has errors associated with each point, but the paper doesn't yet
discuss how to use them.
I'll attach this paper. Only just been submitted to JGR - not
in this format though. This format lays it out better.
Thanks for reminding Scott.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:48 04/08/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
Thanks for the heads up. Will be prepared for this then. I thought that Gabi Hegerl was
involved with this guy? Doesn't she know better? It is disturbing that she hasn't set
them straight on this.
By the way, as you may or may not have heard, its been discovered that there is a major
error in Von Storch et al '04 that they now appear to be trying to hide (they have some
obscure article in an Italian journal where they attempt to justify the error). There
are several comments that have been or are soon to be submitted to Science about this.
As it turns out, they introduces a spurious step in their supposed implementation of the
MBH98 procedure in which they detrended the series first, gives completely wrong
results.. Caspar Ammann and Gene Wahl and David Ritson of Stanford have both
independently discovered this, because they noticed that amplitude of the calibrated
signal in VS04 scales with the signal-to-noise ratio--this was the first clue that there
was a major problem. There may be calls upon Science for them to retract their paper.
The results are completely wrong, aside from the problems w/ the GKSS simulation. You
can expect to hear more about this soon...
I'll remind Scott about the proxies. He and Zhang are in the process of screening the
proxy series for temperature signals, etc. Once they've done that, should be more
useful. I expect we'll be able to get you some stuff by late August.
I did hear about the 3 papers coming out in Science. Apparently Donald Kennedy is doing
an editorial that will discuss this in the context of the whole Barton business. That
should be interesting...There will be articles by both Gavin and Steve Sherwood on
"RealClimate" in coordination with the publication of the papers in Science Express.
This should help turn the debate around.
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
He's been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this
Dutch funded project near Oxford last week.
Tim said they were doing some odd things, like correlating all the proxy series
they had with CET (yes CET)! Even the few SH proxies they have. The others
who went to the meeting were Zorita and Moberg. Zorita was still showing the
GKSS run with Moberg series, even though its forcing is too large, it doesn't
have aerosols in the 20th century and has spin up problems for the first
200 years.
Meeting wasn't that productive according to Tim. There was a belief amongst
those there that all trees you used have lost low-freq, but this isn't true as you
know.
Also, it was a good job Keith wasn't there (he didn't go as his father died the
weekend before and he's not been in CRU since) as Martin assumed that RCS
was developed by Esper (who also wasn't there). Tim put them right on this
one, but RCS isn't applicable for normal tree sites, nor useful for bristlecones.
Tim said Esper was wrong is his use of RCS, but they wouldn't accept that
as Esper wasn't there to defend himself!
Basically only Tim knew anything about proxy data especially trees. Tim
got the impression that they wanted to find that MBH is wrong. Given the
previous comment, as you weren't there they are using double standards.
So, in conclusion, act carefully. Don't jump in, but some carefully thought
through comments should be productive. Suggest they read the RevG article.
Martin isn't associated with the contrarians, but he's not in possession
of the all the facts. He isn't aware of Casper's work, nor your latest study
which you sent the other day, nor Rutherford et al.
There still seems to be a belief in these lower responding proxies. This is
something we want to work on more here, as the only way it seems to show
that these lower-freq proxies aren't that great is to use higher-freq proxies.
When you're back or sometime, can you remind Scott to send your
latest set of proxies. I'll have some time in the autumn to work on them
as the AR4 should be in by Aug 12.
Science should be publishing 3 papers on the MSU issue by the end of Aug
or early Sept. This is Mears/Wentz, Santer et al. and Sherwood et al. Latter
shows that sondes are only truly reliable when flown at night. Daytime ones
have all manner of problems with heating, just like air temps on board ships -
hence the NMAT series.
I'll forward another email for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:40 04/08/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
Thanks, yes I'm in China now. As you might imagine, ,things have been very busy, but
calming down a bit. Looks like Barton may be backing down...
Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working
w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians.
But if he's associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have
additional information about him and what he has been up to?
Thanks,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Good to hear it is out !
Hope the changeover is going OK and life is getting back to normal.
If you're not gone to China yet - you'll meet someone called Martin
Dukes (?). He's giving a talk at your session. He knows about maths
etc but not much about paleo ! Might need some education, but
is probably OK. Not met him, but Tim has. Doing some worked
funded by the Dutch govt on the hockey stick.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:05 03/08/2005, you wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
FYI, two papers attached:
First (reprint), Rutherford et al, is now out in latest issue of Journal of Climate.
This paper, aside from addressing other more scientifically-worthwhile issues, also
happens to discredit most of the McIntyre and McKitrick claims.
Second (preprint), Mann et al, is formally in press (i.e., has gone off to the AMS
production staff) in Journal of Climate. This paper strongly challenges the conclusions
of von Storch et al (2004), and raises some methodological issues w/ the approach used
by Moberg et al (2005).
Feel free to pass along to others. Thanks
Mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1123708417.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed Aug 10 17:13:xxx xxxx xxxx

Fine with me. Let's hope they agree by tomorrow.
Phil
At 17:11 10/08/2005, you wrote:

Ok so here is how it now reads:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases. Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange.
Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900 in glacier fluctuations. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Sort of arguing that way. It is also the before 1900 part. Precip and temp anomalies
are important at all times for glaciers. Their influence didn't change around 1900.
So what about Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900.
I'd not got the implication. Adding also makes it clearer.
Phil
At 16:56 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Phil is arguing for changes to 4.5. Maybe the statement is too strong although it is
consistent with the last para of 4.5.2.? An alternative might be: Precipitation
anomalies are important before 1900. In the context this implies in addition to
temperature.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Georg,
I've now also looked at the figures you sent from Ch 4. Kevin has the sentence,
which Peter may have added? I reckon this is too strong. Can we omit it?
Sentence is
Before 1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies.
Reasoning
Is this a general statement. I wonder if we need it. Oerlemans uses estimated
glacier termini positions (and related ELA changes) to infer past temperatures
and you have his figure. I know he assumes precip to have remained essentially
the same but he backs out temperature. Also glaciers in Europe advanced
in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was cooler then (more so in winter than
summer). I also have a paper resubmitted to JGR where Alpine precip shows
no long-term changes since 1800. This uses loads of stations and is from the
ALP-IMP project that ZAMG co-ordinate (Reinhard Boehm).
So the advances are caused by more precip, but the retreats by higher summer T
and maybe less winter precip.

Cheers
Phil
At 16:23 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Georg
Many thanks for the attachments. I had looked at the ZOD but this is much more
informative. Based on your comments and the 4.5 section I have come up with the
following bullet. Note that here we are writing for a general audience. I have now
tried to include more clearly the factors involved. I think these are consistent with
your chapter but the language in your chapter might be improved in a couple of places.
For instance an important forcing is radiation (solar and IR) which are greatly impacted
by clouds, water vapor, and albedo (the dirty cover on top of snow Phil referred to),
and I thought these could be brought out better in your chapter. These are perhaps more
basic that temperature lapse rates and precipitation gradients which are consequences.
In 4.5.2 you use the term "radiatively forced" but it is not clear what that means. I
suggest using some of these terms. Also it is not clear what "amplified hydrological
cycle" means. [FYI, the expectation is for more intense precipitation, not necessarily
for more total (owing to pollution effects). The former is determined by increased
water vapor]. I took some of your words in the following. We need to emphasize that
glaciers are not just high latitudes. I retained Kilimanjaro as that has received a lot
of publicity. Some of this is necessarily abrupt, but there will be a reference to 4.5
immediately following this bullet. So the recent reversals in NZ and Norway can not be
dealt with here.
Let me know if you have further suggestions. Again, many thanks
Regards
Kevin
o The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases. Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange. Before
1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Georg Kaser wrote:

Kevin,
Have many thanks for compiling and editing 3.9. I agree that the "radiatively forced"
and the "amplified hydrological cycle" should be removed and I also agree with Phil's
comment on the "local heat budget". In glaciology, the sum of each energy flux toward
and from the respective snow/ice surface is considered to make up the "local heat
budget". This also includes the sensible heat flux.
There are some other points in the text which I would like to comment:
1. Tropical glaciers are considered those in the South American Andes between Venezuela
and Norhern Boliva, those in East Africa and those in Irian Jaya (New Guinea). In
Chapter 4, Tibetean glaiers are taken as part of the Asian High Mountains (find the
present state Chapter 4.5. "Glaciers and Ice Caps attached).
2. Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, Norway and NZ cannot be merged in the respective
statement. In Alaska and Patagonia, moderately increase accumulation is accompanied by
strongly enhanced ablation making the mass balances markedly negative. From
glaciological site, no studies concerning atmospheric circulation patterns are provided
in the respective studies.
In the Karakoram mountains, enhanced accumulation has led to considerable glacier
advances, increased winter accumulation from the Westerlies is only suggested but not
subject of detailed studies. Heavy debris loads on the tongues probably prevent from
enhanced abaltion.
In Southwest Norway and NZ South Island, glaciers advances have ceded around 2000. I
don't know whether their advances shall still be mentioned in extension; I would not do
so beyond the respective statement in Ch. 4.5.
3. "If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years." This sentence can stand
for every mountain region in the world and should not be used for tropical mountains
only. Everywhere, many small glaciers have disappeared since the 19th Century maxima and
many will disappear soon in the Alps, the Caucasus, in the Asian High mountains etc. as
well as in the Tropics. From the today's perspective Mount Kenya, all Mountains in the
Rwenzori Range except Mt. Stanley, Irain Jaya will be without glaciers soon, probably
sooner than Kilimanjaro; well known and studied glaciers in the Andes like Chacaltaya,
Charquini and Pastoruri will also disappear soon. This is not because of a particular
regional climate feature but just because they were already small when retreats started.
As you will see from Figure 4.5.5. Kilimanjaro's plateau ice is particular, slope
glaciers are less. The plateau glaciers retreat from their vertical walls where no
accumulation is possible and since they do so, there is no way to find an equilibrium
besides disappearance. The vertical walls are a result of cold temperatures high
sublimation and strong solar radiance. There is no way to replace the retreat by ice
dynamics on the flat summit plateau. Slope glaciers are only partially subject of this
kind of ablation and their retreat rate seems to have slowed markedly (See insert of Fig
4.5.5). If Kilimanjaro is mentioned in 3.9. it must also be added that it is a
particular case with complex relation to climate change.
4. All studies which investigate tropical glacier retreat and climate show the dominance
of changes in energy and mass balance terms which are related to the atmospheric
moisture content rather than locally measured air temperatures. Both increased and
reduced moisture can lead to negative mass balances and it has done so in most cases
studied (Cordillera Blanca, Peru, Cordillera Real, Bolivia, Antisana, Ecuador, Rwenzori,
Mt. Kenia, Kilimanjaro). Yet, wherever respective analyses were made, correlations were
found to anomalies in ENSO or Indian Oceans Indian Ocean Dipole Mode respectively
strongly indicating global warming as the principle reason of th eretreat.
I give you this lengthy explanation in order to make sure that the very compressed and
condensed bullet in 3.9. gets the right content. I have started to change your paragraph
suggestion accordingly but have to admit that, not being a native speaker myself, it
either becomes very long or very awkward.
I also appreciate Phil's statement about Quelccaya and Sajama. Doug Hardy and Ray
Bradley run AWS' there since a couple of years as well as on Kilimanjaro with all the
problems of recording data at such high elevation sites. Doug is preparing a paper on
the climate records there but it has still not reached it's final state.
Information on sublimation on Quelccaya is not published such as the positive mass
balances and advances on several Andean glaciers between 1998 and 2002 are not
published. Kilimanjaro has experienced both ablation as well as accumulation layers on
the horizontal surfaces over the last years. I have just come back from fieldwork there
last week and the last half year was a mass loss year. Being very much involved into
tropical glaciers myself, I have to accept that such detailed information would be
available for several hundreds of glaciers in the world each one providing 10 or more
publications. Going into such details cannot be the aim of the report, I am afraid.
Best wishes,
Georg
Georg Kaser
-------------------------------------------------
Institut fuer Geographie
Innrain 52
A-6020 INNSBRUCK
Tel: +xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html

--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[2]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
1318
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
1333 (fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [4]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[5]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

Original Filename: 1143661010.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Gustafson, Diane" <DGustafs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Proxy time series
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:36:50 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Diane / Mike / NRC Committee,

At 22:18 28/03/2006, Gustafson, Diane wrote:
>Dear Tim:
>
>Our National Research Council Committee on Surface Temperature
>Reconstructions has been considering your paper with Keith Briffa
>published in a recent issue of Science. Could you please elaborate
>on your criterion for selecting the proxy time series included in
>the analysis. We are interested in how you computed the correlation
>between the proxy time series and local temperature time series. Is
>the correlation based on filtered or detrended time series? How
>would you counter the potential criticism that your selection method
>tends to favor proxy time series that show a strong 20th century warming?
>
>It would be most helpful for us if you could reply in time for us to
>consider your response at our meeting tomorrow morning. Thanks in
>advance for your help.
>
>Mike Wallace

We (Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa) will first respond to these specific
questions about our recent Science paper. In addition, copied below
are some further comments by Keith Briffa on issues related to
tree-ring proxy records, that may be of interest to the committee.

The primary purpose of our paper was to implement an alternative, and
possibly complementary, method of proxy-data analysis to the methods
used in most previously published reconstructions of past NH
temperature variations. We did not want to introduce an entirely new
selection of proxy records (even if this were possible), because that
would obscure whether differences in our conclusions, compared with
published work, arose from our method or a different selection of
proxy records.

We decided, therefore, to make use of as many of the individual
records used in almost all the previously published NH temperature
reconstructions, excluding any records for which an indication of at
least partial temperature sensitivity was lacking. So, very low
resolution records for which comparison with instrumental
temperatures is problematic were excluded.

We used records specifically from Mann and Jones (2003) and Esper et
al. (2002). In addition we included records from Mann et al. (2003),
which I think just adds the van Engelen documentary record from the
Low Countries in Europe, because the others were already in the Mann
and Jones set. We excluded duplicates, and our paper explains which
series we used where duplicates were present. We did not average the
Tornetrask, Yamal and Taimyr tree-ring records as done by Mann and
Jones, because we could see no reason not to use them as individual series.

The series used by Mann and Jones had already been correlated with
their local instrumental temperatures -- using decadally-smoothed,
non-detrended, values -- so we accepted this as an indication of some
temperature sensitivity. For the other series, we calculated our own
correlations against local instrumental temperatures, trying both
annual-mean or summer-mean temperatures. In our paper's
supplementary information, we state that we used the HadCRUT2
temperatures for this purpose, which combines land air temperatures
with SST observations. In fact, we used the CRUTEM2 land-only
temperature data set for this purpose. These should be identical
where the proxy locations are not coastal. For these correlations,
we did not filter the data, nor did we detrend it, and we used the
*full* period of overlap between the proxy record and the available
instrumental record.

We excluded records that did not show a *positive* correlation with
their local temperatures. The remaining set includes most of the
long, high resolution records used by others, such as Moberg et al.,
Crowley and Lowery, Hegerl et al., Mann, Bradley and Hughes, etc. as
well as by Mann and Jones and Esper et al.

The final question, regarding the selection method favouring records
that show a strong 20th century warming trend, is a more
philosophical issue. As stated above, we did not actually use
strongly selective criteria, preferring to use those records that
others had previously used and only eliminating those that were
clearly lacking in temperature sensitivity. To some extent,
therefore, the question is then directed towards the studies whose
selection of data we used. Certainly we did not look through a whole
host of possibilities and just pick those with a strong upward trend
in the last century! And we don't think the scientists whose work we
selected from would have done this either. There are very few series
to choose from that are >500 years long and are from proxy
types/locations where temperature sensitivity might be expected. It
would be entirely the wrong impression to think that there are 140
such a priori suitable possible series, and that we picked (either
explicitly or implicitly) just those 10% that happened by chance to
exhibit upward 20th century trends.

The correlation with local temperature is an entirely appropriate
factor to consider when selecting data; these could be computed using
detrended data, though for those that we calculated, our use of
unfiltered data means that the trend is unlikely to dominate the
correlation. One would need to inspect the trend in the temperature
data at each location to evaluate how much influence it would have on
the results; but in locations where a strong upward trend is present,
it would be right to exclude proxy records that did not reproduce it,
though also correct that a proxy shouldn't be included solely on the
basis of it having the trend, especially where the proxy resolution
is sufficient to test its ability to capture shorter term fluctuations.

Finally, note that our method has not selected only those records
with a strong 20th century warming trend. Of the 14 proxies selected
(see our figure 1), 7(!) do not have strong upward 20th century
trends: Quebec, Chesapeake Bay, W Greenland, Tirol, Tornetrask,
Mangazeja, and Taimyr. Our method gives equal weight to all records,
so it should not be biased towards a single record, or a small number
of records, that do show strong upward trends.

Here are the additional comments on tree-ring issues:

I would also like to take the opportunity, if you will allow, to
comment briefly on some reports that have reached me concerning the
contribution made by Rosanne D'Arrigo to your Committee. Apparently,
this is being interpreted by some as reflecting adversely on the
validity of numerous temperature reconstructions that involve
significant dependence on tree-ring data. This is related to
Rosanne's focus in her presentation on the apparent difference
between measured temperatures and tree growth in recent decades - a
so-called "divergence" problem.
First let me make it clear that as I did not attend the Committee
meeting I am not able to comment specifically on the details of
Rosanne D'Arrigo's actual presentation, though I am aware of her
papers with various co-authors related to this "divergence" in the
recent (circa post 1970 ) trends in tree-growth and temperature
changes as recorded in instrumental data, at near tree-line sites in
the Canadian Arctic. There are also other papers dealing with
'changing growth responses' to climate in North American trees.

I have co-authored a paper in Nature on the reduced response to
warming as seen in tree-ring densitometric data at high-latitude
sites around the Northern Hemisphere, increasingly apparent in the
last 30 years or so.


First, it is important to note that the phenomena is complicated
because it is not clearly identifiable as a ubiquitous problem.
Rather it is a mix of possible regionally distinct indications, a
possible mix of phenomena that is almost certainly in part due to the
methodological aspects of the way tree-ring series are produced. This
applies to my own work, but also very likely to other work.

The implications at this stage for the 'hockey stick' and other
reconstructions are not great. That is because virtually all long
tree-ring reconstructions that contribute to the various
reconstructions, are NOT affected by this. Most show good coherence
with temperature at local levels in recent decades. This is not true
for one series (based on the density data). As these are our data, I
am able to say that initial unpublished work will show that the
"problem" can be mitigated with the use of new, and again
unpublished, chronology construction methods.

In the case of the work by Rosanne and colleagues, I offer my
educated opinion that the phenomenon they describe is likely also, at
least in part, a chronology construction issue. I am not saying that
this is a full explanation, and certainly there is the possibility of
increased moisture stress on these trees, but at present the issue is
still being defined and explored. As the issue needs more work, this
is only an opinion, and until there is peer-reviewed and published
evidence as to the degree of methodological uncertainty , it is not
appropriate to criticize this or other work . For my part, I have
been very busy, lately with teaching and IPCC commitments, but we
will do some work on this now, though again lack of funds to support
a research assistant do not help.

The matter is important but I do not believe that the facts yet
support Rosanne's contention, in her Global Biogeochemical Cycles
paper (Vol. 18, GB3021, doi:10.1029/2004GB002249, 2004) that an
optimum physiological threshold has been consistently exceeded at a
site in the Yukon. This conclusion should certainly not be taken as
indicating a widespread threshold exceedence.

It was my call not to "overplay" the importance of the divergence
issue, knowing the subtlety of the issues, in the fortcoming IPCC
Chapter 6 draft. We did always intend to have a brief section about
the assumption of uniformitarianism in proxy interpretation ,
including mention of the possible direct carbon dioxide fertilization
effect on tree growth (equally controversial), but it is likely to
conclude that here as well , there is no strong evidence of any major
real-world effect. This and the divergence problem are not well
defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be worthy of too
much concern at this point. The uncertainty estimates we calibrate
when interpreting many tree-ring series will likely incorporate the
possibility of some bias in our estimates of past warmth, but these
are wide anyway. This does not mean that temperatures were
necessarily at the upper extreme of the reconstruction uncertainty
range 1000 years ago, any more than they may have been at the bottom.
The real problem is a lack of widespread (and non-terrestrial)
proxies for defining the level of early warmth, and the vital need to
up-date and study the responses of proxies in very recent times.

Best regards,

Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/



Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1182179459.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA)" <kathryn.humphrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:10:59 +0100
Cc: "Roger Street" <roger.street@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Clare Goodess" <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,<david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)" <Guy.Winter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Vicky Pope" <vicky.pope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Steven Wilson" <stwi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Sear, Chris (CESA)" <chris.sear@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rob Wilby" <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rachel Warren" <r.warren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" <Havard.Prosser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Phil Newton" <ppn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Phil James" <philip.james@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Marguerite Gascoine" <m.b.gascoine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Linda Livingston" <linda.livingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Geoff Jenkins" <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "geoff jenkins at home" <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David Sexton" <david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Chris Kilsby" <C.G.Kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Butt, Adrian (CESA)" <adrian.butt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bryan Lawrence" <b.n.lawrence@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Brian Hoskins" <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Barry McAuley" <barry.mcauley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ag Stephens" <A.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

Kathryn,
Made some slight mods to the WG definition. Maybe Chris should check
this and then we'll be there on this definition.

Cheers
Phil

>X-VirusChecked: Checked
>X-Env-Sender: kathryn.humphrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-67.messagelabs.com!1182153653!16925857!1
>X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,-
>X-Originating-IP: [195.92.40.48]
>X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,434,1175468400";
> d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="3997439"
>Subject: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:00:44 +0100
>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>Thread-Topic: Outstanding comms plan issues
>Thread-Index: AcewxUEWmbycgv6dRPW5zHVRv1IojQAuHs8g
>From: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA)" <kathryn.humphrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To:



>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2007 08:02:06.0823 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[F6D0E770:01C7B17E]
>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>I'm very happy to send this to the users' panel for recommendation to
>the SG, if those suggested below (Geoff, David S, Roger, Chris K, Phil
>Jones) are happy to work up definitions based on the latest version we
>have, attached.
>
>Kathryn
>
>PS congratulations on your Gong, Brian!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger Street [mailto:roger.street@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: 17 June 2007 10:51
>To: Clare Goodess; Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA);
>david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Cc: Winter, Guy (SEERAD); Vicky Pope; Steven Wilson; Sear, Chris (CESA);
>Rob Wilby; Rachel Warren; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); Phil Newton; Phil
>Jones; Phil James; Marguerite Gascoine; Linda Livingston; Geoff Jenkins;
>geoff jenkins at home; David Sexton; Chris Kilsby; Butt, Adrian (CESA);
>Bryan Lawrence; Brian Hoskins; Barry McAuley; Ag Stephens
>Subject: Re: Outstanding comms plan issues
>
>With respect to the changes suggested by Clare (green inserts within the
>
>text) I am comfortable with the suggested changes. I am, however,
>somewhat
>concerned with the definition for weather generator but this relates to
>a
>personal perception and my concerns as to how this would be interpreted
>by
>users. I would prefer not suggesting that the weather generator
>generates
>weather data but that it generates weather variables at the daily and
>sub-daily level consistent with the projected climate. As such, I would
>
>prefer something along the lines of the following definition:
>
>Weather generators are statistically-based computer programs that use
>existing weather records and random number sampling to produce long
>timeseries of synthetic daily and sub-daily variables. The statistical
>properties of the generated weather-like variables are expect to be
>similar
>to those of the existing weather record. The UKCIP08 weather generator
>bases its daily and sub-daily variables for future time periods on the
>statistical nature of the PDF data chosen to drive it. The variables
>generated are those required by many applications: precipitation,
>maximum
>and minimum temperature, rainfall, solar radiation and wind speed, as
>well
>as measures of atmospheric water vapour and evapotranspiration.
>
>In terms of the definitions for scenarios and projections, those
>ascribed to
>me are actually those developed through the deliberations within Chapter
>2
>of the IPCC WGII for which Tim Carter was one of the Lead Authors. My
>understanding after talking with Tim was that these definitions, which
>are
>the result of considerable discussion within the IPCC impacts,
>vulnerability
>and adaptation community, will be included with the WGII publication. I
>suggest that the definitions to be included and used within UKCIP08 do
>need
>further consideration to ensure that they are clearly identifying what
>UKCIP08 will be delivering - probabilistic projections and scenarios.
>The
>definitions within UKCIP08 should be informed not constrained by the
>IPCC
>deliberations and should be directed at informing the user community
>(client
>focused).
>
>I also agree with Clare that we should be providing a definition of what
>is
>meant by probabilistic within the context of UKCIP08.
>
>In terms of a way forward, would it be reasonable to ask the following
>to
>develop for the specified terms definitions for approval by the SG
>(after
>seeking views of the Users' Panel):
>MOHC - baseline period, climate, climate change, climate model,
>deterministic, and probability/probabilistic density function;
>Newcastle - weather generator; and
>UKCIP - scenarios and projections.
>
>These could be done over the next couple of weeks with a single request
>for
>views going out to the Users' Panel in July.
>
>Roger
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clare Goodess" <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: <david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)"
><kathryn.humphrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: "Roger Street" <roger.street@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Ag Stephens"
><A.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Barry McAuley" <barry.mcauley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
>
>"Brian Hoskins" <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Bryan Lawrence"
><b.n.lawrence@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Butt, Adrian (CESA)"
><adrian.butt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Chris Kilsby"
><C.G.Kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
>"David Sexton" <david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "geoff jenkins at home"
><geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Geoff Jenkins"
><geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
>"Linda Livingston" <linda.livingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Marguerite
>Gascoine" <m.b.gascoine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Phil James"
><philip.james@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Phil
>Newton"
><ppn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)"
><Havard.Prosser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Rachel Warren" <r.warren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
>
>"Rob Wilby" <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Sear, Chris (CESA)"
><chris.sear@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Steven Wilson" <stwi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Vicky
>
>Pope" <vicky.pope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)"
><Guy.Winter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 6:59 PM
>Subject: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues
>
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > I was looking at this glossary on the train yesterday and have a few
> > relatively minor comments on some of the entries - added in green to
> > Kathryn's latest draft.
> >
> > But I found the definitions of projections and scenarios very
> > confusing, with problems in both the IPCC and Roger's wording which I
> > couldn't think how to resolve - so it was interesting to see this
> > email discussion. There do seem to be some fundamental differences
> > and still confusion, so I'm afraid that some more discussion is
> > needed (sorry Kathryn!).
> >
> > We agreed at the last meeting to add deterministic - and following
> > this logic through, I think that we should also have added
>probabilistic.
> >
> > According to the key messages, UKCIP08 will be providing
> > 'probabilistic projections'. It therefore seems rather confusing to
> > read that 'projections are generally less comprehensive than
> > scenarios'. This implies to the user that the UKCIP08 probabilistic
> > projections are less comprehensive than the UKCIP02 scenarios. Which
> > is not the intended message - though it depends what you mean by
> > 'less comprehensive'.
> >
> > Over the last few months, I have been persuaded (by discussions with
> > people like Tim Carter) that we should avoid talking about
> > 'probabilistic scenarios'.
> >
> > I agree with David that it makes no sense to say that scenarios
> > include projections - when our definition of the latter includes
> > uncertainties/probabilities. Perhaps the solution is to make a clear
> > distinction between 'projections' - which can be deterministic or
> > probabilistic - and 'probabilistic projections'.
> >
> > At least we all seem agreed on not using 'prediction'!
> >
> > I hope that this has not further muddied the waters, best wishes,
>Clare
> >
> >
> >
> > At 15:23 14/06/2007, david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I am off for a week and half now and have a few things to sort out
>here
> >>so I won't be able to give you any text for PDFs. I think that might
>be
> >>best left until the report is written because it depends a lot on what
> >>the report writers think. Other comments in the text...
> >>
> >>On Thu, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 11:03 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) wrote:
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > You seem to have all more or less agreed on the key messages which
>is
> >> > great. However, the glossary is continuing to bring up a range of
> >> > divergent views!
> >> >
> >> > I've had more comments and have got amended definitions in the
> >> > attached. David and Chris, who couldn't make last week's meeting,
> >> > have questioned the use of the AR4 definitions (Chris- too
>technical
> >> > for the layperson, see comments in the attached) and the
> >> > projections/scenarios definition (David- not in agreement with MOHC
> >> > definitions). David, I am keen not to open up the debate again on
>the
> >> > differences between scenarios, projections and predictions (the
>latter
> >> > of which we're not using at all) as we've already had an
>astonishingly
> >> > long conversation on this one and I thought had come to agreement.
> >>
> >>For the time being I think we should remove any reference to "climate
> >>predictions" in the AR4 definition of projections because we haven't
>got
> >>a glossary term for "climate prediction". So "...climate models.
>Climate
> >>projections depend upon the emission/conce..." would be better.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > However if you can find support from the rest of the SG then I'll
> >> > open this one up again; otherwise, I'd like to stick with the
> >> > definitions we have which are consistent with the AR4 WG2 ones,
> >> > defining projections as the bit that includes uncertainty and
> >> > scenarios not.
> >>
> >>I must be missing something here but where does AR4 say "projections
>as
> >>the bit that includes uncertainty and scenarios not". Anyway, AR4 also
> >>says "climate projections serve as the raw material for scenarios" so
> >>how can scenarios not include uncertainty when projections do?
> >>
> >>I still think there is confusion and that this issue will arise again
> >>when it comes to report writing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Can I also have actual text if you want to change the definitions,
>as
> >> > otherwise I am just guessing on what you are asking for (David, I
>like
> >> > your point on providing an explicit def of probability and PDF, but
> >> > can you offer me some text, plus some for stochastic and error if
>you
> >> > want these in)?
> >>
> >>I don't think we need stochastic and error, I just wondered why we had
> >>"deterministic" there in the first place.
> >>
> >>
> >>Cheers, David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Kind Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Kathryn
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>______________________________________________________________________
> >> > From: Roger Street [mailto:roger.street@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >> > Sent: 14 June 2007 07:21
> >> > To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA); 'Ag Stephens'; 'Barry McAuley';
>'Brian
> >> > Hoskins'; 'Bryan Lawrence'; Butt, Adrian (CESA); 'C Goodess';
>'Chris
> >> > Kilsby'; 'David Sexton'; 'Geoff Jenkins'; 'Geoff Jenkins'; 'Linda
> >> > Livingston'; 'Marguerite Gascoine'; 'Phil James'; 'Phil Jones';
>'Phil
> >> > Newton'; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); 'Rachel Warren'; 'Rob Wilby';
> >> > Sear, Chris (CESA); 'Steven Wilson'; 'Vicky Pope'; Winter, Guy
> >> > (SEERAD)
> >> > Subject: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As this information is being used by the impacts, vulnerability and
> >> > adaptation community and Chapter 2 within the IPCC WGII
>specifically
> >> > discussed these concepts and definitions as part of their remit
>from
> >> > that perspective, I would prefer to use the definitions they have
> >> > developed.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I will look for these other definitions later today.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Roger
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>______________________________________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA)
> >> > [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >> > Sent: 13 June 2007 16:32
> >> > To: Ag Stephens; Barry McAuley; Brian Hoskins; Bryan Lawrence;
>Butt,
> >> > Adrian (CESA); C Goodess; Chris Kilsby; David Sexton; Geoff
>Jenkins;
> >> > Geoff Jenkins; Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA); Linda Livingston;
>Marguerite
> >> > Gascoine; Phil James; Phil Jones; Phil Newton; Prosser, Havard
>(WAG-
> >> > EPC); Rachel Warren; Rob Wilby; Roger Street; Sear, Chris (CESA);
> >> > Steven Wilson; Vicky Pope; Winter, Guy (SEERAD)
> >> > Subject: Outstanding comms plan issues
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > Attached is an updated set of key messages and glossary for the
> >> > UKCIP08 comms plan.
> >> >
> >> > For the glossary, the AR4 definitions for projections and scenarios
> >> > differ to those Roger has from the co-author of the WGII report.
> >> > Which do you want to use? Also if anyone has a better definition
>of
> >> > deterministic pls let me have it as the AR4 doesn't give one.
>You'll
> >> > also want to check the other definitions as I've either cut them
>down
> >> > from those presented in the AR4, or added sections to make them
> >> > UKCIP08 specific. Also the only definition I can find of a weather
> >> > generator is very old!
> >> >
> >> > Comments back to me by close Friday would be v helpful.
> >> >
> >> > Kathryn
> >> >
> >> > <<2xxx xxxx xxxxcomms plan Key Messages and glossary.doc>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
> >> >
> >> > This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
> >> > only.
> >> > If you have received it in error you have no authority to use,
> >> > disclose,
> >> > store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and
>inform
> >> > the sender.
> >> > Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked
> >> > for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
> >> > responsibility once it has left our systems.
> >> > Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or
> >> > recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for
>other
> >> > lawful purposes.
> >> > email message attachment
> >> > On Thu, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 11:03 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) wrote:
> >> > > Cc: Ag Stephens <A.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barry McAuley
> >> > > <barry.mcauley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Brian Hoskins
> >> > > <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bryan Lawrence
> >> > > <b.n.lawrence@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Butt, Adrian (CESA)"
> >> > > <adrian.butt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Clare Goodess
><C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> >> > > Chris Kilsby <C.G.Kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Sexton
> >> > > <david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, geoff jenkins at home
> >> > > <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Geoff Jenkins
> >> > > <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Livingston
> >> > > <linda.livingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Marguerite Gascoine
> >> > > <m.b.gascoine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil James
><philip.james@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> >> > > Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Newton <ppn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> >> > > "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" <Havard.Prosser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> >> > > Rachel Warren <r.warren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Wilby
> >> > > <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roger Street
> >> > > <roger.street@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Sear, Chris (CESA)"
> >> > > <chris.sear@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Wilson <stwi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> >> > > Vicky Pope <vicky.pope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)"
> >> > > <Guy.Winter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Murphy, James"
> >> > > <james.murphy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> >> > > In-Reply-To:
> >> > >
><65D9B941E291E141821FEC1AB608D203210AC9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >
> >> > > References:
> >> > >
> >> > >
><65D9B941E291E141821FEC1AB608D203210AC9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >
> >> > > Content-Type: text/plain
> >> > > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:05:52 +0100
> >> > > Message-Id:
> >> > > <1181811953.5610.55.camel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> >> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> >> > > X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-27.rhel4.6)
> >> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >> > > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2007 09:05:53.0499 (UTC) FILETIME=
> >> > > [360A52B0:01C7AE63]
> >> > > Return-Path: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > here are some quick comments. I probably made some similar ones a
> >> > > while
> >> > > back.
> >> > >
> >> > > General comment on glossary:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > A general comment is that I can see the point of having a
>glossary
> >> > > early
> >> > > on so that terms are consistent across different communications.
>But
> >> > > I
> >> > > really feel that a lot of these are scientific and that they need
>to
> >> > > be
> >> > > correct for the report and consistent with the ideas of the
>report
> >> > > writers (Geoff and James and to a lesser extent me, Phil and
>Chris
> >> > > and
> >> > > Stephen Dye). These ideas will develop as the report is written
>so I
> >> > > don't think it helps the report writers to set in stone these
>terms.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also, I think the glossary has several inconsistencies in it
>which
> >> > > will
> >> > > cause confusion. So here are my comments:
> >> > >
> >> > > Finally, we have to be really careful with the terms "prediction"
> >> > > and
> >> > > "uncertainty" because both have connotations to the lay person
>which
> >> > > are
> >> > > different to the scientist - scientific predictions should always
> >> > > have
> >> > > an estimate of uncertainty associated with them, where a
>prediction
> >> > > to a
> >> > > lay person might mean a one-off value. "Error" is another good
> >> > > example.
> >> > > I would try to avoid these terms in the glossary and the report.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Specific comments:
> >> > >
> >> > > PROJECTIONS, SCENARIOS and "predictions":
> >> > > At MOHC we see a climate projection as some plausible climate
>that
> >> > > is an
> >> > > outcome of some inputs e.g. emission scenario. It has no
>likelihood
> >> > > assigned to it. Here, we see "climate predictions" as a set of
> >> > > projections which have been calibrated by the observations and
> >> > > therefore
> >> > > have an assigned likelihood. It seems this is more like the AR4
> >> > > definition of SCENARIO as AR4 use observed data (see AR4 defn)
>and
> >> > > therefore scenarios DO ascribe likelihoods. This seems to
>contradict
> >> > > Roger's last line on "projections" which says scenarios do not
> >> > > ascribe
> >> > > likelihoods. Also, the product has always been referred to as the
> >> > > "UKCIP08 scenarios" and they definitely assign likelihoods. I
>also
> >> > > disagree with Roger's last sentence on "PROJECTIONS" - I'd say
> >> > > projections are not probabilistic.
> >> > >
> >> > > So a temporary suggestion would be to use the AR4 definition of
> >> > > "PROJECTION" but delete the confusing bit relating it to
> >> > > "predictions"
> >> > > which haven't been defined in the glossary i.e. delete
> >> > > "distinguished...projections".
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > PDF: I would use "Probability Distribution Function" cos it has
>an
> >> > > element of subjective uncertainty in it. Probability Density
> >> > > functions
> >> > > are to me more analytical e.g. Gaussian, exponential. Also, the
> >> > > definition does describe what a PDF is, but it doesn't convey how
> >> > > the
> >> > > PDF should be viewed because it doesn't convey what "probability"
>is
> >> > > measuring. For UKCIP08, probability is measuring the degree to
>which
> >> > > future climates are consistent with the information used to
> >> > > construct
> >> > > the scenarios (climate model data, and observations) and the
> >> > > assumptions
> >> > > and methods used in constructing them i.e. they are a convenient
> >> > > summary
> >> > > statement of all that data given some assumptions, which are more
> >> > > usable
> >> > > than the data itself in helping planners make decisions. This is
> >> > > different to the definition learnt at school where probability of
> >> > > say
> >> > > rolling a dice can be measured by a repeated experiment. Climate
>is
> >> > > a
> >> > > one-off so there is no repeated experiment and so the schoolboy
> >> > > definition doesn't apply and this needs to be explained. A
> >> > > consequence
> >> > > of this is the PDF will change in UKCIPnext because better
>models,
> >> > > methods and more observations will change it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Deterministic: means the output (i.e. from a single run of a
>typical
> >> > > climate model) is based solely on the inputs (here the model, its
> >> > > input
> >> > > parameter values, and the initial conditions). What word are you
> >> > > contrasting this against. It should be contrasted against
>"random"
> >> > > or
> >> > > "stochastic" where there is a random element involved that can
> >> > > change
> >> > > the sytem. Hopefully, this is not be contrasted against
> >> > > "probabilistic".
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers, David
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 16:32 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA)
>wrote:
> >> > > > All,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Attached is an updated set of key messages and glossary for the
> >> > > > UKCIP08 comms plan.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For the glossary, the AR4 definitions for projections and
> >> > > scenarios
> >> > > > differ to those Roger has from the co-author of the WGII
>report.
> >> > > > Which do you want to use? Also if anyone has a better
>definition
> >> > > of
> >> > > > deterministic pls let me have it as the AR4 doesn't give one.
> >> > > You'll
> >> > > > also want to check the other definitions as I've either cut
>them
> >> > > down
> >> > > > from those presented in the AR4, or added sections to make them
> >> > > > UKCIP08 specific. Also the only definition I can find of a
> >> > > weather
> >> > > > generator is very old!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Comments back to me by close Friday would be v helpful.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Kathryn
> >> > > >
> >> > > > <<2xxx xxxx xxxxcomms plan Key Messages and glossary.doc>>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This email and any attachments is intended for the named
>recipient
> >> > > only.
> >> > > > If you have received it in error you have no authority to use,
> >> > > disclose,
> >> > > > store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and
> >> > > inform
> >> > > > the sender.
> >> > > > Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been
> >> > > checked
> >> > > > for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
> >> > > > responsibility once it has left our systems.
> >> > > > Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored
>and/or
> >> > > > recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and
>for
> >> > > other
> >> > > > lawful purposes.
> >> > > --
> >> > > ______________________________________________________
> >> > > David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist
> >> > > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK
> >> > > Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> > > E-mail: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > email message attachment
> >> > On Thu, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 11:03 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) wrote:
> >> > > <<2xxx xxxx xxxxcomms plan Key Messages and glossary.doc>> Some
>initial
> >> > > suggestions and comments
> >> > > I think UKCIP needs its own defs. AR4 too complex and
>'scientific'
> >> > > for lay users.
> >> > > Chris
> >> > >
> >>--
> >>______________________________________________________
> >>David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist
> >>Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK
> >>Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> >>E-mail: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
> >
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>
>
> > Dr Clare Goodess
> > Climatic Research Unit
> > School of Environmental Sciences
> > University of East Anglia
> > Norwich
> > NR4 7TJ
> > UK
> >
> > Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
> > Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
> > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach2xxx xxxx xxxxcomms plan Key Messages and glossary_goodess11.doc"

Original Filename: 1189536059.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)" <Jacquie.Burgess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Possible problem looming
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:40:59 +0100

Thanks Phil,
I will keep your email and hope we don't have to mobilise. This is very
close to harassment, isn't it.
Jacquie

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 11 September 2007 14:06
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
Subject: Possible problem looming


Jacquie,
I've been in discussion with Michael over the past several months
about a
number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for CRU data. I've
responded to
one and will be responding to another in the next few days. Michael
suggested I bring you up to speed on the issue. To cut a very long
story short, I'm attaching 3 things that relate to what's happened
since
responding to the first request.

1. A paper from 1990 by me and others in Nature. The request was for
the station data from the rural station networks in the three
regions studied.

This led to a person in London (Douglas Keenan) putting some
material on his website
claiming fraud against one of the co-authors on the paper (Wei-Chyung
Wang of the State University of Albany, SUNY, in NY, USA). He then
put an allegation of fraud into SUNY against Wang. SUNY are dealing
with this - not quickly, but I have seen Wang's response.

2. Keenan then submitted a paper (attached) to the world's worst
journal,
Energy and Environment. According to Wang this is in breach of an
agreement
with SUNY not to do anything whilst the allegation is being dealt
with.
According to Wang, SUNY have told Keenan this.

I was sent the paper to comment on the factual allegations in the
paper. After
discussing this with Wang (who informed SUNY) I sent 9 comments.

3. My comments - with Keenan's responses embedded within (this is
the new bit for you Michael).
I have subsequently told the E&E guest editor that Keenan's
response to my point
# 5 is wrong. I sent him Tao et al. (1991) so he can see
this. Keenan's response to my point 7
illustrates his arrogance.

I have loads more background to all this, and it has taken some time
over the
last few weeks and months in responding.

You are now partly up to speed on the issue. I'm away next week.
I don't know when E&E might publish, nor when the SUNY review
process (which is being dealt with by their Director of Research) will
conclude. Wang and I both know that the allegations are groundless,
but it is likely it will not look good when it first comes out. This
is just
another of the attempts by climate skeptics to get the public and the
media thinking that there is disagreement amongst scientists and that
we shouldn't be doing anything about global warming. I will be
discussing
this with some IPCC people when I meet them in early October.

Cheers
Phil




Phil,

Thanks for forwarding this. I am shocked about this - if a formal review
is underway at the University of Albany it is surely improper to publish
a paper in a journal about the matter!

I suggest that you alert Jacquie Burgess to this, as the new Head of
School.

I would like to suggest that we ask Dave Palmer to comment on the events
on the FOIA request - I don't think I fully agree with the story
presented here. Do you agree?

I also think we should alert the Press Office in due course.

Regards

Michael

Michael McGarvie
Senior Faculty Manager
Faculty of Science
Room 0.22C
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
tel: 01xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: 01xxx xxxx xxxx
m.mcgarvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Original Filename: 1196872660.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis]
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

well put Phil,
I think you've put your finger right on it. JGR-Atmospheres has been publishing some truly
awful papers lately; we responded (Gavin, me, James Annan) to the awful Schwartz
sensitivity estimate paper, but there are so many other bad papers that are appearing there
(Chylak, etc.) that its just impossible to respond to them all.
I hadn't seen this latest one though. McKitrick and Michaels team up again, wow! maybe
McKitrick has figured ou the difference between radians and degrees this time!
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Also I see him writing things - then people saying you should
write this up for a paper, as though it can be knocked up in an
afternoon. He realises he can't do this - as it takes much longer.
Then we wastes more and more time opening up new threads.
He doesn't seem clever enough to realise this.
Gavin and Rasmus have seen the attached piece of garbage!
UAH is correct, therefore the land surface must be wrong.
Let's adjust it for a dodgy reason - ah, it now agrees with UAH.
Let's forget that the land now disagrees with the ocean surface.
If only I'd thought of that first, I could have not bothered with
the awful analysis. If only I'd just believed RSS in the first place.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:16 05/12/2007, you wrote:

HI Phil,
thanks--thats good.
Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny--w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that
it compromises the integrity of his own "work" even further. He can't distance himself
from E&E much as he'd like to. He also seems to be losing lots of credibility now w/
all but his most loyal followers, which is good to see...
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Yes the 1990 graphic is in an Appendix. The last few are being regularly hassled
by Thorsten. The guy from EPRI (Larry) really wants something submitted soon.
So working here to get something in by end of Jan. Keith is going to get
it fast-tracked through the Holocene - well that's the plan.
The Loehle paper is awful as you know. So is another article on the IPCC process
in E&E. I did look at Climate Audit a week or two back - I got the impression
that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by
saying we have to be equally skeptical about them as well.
Cheers
Phil

At 14:00 04/12/2007, you wrote:

Hey Phil,
thanks--nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 graphic will be discussed in this review
paper, right? Perfect, I'll let Gavin know.
Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP.
I don't read E&E, gives me indigestion--I don't even consider it peer-reviewed science,
and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don't cite, and if journalists ask us
about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor,
has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!
I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here.
So didn't see this recent paper, nor have I heard about the IJC paper, Christy and
Spencer continue to lose more and more scientific credibility with each awful paper they
publish.
Gavin is planning to do something on the Loehle paper on RealClimate, I'm staying away
from it. I have a revised set of hemispheric reconstructions which I'll send you soon,
its basically what I showed at AGU last year. Submitted to PNAS--more soon on that,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Some text came last night from Caspar. Keith/Tim writing their parts still.
I have text from Francis, so almost all here now. Still need to find some time
- maybe the Christmas/New Year break here - to put it all together. There
is so much else going on here at the moment with other papers, it will
be hard to find some time. I wish they had all responded much sooner!
As for AGU - just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.
I take it you've seen the attached in E&E. I've not heard any more from
Wei-Chyung in the past couple of months. I'm working on a paper
on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected. Will send for you
to look over when I have it in a form that is sendable. Would appreciate
your thoughts on how I will have said things.
Have another awful pdf of a paper accepted in IJC !! It ws rejected
by all three reviewers for GRL! It is by Douglass, Christy , Singer et al
- thus you'll know what it is on.
Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 02:07 04/12/2007, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died
down. seems like some time since I've heard from you.
Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this?
By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I've been told that the
Ewing medal wouldn't be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options
you'd like me to investigate...
thanks,
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis
Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Gavin Schmidt [1]<gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael E. Mann [2]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: [3]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[5]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[6]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[7]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[8]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[9]<3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[10]<475457F3.9070102@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
this reminds me. What's the status of Phil Jones and Caspar's
investigation of the IPCC90 curve? Phil wanted us to hold off for some
reason, but is that done with?

That's a great story that needs to be told.

Gavin

On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 14:24, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> thanks Eric,
>
> That's great. I've again copied in Gavin so that he has this info
too.
>
> Will keep you in the loop!
>
> mike
>
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I do hope you all are able to put this all together.
> > There were several comments on CA about RealClimate,
suggesting
that
> > RC wouldn't say anything, as E&E publication has such a
bad
rap.
> >
> > Perhaps my biggest complaint was also one mentioned by another
> > poster
> > on CA. I don't like using a simple linear interpolation between
> > data points for these series where there are many years
between
> > samples.
> > Here's the other fellow's comments:
> >
> >



[11]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478
> >


[12]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654
> >



[13]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665
> >
> > I would go further than that. These data sets represent
samples
of
> > time records. The sampling does not produce a value for a
single
> > year.
> > Rather, each sample represents some number of years of the
variable
> > as averaged in the process of collecting the material to be
> > analyzed.
> >
> > Consider an ocean sediment core, such as Keigwin's data. The
> > subcores
> > are sampled every 1.0 cm. Assume the material is taken with a
device
> > that
> > collects mud from a 0.4 cm area along the core. Thus, the
sample
> > would
> > contain 4/10 of the material deposited at that 1 cm per sample
rate
> > of
> > change in time. If the age/depth model at that point yields a
100
> > year
> > per cm rate, then the sample would represent an average over
40
> > years.
> > Simple linear interpolation assumes a continuously varying
change
> > between
> > the points, while the sampling process would give a brief 40
year
> > value
> > with the other 60 years being unknown. What if the entire cm
of
the
> > core
> > were analyzed? One would not know unless one had contacted
each
> > research
> > group that did the analysis and requested more information
than
that
> > which
> > might be found in the published reports.
> >
> > NOTE: I looked at Keigwin's data when I wrote a comment on
Loehle's
> > 2004 paper
> >
> > Comments on "Climate change: detection and attribution of
trends
> > from long-term
> > geologic data" by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4)
(2004)
> > xxx xxxx xxxx],
> > Ecological Modelling 192 (20xxx xxxx xxxx
> >
> > You may add my name to the list for what it's worth.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Eric Swanson
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > At 01:18 PM 12/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> > >>>>
> > Eric--this is
great, thanks for all of the info. I've taken
> > the liberty of
forwarding to Gavin, as we're thinking of
> > doing an RC
post on this, and this would be very useful. We
> > should
certainly list you as a "co-author" on this, if thats
> > ok w/ you?
> >
> > Looking
forward
to hearing what else you find here!
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Associate Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> 503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> The Pennsylvania State University
email: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>



[15]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>




--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University
email: [16]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx




[17]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm




Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [18]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University
email: [19]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx



[20]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm



Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [21]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University
email: [22]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[23]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [24]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [25]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[26]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

References

Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:475457F3.9070102@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478
12. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654
13. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665
14. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
16. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
18. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
20. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
21. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
24. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
26. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Hidden links:
27. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1200162026.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Updated Figures
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Ben and All,

After returning to the office earlier in the week after a couple of weeks
off during the holidays, I had the best of intentions of responding to
some of the earlier emails. Unfortunately it has taken the better part of
the week for me to shovel out my avalanche of email. [This has a lot to
do with the remarkable progress that has been made -- kudos to Ben and others
who have made this possible]. At this point I'd like to add my 2 cents worth
(although with the declining dollar I'm not sure it's worth that much any more)
on several issues, some from earlier email and some from the last day or two.

I had given some thought as to where this article might be submitted.
Although that issue has been settled (IJC) I'd like to add a few related
thoughts regarding the focus of the paper. I think Ben has brokered the
best possible deal, an expedited paper in IJC, that is not treated as a
comment. But I'm a little confused as to whether our paper will be titled
"Comments on ... by Douglass et al." or whether we have a bit more latitude.

While I'm not suggesting anything beyond a short paper, it might be possible
to "spin" this in more general terms as a brief update, while at the same
time addressing Douglass et al. as part of this. We could begin in the
introduction by saying that this general topic has been much studied and
debated in the recent past [e.g. NRC (2000), the Science (2005) papers, and
CCSP (2006)] but that new developments since these works warrant revisiting
the issue. We could consider Douglass et al. as one of several new
developments. We could perhaps title the paper something like "Revisiting
temperature trends in the atmosphere". The main conclusion will be that, in
stark contrast to Douglass et al., the new evidence from the last couple of
years has strengthened the conclusion of CCSP (2006) that there is no
meaningful discrepancy between models and observations.

In an earlier email Ben suggested an outline for the paper:

1) Point out flaws in the statistical approach used by Douglass et al.

2) Show results from significance testing done properly.

3) Show a figure with different estimates of radiosonde temperature trends
illustrating the structural uncertainty.

4) Discuss complementary evidence supporting the finding that the tropical
lower troposphere has warmed over the satellite era.

I think this is fine but I'd like to suggest a couple of other items. First,
some mention could be made regarding the structural uncertainty in satellite
datasets. We could have 3a) for sondes and 3b) for satellite data. The
satellite issue could be handled in as briefly as a paragraph, or with a
bit more work and discussion a figure or table (with some trends). The main
point to get across is that it's not just UAH vs. RSS (with an implied edge
to UAH because its trends agree better with sondes) it's actually UAH vs
all others (RSS, UMD and Zou et al.). There are complications in adding UMD
and Zou et al. to the discussion, but these can be handled either
qualitatively or quantitatively. The complication with UMD is that it only
exists for T2, which has stratospheric influences (and UMD does not have a
corresponding measure for T4 which could be used to remove the stratospheric
effects). The complication with Zou et al. is that the data begin in 1987,
rather than 1979 (as for the other satellite products).

It would be possible to use the Fu method to remove the stratospheric
influences from UMD using T4 measures from either or both UAH and RSS. It
would be possible to directly compare trends from Zou et al. with UAH, RSS
& UMD for a time period starting in 1987. So, in theory we could include
some trend estimates from all 4 satellite datasets in apples vs. apples
comparisons. But perhaps this is more work than is warranted for this project.
Then at very least we can mention that in apples vs. apples comparisons made
in CCSP (2006) UMD showed more tropospheric warming than both UAH and RSS,
and in comparisons made by Zou et al. their dataset showed more warming than
both UAH and RSS. Taken together this evidence leaves UAH as the "outlier"
compared to the other 3 datasets. Furthermore, better trend agreement between
UAH and some sonde data is not necessarily "good" since the sonde data in
question are likely to be afflicted with considerable spurious cooling biases.

The second item that I'd suggest be added to Ben's earlier outline (perhaps
as item 5) is a discussion of the issues that Susan raised in earlier emails.
The main point is that there is now some evidence that inadequacies in the
AR4 model formulations pertaining to the treatment of stratospheric ozone may
contribute to spurious cooling trends in the troposphere.

Regarding Ben's Fig. xxx xxxx xxxxthis is a very nice graphical presentation of the
differences in methodology between the current work and Douglass et al.
However, I would suggest a cautionary statement to the effect that while error
bars are useful for illustrative purposes, the use of overlapping error bars
is not advocated for testing statistical significance between two variables
following Lanzante (2005).
Lanzante, J. R., 2005: A cautionary note on the use of error bars.
Journal of Climate, 18(17), 3xxx xxxx xxxx.
This is also motivation for application of the two-sample test that Ben has
implemented.

Ben wrote:
> So why is there a small positive bias in the empirically-determined
> rejection rates? Karl believes that the answer may be partly linked to
> the skewness of the empirically-determined rejection rate distributions.
[NB: this is in regard to Ben's Fig. 3 which shows that the rejection rate
in simulations using synthetic data appears to be slightly positively biased
compared to the nominal (expected) rate].

I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the distribution
of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to
explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data is to
apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then
reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield
data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.

Ben wrote:
> Figure 3: As Mike suggested, I've removed the legend from the interior
> of the Figure (it's now below the Figure), and have added arrows to
> indicate the theoretically-expected rejection rates for 5%, 10%, and
> 20% tests. As Dian suggested, I've changed the colors and thicknesses
> of the lines indicating results for the "paired trends". Visually,
> attention is now drawn to the results we think are most reasonable -
> the results for the paired trend tests with standard errors adjusted
> for temporal autocorrelation effects.

I actually liked the earlier version of Fig. 3 better in some regards.
The labeling is now rather busy. How about going back to dotted, thin
and thick curves to designate 5%, 10%, and 20%, and also placing labels
(5%/10%/20%) on or near each curve? Then using just three colors to
differentiate between Douglass, paired/no_SE_adj, and paired/with_SE_adj
it will only be necessary to have 3 legends: one for each of the three colors.
This would eliminate most of the legends.

Another topic of recent discussion is what radiosonde datasets to include
in the trend figure. My own personal preference would be to have all available
datasets shown in the figure. However, I would defer to the individual
dataset creators if they feel uncomfortable about including sets that are
not yet published.

Peter also raised the point about trends being derived differently for
different datasets. To the extent possible it would be desirable to
have things done the same for all datasets. This is especially true for
using the same time period and the same method to perform the regression.
Another issue is the conversion of station data to area-averaged data. It's
usually easier to insure consistency if one person computes the trends
from the raw data using the same procedures rather than having several
people provide the trend estimates.

Karl Taylor wrote:
> The lower panel <of Figure 2> ...
> ... By chance the mean of the results is displaced negatively ...
> ... I contend that the likelihood of getting a difference of x is equal
> to the likelihood of getting a difference of -x ...
> ... I would like to see each difference plotted twice, once with a positive
> sign and again with a negative sign ...
> ... One of the unfortunate problems with the asymmetry of the current figure
> is that to a casual reader it might suggest a consistency between the
> intra-ensemble distributions and the model-obs distributions that is not real
> Ben and I have already discussed this point, and I think we're both
> still a bit unsure on what's the best thing to do here. Perhaps others
> can provide convincing arguments for keeping the figure as is or making
> it symmetric as I suggest.

I agree with Karl in regard to both his concern for misinterpretation as
well as his suggested solution. In the limit as N goes to infinity we
expect the distribution to be symmetric since we're comparing the model data
with itself. The problem we are encountering is due to finite sample effects.
For simplicity Ben used a limited number of unique combinations -- using
full bootstrapping the problem should go away. Karl's suggestion seems like
a simple and effective way around the problem.

Karl Taylor wrote:
> It would appear that if we believe FGOALS or MIROC, then the
> differences between many of the model runs and obs are not likely to be
> due to chance alone, but indicate a real discrepancy ... This would seem
> to indicate that our conclusion depends on which model ensembles we have
> most confidence in.

Given the tiny sample sizes, I'm not sure one can make any meaningful
statements regarding differences between models, particularly with regard to
some measure of variability such as is implied by the width of a distribution.
This raises another issue regarding Fig. xxx xxxx xxxxwhy show the results separately
for each model? This does not seem to be relevant to this project. Our
objective is to show that the models as a collection are not inconsistent
with the observations -- not that any particular model is more or less
consistent with the observations. Furthermore showing results for different
models tempts the reader to make such comparisons. Why not just aggregate the
results over all models and produce a histogram? This would also simplify
the figure.

Best regards,

_____John