The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 1092418712.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IJOC040512 review
Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew
Conrie's
email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the
paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.
Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 13/08/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Thanks a bunch Phil,
Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of
our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the
case against MM??
let me know...
thanks,
mike
At 03:43 AM 8/13/2004, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
The paper ! Now to find my review. I did suggest to Andrew to find 3 reviewers.
Phil
From: "Andrew Comrie" <comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'f028'" <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssss
<<...>>
Dear Phil,
IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of Surface Air
Temperature Trends"
Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
Target review date: July 5, 2004
Following from our email, many thanks for agreeing to review the paper above that has
been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology for consideration. I have
attached the manuscript, and the information for reviewers is provided below. Please let
me know that you receieved the file.
In the interests of expediting the review process, I encourage you to email your review
as soon as is convenient. I would like to hear from you by the target date above, or as
soon after as possible.
Referee's names are kept anonymous. When composing your review, please keep your
"Comments to the Author" separate from your confidential comments to the editor. With
your comments to me, please be sure to provide one of these summary recommendations:
1. Accept without further revision.
2. Accept subject to minor revisions (changes to the text only, or simple follow-on
analyses).
3. Accept subject to major revisions (major text changes, recalculations or new
analyses).
4. Reject.
In the case of minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be checked only by the
editor. For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent to you again for a
second review. It will also be useful if you will grade the contribution overall on the
following scale:
A. Very good (a continuing and useful advance in an area of importance).
B. Good (satisfactory and of sufficient importance to merit publication).
C. Adequate (of marginal interest).
D. Poor (not significant enough to merit publication).
E. Very poor (trivial, or incorrect, or of no interest, or not new, etc.).
For your review, please also comment if any of the following points are not satisfactory
or suitable: topic appropriate for the journal, correctness of the title, reduction in
paper length, quality and quantity of illustrations, units, use of English, and key
words.
Your contribution to the review process is essential and greatly valued.
Sincerely,
Andrew Comrie
Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
University of Arizona
409 Harvill Building
Tucson, AZ 85xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
Tel: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: [1]http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
[2]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
-----Original Message-----
From: f028 [[3]mailto:f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] On Behalf Of f028
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:04 AM
To: Andrew Comrie
Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
Andrew,
I can do this. I am in France this week but back in the UK all June.
So send and it will be waiting my return.
Phil
>===== Original Message From "Andrew Comrie" <comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
=====
>Dear Prof. Jones,
>
>IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of
>Surface Air Temperature Trends"
>Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
>Target review date: July 5, 2004
>
>I know you are very busy, but do you have the time to review the above
>manuscript for the International Journal of Climatology? If yes, can
>you complete the review within about five to six weeks, say by the
>target review date listed above? I will send the manuscript
>electronically.
>
>If no, can you recommend someone who you think might be a good choice to
>review this paper?
>
>Thanks for considering my request.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Andrew Comrie
>
>Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
>Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
>University of Arizona
>409 Harvill Building
>Tucson, AZ 85xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
>Tel: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
>E-mail: comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Web: [4]http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
>Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
>[5]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
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
[6]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://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
2. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
3. mailto:f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
5. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
6. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1104855751.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:22:31 +0000
FYI.
Just look at the attachment. Don't refer to it or send it on to anybody
yet. I guess you could refer to it in the IPCC Chapter - you will have to
some day !
Cheers
Phil
X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Phil,
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You've probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is--pure crap. Of course, we've already done this on
"RealClimate", but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I've attached
it in case you haven't seen (please don't pass it along to others yet). It should be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate--he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc...
Other than this distraction, I hope you're enjoying the holidays too...
talk to you soon,
mike
At 09:02 AM 12/30/2004, you wrote:
Mike,
FYI. Just in for an hour or so today as still off until Jan 4.
Not replied to this - too much else with IPCC etc. Not read this
in detail - just printed it off.
Have a good New Year's Eve.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Dear Phil,
I have noticed the following statements in Rutherford et al [2004], in which you are a
co-author. As compared with some of your co-authors, I get the impression that, while
you feel very strongly about your views, you are also concerned with getting to the
bottom of matters and are less concerned with scoring meaningless debating points. In
this spirit, I draw your attention to some incorrect statements in Rutherford et al.
[2004] concerning our material. There is really a quite serious problem with the PC
methods in MBH98 and the comments made in Rutherford et al [2004] are really quite
misleading. For the reasons set out below, I request that these comments be removed from
the manuscript.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Steve McIntyre
To: [2]David Randall
Cc: [3]Scott Rutherford ; [4]Paul Kushner ; [5]Cindy Carrick ; [6]Ross McKitrick
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Dear Dr. Randall,
Recently, at the website [7]www.realclimate.org, Michael Mann publicized a submission by
Rutherford et al. to Journal of Climate, entitled Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere
Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target
Season, and Target Domain. This paper contains some untrue statements and
mischaracterizations regarding criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Mann et
al. (1998) [MBH98] in a 2003 paper and subsequent exchanges under the auspices of
Nature. We are writing to request that these untrue statements be removed from the paper
before any further processing of the document by Journal of Climate takes place.
First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] used an incorrect
version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy indicator dataset. The history of this matter is
summarized below (all relevant emails and other documentation are available at
[8]http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm .
In April 2003, we requested from Mann the FTP location of the dataset used in MBH98.
Mann advised me that he was unable to recall the location of this dataset and referred
the request to Rutherford. Rutherford eventually directed us to a file (pcproxy.txt)
located at a URL at Manns FTP site. In using this data file, we noticed numerous
problems with it, not least with the principal component series. We sought specific
confirmation from Mann that this dataset was the one used in MBH98; Mann said that he
was too busy to respond to this or any other inquiry. Because of the many problems in
this data set, we undertook a complete new re-collation of the data, using the list of
data sources in the SI to MBH98 and using original archived versions wherever possible.
After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003], Mann said that dataset at his FTP
site to which we had been referred was an incorrect version of the data and that this
version had been prepared especially for me; through a blog, he provided a new URL which
he now claimed to contain the correct data set. The file creation date of the incorrect
version was in 2002, long prior to my first request for data, clearly disproving his
assertion that it was prepared in response to my request. Mann and/or Rutherford then
deleted this incorrect version with its date evidence from his FTP site.
It is false and misleading for Rutherford et al. to now allege that we used the wrong
dataset. We used the dataset they directed us to at their FTP site. More importantly,
for our analysis, to avoid the problems with the principal component series, we
re-collated the tree ring data identified in MBH98 from ITRDB archives, calculated fresh
principal component series; in addition, we re-collated other proxy data from archived
versions wherever possible. Thus, our own calculations were not affected by the errors
in the supplied file as we did NOT use the incorrect version in our calculations. To
suggest otherwise, as is done in Rutherford et al [2004], is highly misleading. To date,
no source code or other evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate that the
incorrect version (now deleted) did not infect some of Manns and Rutherfords other work.
In this respect, we note that the now deleted file pcproxy.txt occurs in a legend in a
graphic at Rutherfords website, indicating possible use elsewhere by Rutherford of the
incorrect version.
Accordingly, we request that the above claim be removed from the manuscript.
Secondly, Rutherford et al. [2004] argues that the difference between MBH98 results and
MM03 results occurs because of our misunderstanding of a stepwise procedure in MBH98 for
the calculation of principal component series for tree ring networks. Again, this claim
is misleading on its face. While our 2003 paper did not implement the (then undisclosed)
stepwise procedure, as soon as this matter was raised in subsequent correspondence in
November 2003, we implemented it and we continued to observe the discrepancies in
principal component series and final results. The current manuscript ignores a refereed
exchange at Nature in which we specifically clarified (in response to a reviewers
question) that we had obtained such results while using the exact stepwise procedure
described in MBH98. Mann is aware of this refereed exchange.
The reason for the difference between our results and MBH98 results is primarily due to
the fact that the tree ring principal component series in MBH98 cannot be replicated
using a conventional principal components method. The MBH98 principal component series
can only be replicated by standardizing on a short segment a procedure nowhere mentioned
in MBH98 and only recently acknowledged in the SI to the Corrigendum of Mann et al.
[Nature 2004] in response to our concerns on the subject expressed to Nature. In
effect, MBH98 did not use a conventional centered PC calculation, but used an uncentered
PC calculation on de-centered data. The impact of this method is the subject of ongoing
controversy, which is well-known to the authors, but the existence of the method in
MBH98 is no longer in doubt. In discussions of PC calculations in 2004 exchanged with
the authors through Nature, we implemented the stepwise procedures of MBH98 referred to
in the present manuscript and demonstrated that important differences remain even with
stepwise procedures, as long as the uncentered and decentered methods of MBH98 are
used. The differences in PC series resulting from using centered and uncentered series
has been fully agreed to by all parties in the Nature exchange, although the parties
continue to disagree on the ultimate effect on final NH temperature calculations.
Accordingly, the discussion in Rutherford et al. [2004] is very incomplete and
misleading in this respect. While we recognize that Mann et al. have argued that they
can salvage MBH98-type results using alternative methodologies (e.g. increasing the
number of PC series used in the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod), these salvage efforts are themselves
a matter of controversy and do not validate the claims being put forward in the
Rutherford et al. paper.
Accordingly we ask that this claim also be deleted from the manuscript.
Regards,
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
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
[9]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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy
documentseudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References
1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:randall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:j.climate@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:cindy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.realclimate.org/
8. http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm
9. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1105566936.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Urgent - FINAL review/edits of 6.5.8 Sensitivity
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jean-Claude Duplessy <Jean-Claude.Duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all on the list above... Some of you have received this already straight from David, but
some other key people have not. Eystein and I would appreciate it very much if you would
please read/comment/and edit the attached section 6.5.8 (Sensitivity) NO LATER THAN
THURSDAY NOON, Eastern time (6PM GMT).
Please send responses to all on the address list ABOVE, plus Peck.
Thanks, Peck
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Sender: drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: 6.5.8 Sensitivity
Cc: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
Dominique Raynaud <raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Jean-Claude Duplessy <Jean-Claude.Duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.272 required=7 tests=BAYES_00, HTML_20_30,
HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_SUSPECT_NAME
X-Spam-Level:
Dear Fortunat (and others),
Here is the revised section 6.5.8. I've put in most of your changes (and also most of
those suggested by Stefan, particularly with regards to clarifying the sign of the
radiative forcing). Most importantly, I've removed the table - I agree it seems to imply
a solidity that is really not there. The one thing I have not done is condense it
greatly (of course!). The real reason for going into such detail, rather than just
saying, "well, the forcing and response are uncertain, so we can't conclude anything",
is I think it's important to show that paleoclimate scientists have gone to some effort
to try to deduce climate sensitivity from the paleorecord, the parameter that is
probably of most interest to IPCC. In that respect the details are important, as are the
magnitudes of uncertainty represented in the different studies. Obviously, at any point
in the proceedings the section can be shortened, but I thought it useful to start with
this level of quantification, and show paleoclimate has this similarity with the rest of
IPCC in addition to more qualitative concepts.
I've responded to your individual comments below.
At 6:15 PM +0100 1/11/05, joos wrote:
Dear David,
Here my comments on the updated climate sensitivity section. Please
apologize if I formualate my comments straight away, but I need to leave
very soon. Many of my comments might have to do with presentation.
Your main conclusions in paragraph f are fine.
My view is that it would be ideal to address the issue from a
probabilistic view point. this is of course not always possible.
1) Maunder Minimum section:
Several studies using Monte Carlo approaches show that almost any
climate sensitivity is posssible when taking into account uncertainties
in radiative forcing input data as well as observational records over
the 20 century as constraints. See the Paris report for more
information.
The uncertainty does not only arise from indirect aerosol effect, but
also form the whole range of forcing agents that all have an uncertainty
attached. E.g. Reto Knutti did some evaluation of his results where he
assumed that the aerosol forcing is exactly know (No error) -> even then
climate sensititivity remains unconstraint. Clearly, uncertainty is
growing when going further back in time than the last century as done
here. Then, the numbers provided in the table are useless, as you now
state in the last sentence of the revised text.
2) Other sections:
I think similar concerns also hold for the other sections. For example,
the LGM global cooling is very uncertain. I have just heard yesterday a
talk by Ralph Schneider who showed how different SST reconstructions
(Alkenone, Cd/Ca, MAT, radiolare etc) disagree. global SST cooling might
be anywhere between 0 and 4 K or so. Of course, CLIMAP and the recent
GLAMAP update provide a reasonable estimate. However, the point is that
uncertainies are huge.
The table is a very focused and stand alone thing for the reader. It
gives the impression that climate sensitivity for different period can
be well evaluated. However, this is not the case.
3) My conclusion:
- The table should be dropped. I have quite a strong feeling here, as it
seems to me that the number in the table are very hard to defend and
should not be made prominent.
The table and reference to it has been dropped.
- The whole section should be condensed considerably. Your main
conclusions in paragraph f are fine.
Well, removing the table will shorten this section!
Further comments:
1) section d) 1. para: solar forcing reduction estimate range up to
0.65% for MM e.g. Reid, 97 and Bard et al.
Correction made, and reference added (and I also corrected the numbers as Stefan
suggested, although the upper number is actually larger given the Reid estimate).
2) section d, last para equilibrium
The statement that transient effects are not important is very hard to
defend:
2a) The warming and forcing up to today is considered. Certainly, we are
now far from equilibrium ( a lag of 30 years or so).
2b) the volcanic forcing is very pulse like and I do not see how the
equilibrium concept holds here. It can only be evaluated in a transient
way.
3c) The MM is probably not in equilibrium climate, as solar forcing has
likely varied over the MM as indicated by radiocarbon, althoug sunspots
were not present
I've removed the word "transient" but I have justified the equilibrium aspect of the
sentence with a reference (we investigated that issue by running from 1500 through the
Maunder Minimum, and seeing what the prior changes in solar forcing did to the Maunder
Minimum cooling - the effect, as noted in the reference, was small in our model).
3) section b) end of 1. para: How should such a 'general climate
sensitivity' be defined?
For now I've simply suggested what should also be factored in; I don't know that it's
our place to come up with a new definition per se, although if IPCC is interested, we
could try!
4), section c) Somewhat a mix of model and observations. end of 2 para:
It is not clear which forcing was operating in these different models
(at least it is not stated in the text) and hence one can not directly
imply a climate sensitivity in the way done here. For this the forcing
that went into the model simulations must be known.
I looked at each of the references and saw what forcing they actually used - they were
all very similar except for one which used current orbital parameters (not really
important). This comment is now included.
Hope this is useful and looking foreward to further debate the issue.
Thanks for the comments!
David
ps - Jonathan, the attached Endnote library includes the references we discussed
yesterday, as well as all the ones relevant for this section.
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
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/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachnewest_6.5_2.8.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachIPPC_2007_1_Rind_Copy"
Original Filename: 1107899057.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Tue Feb 8 16:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
sorry, forgot to attach the paper...
mike
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Crowley, Tom Crowley,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Hi Andy,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you'll find this
reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
Please see the RealClimate response:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
and also:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
The Moberg et al paper is at least real science. But there are some real problems with
it (you'll want to followup w/ people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion).
While the paper actually reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also
finds the late 20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it
challenges various reconstructions
using tree-ring information (which includes us, but several others such as Jones et al,
Crowley, etc). I'm pretty sure, by the way, that a very similar version of the paper was
rejected previously by Science. A number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature
is publishing it, given a number of serious problems:
Their method for combining frequencies is problematic and untested:
A. they only use a handful of records, so there is a potentially large sampling bias.
B. worse, they use different records for high-frequencies and low-frequencies, so the
bias isn't even the same--the reconstruction is apples and oranges.
C. The wavelet method is problematic. We have found in our own work that you cannot
simply combine the content in different at like frequencies, because different proxies
have different signal vs. noise characteristics at different frequencies--for some
records, there century-scale variability is likely to be pure noise. They end up
therfore weighting noise as much as signal. For some of the records used, there are real
age model problems. The timescale isn't known to better than +/- a couple hundred years
in several cases. So when they average these records together, the century-scale
variability is likely to be nonsense.
D. They didn't do statistical verification. This is absolutely essential for such
reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Cook et al and Luterbacher et al papers in
Science). They should have validated their reconstruction against long-instrumental
records, as we and many others have. Without having done so, there is no reason to
believe the reconstruction has any reliability. This is a major problem w/ the paper. It
is complicated by the fact that they don't produce a pattern, but just a hemispheric
mean--that makes it difficult to do a long-term verification. But they don't attempt any
sort of verification at all! There are some decades known to be warm from the available
instrumental records (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction
completely misses--the reconstruction gives the impression that all years are cold
between 1500 and 1750. The reconstruction would almost certainly fail cross-validation
against long instrumental records. If so, it is an unreliable estimate of past changes.
We're surprised the Nature Reviewers didn't catch this.
E. They also didn't validate their method against a model (where I believe it would
likely fail). We have done so w/ our own "hybrid frequency-domain" method that combines
information separately at low and high-frequencies, but taking into account the problem
mentioned above. This is described in:
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K.,
Jones, P.D., [3]Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal
of Climate, in press (2005).
In work that is provisionally accepted in "Journal of Climate" (draft attached), we show
that our method gives the correct history using noisy "pseudoproxy" records derived from
a climate model simulation with large past changes in radiative forcing. Moberg et al
have not tested their method in such a manner.
F. They argue selectively for favorable comparison w/ other work:
(1) Esper et al: when authors rescaled the reconstruction using the full instrumental
record (Cook et al, 2004), they found it to be far more similar to Mann et al, Crowley
and Lowery, Jones et al, and the roughly dozen or so other empirical and model estimates
consistent w/ it. Several studies, moreover [see e.g.: Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A.,
Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., [4]Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic
eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi:
10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.] show that extratropical, land-only summer temperatures,
which Esper et al emphasises, are likely to biased towards greater variability--so its
an apples and oranges comparison anyway.
(2) von Storch et al: There are some well known problems here: (a) their forcing is way
too large (Foukal at al in Science a couple months back indicates maybe 5 times too
large), DKMI uses same model, more conventional forcings, and get half the amplitude and
another paper submitted recently by the Belgium modeling group suggests that some severe
spin-up/initialization problems give the large century-scale swings in the model--these
are not reproducible.
(3) Boreholes: They argue that Boreholes are "physical measurements" but many papers in
the published literature have detailed the various biases in using continental ground
surface temperature to estimate past surface air temperature changes--changing snow
cover gives rise to a potentially huge bias (see e.g. : Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A.,
[5]Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface
Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003).
Methods that try to correct for this give smaller amplitude changes from borehole
temperatures:
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [6]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003]
[[7]Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Most reconstructions and model estimates still *sandwich" the Mann et al reconstruction.
See e.g. figure 5 in: Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., [8]Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews
of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Ironically, MM say our 15th century is too cold, while Moberg et al say its too warm.
Hmmm....
To recap, I hope you don't mention MM at all. It really doesn't deserve any additional
publicity. Moberg et al is more deserving of discussion, but, as outlined above, there
are some real problems w/ it. I have reason to believe that Nature's own commentary by
Schiermeier will actually be somewhat critical of it.
I'm travelling and largely unavailable until monday. If you need to talk, you can
possibly reach me at xxx xxxx xxxxover the weekend.
I hope this is of some help. Literally got to run now...
mike
At 02:14 PM 2/4/2005, Andy Revkin wrote:
Hi all,
There is a fascinating paper coming in Nature next week (Moberg of Stockholm Univ., et
al) that uses mix of sediment and tree ring data to get a new view of last 2,000 years.
Very warped hockeystick shaft (centuries-scale variability very large) but still
pronounced 'unusual' 1990's blade.
i'd like your reaction/thoughts for story i'll write for next thursday's Times.
also, is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc that warrants a
response?
I can send you the Nature paper as pdf if you agree not to redistribute it (you know the
embargo rules).
that ok?
thanks for getting in touch!
andy
______________________________________________________________
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
[9]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
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
[10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
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
[11]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
3. http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf
4. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Shindelletal-jgr04.pdf
5. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/gissgst03.pdf
6. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/borehole-jgr03.pdf
7. http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/shared/articles/JGRBoreholeCorrection04.pdf
8. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf
9. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
10. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
11. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
12. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1110909006.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: last millennium
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Peck,
Thanks for your message. I'll look forward to hearing what you and
your colleagues think.
Susan
At 9:26 AM -0700 3/15/05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Susan - thanks for sending these along with some interesting
>ideas. I'll cc this email to Keith Briffa, along with Eystein, to
>see if the three of us could chat about the issues. Personally, I
>think the idea of showing the instrumental data near the paleo sites
>is excellent - but we have to see what Keith thinks since it would
>be his (and CA Tim Osborn's) job to do this. But, it makes lots of
>sense. I also like having the composite (average) lines (paleo and
>instrumental) for the simple reason that they connects back to all
>the other reconstructions, and thus make the point that these other
>recons are not so "misleading" after all.
>
>Funny coincidence - Julie and I have been working on the coral trend
>story, and just yesterday decided to do what you are suggesting in
>terms of instrumental data. I'm learning that the coral data are
>trickier than I thought, but this is a good way of figuring out what
>we really can or cannot say with these time series.
>
>More soon, thanks again, Peck
>
>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>X-Sender: ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>>From: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>Subject: last millennium
>>Cc: Martin Manning <Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 required=7 tests=BAYES_50
>>X-Spam-Level:
>>
>>Hi Jonathan,
>>Here's some cool plots that Tom Crowley whipped up, as per our
>>phone discussion. He indicated that it was OK to send to you.
>>
>>It seems to me that showing these records explicitly will address a
>>lot of the issues in the temperature records for the last
>>millennium. One might or might not choose to try to construct the
>>composites (see slide 2 versus 3 in the attached). To be totally
>>consistent, it would be nice to show individual records for the
>>twentieth century near the sites of the tree ring/cores as well,
>>rather than just the mean over that period. If one did that, the
>>resulting diagram would avoid any averaging (is it really needed to
>>make the point?). A remaining issue would be the calibration of the
>>paleo proxies and how that affects the spread (or lack thereof, in
>>the overlap period).
>>
>>What do you think?
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>--
>>******************************************
>>Please note my new email address for your records:
>>
>>Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>*******************************************
>>
>
>
>--
>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/
>
>Attachment converted: Discovery:crowley.mwp.mar.14.ppt (SLD8/PPT3) (000F0F48)
--
******************************************
Please note my new email address for your records:
Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*******************************************
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1118866416.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: updated MWP figure
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Eystein
tried phoning on your mobile - no luck - Don't like this Figure , but still having trouble
working on ours. Have cut large bits out of my text and suggestions for cutting other bits
, but will be a little late sending these bits. Can you ring to discuss (and IMPRINT)
tomorrow ?
Keith
At 06:28 15/06/2005, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
enclosed for your consideration.
Eystein
Envelope-to: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: J Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
"Jansen, Eystein " <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: updated MWP figure
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on alf
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: 0 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
Hello,
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from xxx xxxx xxxxin decadal std.
dev. units - although small in number there is a good geographic spread -- four are from
the w. hemisphere, four from the east. I also plot the raw composite of the eight sites
and scale it to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.
this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite and also
why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm
clustering of the individual sites.
use or lose as you wish, tom
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All
Original Filename: 1120676865.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Neville Nicholls" <N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Neville,
Mike's response could do with a little work, but as you say he's got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don't get a call from congress ! I'm hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I'll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:21 06/07/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil.
I had seen the estimates of 0.12C for UAH 5.2, but wasnt sure if the version producing
these trends had all the months corrected, and that John was happy with the corrections
(I had heard that his initial estimate was that the change made a major difference to
the trends, but that later calulations didnt support this). I think I have a pretty good
idea now of the trends in the various data sets.
I have seen the Mears/Wentz paper, but will watch out for John's paper (I know I could
have asked John about all of this, but I suspect he feels a bit over-burdened and
harrassed at the moment, and I didnt want to add to the pressure on him, so thanks for
passing this stuff on to me).
I thought Mike Mann's draft response was pretty good - I had expected something more
vigorous, but I think he has got the "tone" pretty right. Do you expect to get a call
from Congress?
Neville Nicholls
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
9th Floor, 700 Collins Street
Docklands,Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 1289K, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA 3001
Phone: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wed 7/6/2005 5:57 PM
To: Neville Nicholls
Subject: Fwd: Misc
Neville,
Here's an email from John, with the trend from his latest version
in. Also
has trends for RATPAC and HadAT2. If you can stress in your talks that it is
more likely the sondes are wrong - at least as a group. Some may be OK
individually. The tropical ones are the key, but it is these that least
is know
about except for a few regions. The sondes clearly show too much cooling in
the stratosphere (when compared to MSU4), and I reckon this must
also affect their upper troposphere trends as well. So, John may be putting
too much faith in them wrt agreement with UAH.
Happy for you to use the figure, if you don't pass on to anyone else.
Watch
out for Science though and the Mears/Wentz paper if it ever comes out.
Also, do point out that looking at surface trends from 1998 isn't very
clever.
Cheers
Phil
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
>From: John Christy <john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4)
>Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Misc
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
> SpamAssassin (score=-5.8, required 5, BAYES_01 -5.40,
> RCVD_IN_ORBS 0.11, SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE -0.49,
> USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA 0.00)
>X-MailScanner-From: john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>X-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-Spam-Level: /
>X-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Hi Phil:
>
>I've been getting round-about versions of rumors concerning our newly
>adjusted version 5.2 LT dataset. I believe I had indicated earlier to you
>that the correction was within our published margin of error. In any case
>here are the numbers that describe various aspects of v5.2
>1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>Global Trend +0.115 UAH, +0.125 RATPAC and +0.137 HadAT (note, when
>subsampled for the same latitudes in which sonde observations are
>available, UAH and HadAT are almost exactly the same.)
>
>Update of site by site comparison of UAH LT 5.2 and SH radiosondes from
>Christy and Norris 2004:
>
>All 87 SH stations, no adjustments Raobs + 0.028 UAH +0.040
>74 best sites with adjustments Raobs +0.030 UAH +0.054
>
>These SH changes from the original publication were very minor because
>most stations were outside the tropics where the diurnal error had
>essentially no impact.
>
>A paper by Sherwood claims that Day minus Night is a legitimate way to go
>about looking at sonde problems. The real problem though is that Day
>minus Night is only an indicator of a sonde change, it does not determine
>the change itself. Most notorious is the Philipps Mark III to Vaisala
>RS-80 where the night warmed by about 0.3 C and the day by a little bit
>less, which means the Day minus Night reveals a negative shift when in
>fact both ob times have a significant positive shift (these sondes form a
>signifciant part of the LKS dataset). Similar results occur for US VIZ
>mini-art 2 to Micro-art software in 1990.
>
>I have many other sone comparisons, and all are more consistent with the
>UAH trends more than RSS and certainly VG. Indeed, I was curious to see
>that your name was on VG's latest paper. I wish I had time to fill you in
>on why the addition of the non-linear terms is a red herring (both UAH and
>RSS have performed the calculations with and without the non-linear terms
>with no impact on the trends) and why the latitudinal difference for
>calculating the coefficients leads one astray. I'm a little nervous now
>that you may have a "dog in this fight" as we say in Alabama while writing
>up the IPCC. I expect my sonde comparisons to be included in the IPCC and
>I will have further results demonstrating the problems with the Day minus
>Night technique within a few months.
>
>I've lots to do now. Thanks for listening.
>
>John C.
>
>--
>************************************************************
>John R. Christy
>Director, Earth System Science Center voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Alabama State Climatologist
>University of Alabama in Huntsville
>[2]http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
>
>Mail: ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville
>AL 35899
>Express: Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
Original Filename: 1121950401.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: CLA feedback on Tom and the MWP
Date: Thu Jul 21 08:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
CC: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CLA feedback on Tom and the MWP
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Keith, if you can find more I see no problem - it seems that a lot of the data you used
was via Cook and colleagues - I was unable to locate a full length record from Quebec in
that time series, but maybe you are relying on something else - if so can I have it!?
other suggestions: provide a more general label to sites - eg, mangazeyek (sp)/yamal
could be listed as polar urals - taimyr central Siberia.
China shoudl be relabeled as east Asia as it does include some information from Japan
and the Tibetan Plateau (L. Thompson) and we don't want to get into some political to-do
by calling Tibet "Chinese".
that's all I can think of for present, good sailing, tom
Keith Briffa wrote:
Hi all
think this is resolved now (virtually) -
We use series that total to Tom/Gabi composite , and we can cite this as an example of
the scatter of regional records "in a typical reconstruction". This avoids very
difficult issue of what is the best way to aggregate certain data sets - we are simply
illustrating the point with one published (by then) data set.
The issue of the composite is then not an issue either , because it is not a new
(unpublished) composite that we were concerned about - though I still believe it is a
distraction to put the composite in. It would be best to use data from 800 or 850 at
least , and go to 1500 (?) and presumably normalise over the whole period of data shown.
OK? Even though you guys all wish to go with the reduced period (ie not up the present)
, but my own instinct is that this might later come back to haunt us - but will take
your lead.
I agree the look of the Figure should match the others.
So, if Tom will send the data sets (his regional curves) , Tim will plot and send back
asap for scrutiny. Thanks Tom and thanks for your help with this - further comments on
latest version of 6.5 (last 2000 years) still welcome , though will be incorporating a
few changes in response to David and Fortunat input , and SH bit (from Ricardo and Ed)
still to go in and regional section to be revised (after input from Peck et al.)
cheers
Keith
.
At 21:42 19/07/2005, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Keith and Tim: Just got off the phone with Eystein, and hopefully he will sleep ok
knowing that we have a plan for the MWP fig and Tom...
Please ask questions if we don't cover all the key points, but here's what we think:
1) the MWP fig should span the MWP only, and should emphasize variation in regional
amplitude (we agree that we must be clear that this fig is not a reconstruction) - that
is, it is best to use time series representing regions, assuming that the regional
series do represent a region ok with one or more input series. We want to avoid a
regional bias if we can - this is what got us into all the MWP misunderstanding in the
first place, perhaps (e.g., nice MWP in Europe/Atlantic region - must be global)
2) If you guys could agree on the series and the interval, that'd be great. We agree it
would be good to start before 1000 and end before the Renaissance (15th century?). If
you want more feedback on these issues, we're happy to provide, but it seems logical
that you pick series and intervals so that each series covers the entire interval
selected.
3) Don't use the Chesapeak record - it is likely biased by salinity
4) We'd like Keith and Tim to draft the final figure so that it matches the look and
style of the other two figs they have made. Hope this is doable. Tom, does Keith have
all the data? Thanks for sending if not.
5) We agree that Tom should NOT be a CA given that he was officially one of the ZOD
reviewers. Of course, this doesn't represent a real conflict, but we need to avoid even
the appearance of conflict. We greatly appreciate all the feedback that Tom is
providing! Is this plan ok w/ you Tom? We think you're cool with it, but just want to
check one more time.
That... it is. Please let us know if there are any more questions. Keith - feel free to
try and get Eystein on his cell doing your work hours if you want quick feedback. Or we
can do this by email - he's not in a very email friendly place right now, but the
fishing appears to be ok.
Again, thanks to you both for all the discussion and thought that has gone into this
figure.
Best, peck
--
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
[1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
2. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1133366680.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: u seen?]
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
fair enough, I'll go w/ flimsy. The real problem is the fairly
inflammatory wording of this, and the really flawed interpretations
w.r.t. implicatinos for natural vs. anthropogenic variaiblity.
normally I'd ignore, but the fact that Andy Revkin received this
suggests they are trying to publicize this review paper, which I find a
bit odd...
mike
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I've seen this before (and probably Keith has too) because our EU
> "SOAP" project supported Rob Wilson, the second author. I'd say that
> it is "flimsy" rather than "shoddy"! Still, it's only supposed to be
> a "viewpoint" rather than new science.
>
> Tim
>
> At 15:31 30/11/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>> thought you guys would be interested. pretty shoddy stuff in my view...
>>
>> 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
>>
>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Return-Path: <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Received: from tr12n04.aset.psu.edu (tr12g04.aset.psu.edu
>> [128.118.146.130])
>> by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2027520401A
>> for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:15:xxx xxxx xxxx(EST)
>> Received: from nytimes.com (nat-hq-gate-02.nytimes.com
>> [199.181.175.222])
>> by tr12n04.aset.psu.edu (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id
>> jAUFF8P22437280
>> for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20051130101420.02d14460@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> X-Sender: anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0
>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> From: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: u seen?
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="=====================_79165303==.ALT"
>> X-NYTOriginatingHost: , 10.149.64.222
>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos
>> X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO
>> X-PSU-Spam-Hits: 0.695
>> X-PSU-Spam-Level: *
>> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2xxx xxxx xxxx) on
>> mail.meteo.psu.edu
>> X-Spam-Level:
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0
>> tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_00_10,
>> HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=no version=3.0.2
>>
>> purely fyi.. u seen?
>>
>>
>>> Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 24, Issues xxx xxxx xxxx, November 2005,
>>> Pages 2xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> http://tinyurl.com/b95ee
>>>
>>> Climate: past ranges and future changes
>>>
>>> Jan Esper a), Robert J.S. Wilson b), David C. Frank a), Anders
>>> Moberg c), Heinz Wanner d) and J
Original Filename: 1135197791.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:43:11 +0000
<x-flowed>
>Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
>To: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu
>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch
>X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
>List-Id: <wg1-ar4-ch06.joss.ucar.edu>
>List-Help: <mailto:wg1-ar4-ch06-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>List-Subscribe: <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06>,
> <mailto:wg1-ar4-ch06-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?subject=subscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/private/wg1-ar4-ch06>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06>,
> <mailto:wg1-ar4-ch06-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?subject=unsubscribe>
>Sender: wg1-ar4-ch06-bounces@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Hi Chapter 6 Friends - Just wanted to thank you all for a great IPCC
>meeting and solid progress toward the SOD of Chapter 6, as well as
>give you a report on the TS meeting that took place on Friday. I'm
>in transit, so haven't been able to see any emails, but I suspect
>Eystein is also sending some updates on what we need to be doing.
>We'll have to work fast and hard to make all the deadlines, but I
>think its safe to say that our chapter will have real impact. I want
>to personally thank you for your dedication to our team effort!
>
>PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY
>
>The TS/SPM meeting on Friday was exhausting, as appears to be
>traditional for all things IPCC. But, it was quite impressive in
>terms of how paleo was viewed by the broader WG1 team of authors.
>This is reflected in the decision to consider (without any pushing
>from me, believe it or not) several new figures from our chapter.
>Below I list these along with the others that will need refinement
>for use by the TS. Please note where I insert "ACTION ITEM" - these
>are very time sensitive assignments that should be carried out ASAP
>(i.e., before the new year where possible). Note that everything
>(i.e., figures) in the TS will also have to be in our chapter.
>
>1) the orbital box. Eystein and I have the draft completed by
>Valerie et al in New Zealand. We will read/edit (ACTION ITEM) and
>send around to the group for further editing. The TS version might
>have to be altered to reflect the broader audience, and I'm not yet
>sure what figure would best go with the TS version. I believe
>Valerie (ACTION ITEM) is exploring (with Stefan?) a nice figure that
>illustrates the mechanisms of orbital forcing.
>
>2) there will also be an model evaluation box in the TS that will
>have paleo. Once I get more feedback on this (Chap 8 is leading on
>this box), I'll connect the rest of our team with this effort, with
>Bette in the role of lead chap 6 person.
>
>3) there will a sea level box led by Chap 5. I'm not sure what the
>fig will look like in this box, but if Dick (ACTION ITEM) can
>produce his new Chap 6 sea level figure FAST, we can float it as a
>possible contributor to the TS Box figure. It would be great to get
>paleo sea level perspectives in this box!
>
>4) there will be expanded discussion of abrupt change with focus on
>paleo - Richard Alley is leading this, and I think that will be a
>real plus in making sure the discussion isn't just model based
>
>4) Keith's sites through time figure is also still a TS item. There
>will hopefully also be a fig showing the distribution of
>instrumental sites. Keith has the ACTION ITEM on his figure. Peck
>and Eystein can help get the data released to Keith and Tim if
>needed - just let us know.
>
>5) Keith's 6.8 figure will have to be worked on to find the best
>mode of presentation, and I have a separate email on this one for
>him and Tim. The TS team would like to see inserted on the fig
>(e.g., along the lower edge of the figure, perhaps) some depiction
>of how the site number used changes back in time, and some color
>coding to denote how our expert judgement suggests the implied
>confidence in the recons change back in time. I'm guessing this will
>require some phone conversations to think through with Keith (ACTION
>ITEM for Eystein, Peck and Keith).
>
>6) A NEW FIGURE - depicting inferred solar forcing over the last X
>centuries. The request is that we show Judith Lean et al's latest
>for 1600 to present. This could include the volcanic forcing too,
>but it seems more appropriate that we stick with our plan to add
>this to the expanded 6.8. We'll have to try both figs (this new one,
>and the expanded 6.8) figure w/ and w/o the volcanic series (i.e.,
>detrended multi-core average excess sulfate from each of two polar
>regions) on each fig. I think Keith/Tim gets the ACTION ITEM on all
>this figure stuff - Perhaps David (ACTION ITEM) can send Judith's
>latest solar recon to Keith?
>
>7) Expanded/modified recent forcing figureS by Fortunat (ACTION
>ITEM). One will be for Chap 6, the other will combine Chap 2 and 6
>perspectives into a single figure for the TS. I'll send a separate
>fig to Fortunat with the details, but everyone likes his new rate of
>change depiction, and the TS team also wants a ice core tropospheric
>aerosol record too (e.g., for the last couple centuries - Jean
>Jouzel thought we could do this using Greenland ice core data, and
>we'd add this to the TS fig (and either a chap 2 or 6 figure, since
>everyting in the TS has to also be in a chapter.
>
>8) A NEW FIGURE for the TS (and maybe not chapt 6, since we already
>have 6.8 and 6.10 with most of the info) should be the one of
>Keith's that we showed in our plenary talk on Thursday - the
>multi-model range of simulated change over the last 1000 (red
>shading) superimposed on our chap 6 observed record (represented by
>grey shading as in the fig we showed). Requested modifications for
>Keith/Tim (ACTION ITEM) include: a) using a 20th century ref period
>as in the current Fig 6.8, b) adding (where possible) simulations
>that include natural forcing only (and thus not enough warming in
>20th century) and c) adding one or more EMIC simulations using the
>new Lean solar recon (at least over the last 400 years, with all the
>other forcing). This last one is tricky, since no one at the TS mtg
>thought such a simulation exists, BUT it seems it is ok for us to
>get/use a new long simulation by one of the EMIC models used in Chap
>10. Peck (ACTION ITEM) needs to figure out how to get this, but
>Thomas Stocker indicated he'd help. Stafan - what about you guys
>doing this? Who else could we ask for fast turnaround?
>
>9) Another NEW FIGURE (that I actually fought including since we
>don't want to be seen showing off our own stuff) of Last
>Interglacial (LIG) Change. The TS team (and Susan) really liked this
>paleo message, so we came up with a proposed scheme (which I already
>discussed with Bette - who has the ACTION ITEM) that will involve
>the inclusion of more than one LIG climate simulation, plotted with
>observations superimposed, and perhaps more than one LIG ice sheet
>reconstruction as well. Should Tarasov and Peltier be considered for
>this fig (forced by ice-core inferred LIG climate)? Are there
>others? For this figure to work, it has to be a synthesis of
>multiple studies, not just the recent Otto-Bleisner et al effort.
>
>So, that is the news - all good from the view point of chap 6
>exposure/impact, but of course, not so good in terms of the
>additional fast-turn-around work that is needed. The other tough
>issue is that - after several negotiating sessions with Susan (the
>last one with Jean Jouzel helping) - the best we could do is get our
>page limit increased from 30 to 35 pages. That doesn't sound too
>bad, except that we have to a) get all our existing material into
>less space than now (we're currently at an estimated 36 pages) AND
>b) get the new figures mentioned above in (two I think - solar, plus
>the LIG fig). We can do it, but everyone has to be thinking NOW
>about how to reduce our text.
>
>Again, many thanks for all the travel and hard work over the last
>two weeks. Also (in advance) for all the hard work coming up this
>month and the next two.
>
>Best, Peck
>--
>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/
>_______________________________________________
>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
--
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/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1136298918.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: new climate model runs
Date: Tue Jan 3 09:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: new climate model runs
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Happy New Year Stefan and Fortunat - just wanted to check in to see where things stand
with the EMIC runs you were going to do for the revised Fig 6.10 - that is, with the new
Lean solar forcing, and (where the published runs don't already exist) with the old Lean
forcing. Again, the purpose of all this is to assess what difference the new solar
forcing makes.
Eystein and I are hoping that you've figured out the best experimental framework - e.g.,
what other forcing series to use. It would be great if you used the same volcanic and
trace gas series, if that is possible. I'm cc'ing this to Keith in the hope that he can
help us make sure we're making the right decisions.
Also, since Keith is going to be making the new figure comparing the range of obs
climate over the last 1000 years to the range of simulated climate over the last 1000
years (i.e., like the fig we showed in our second/Thursday plenary talk), it would be
worth thinking if there is any way to scale the solar forcing over the entire last 1000
years to Judith's new reduced-amplitude solar forcing. I'm not sure this is
straightforward or not, but if it was possible, we'd have your new runs for inclusion in
the new obs vs. simulated climate fig too - this would be helpful.
In any case, the purpose of this email is just to see where we stand, and help keep
things moving.
Thanks, Peck
--
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
[1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
2. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1139357516.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Data for IPCC
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tshanaha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Eystein, Keith and Tim - this seems odd to me,
given that the N hem data must completely
dominate his global recon. BUT, since the data
and recon are his, and our job is to assess what
is published, we don't have much choice. We have
three options (or more if you can think of them):
option 1) forget about his recon. Although I
sense that there might be some interest in this,
we must include his study/data/fig
option 2) we could make a separate fig to
highlight just his global recon, perhaps compared
to the global borehole recon. We are dying for
space, so I suspect this option isn't ideal
either. Expert review of the SOD might suggest
it, but in the meantime, I suggest we try to get
away with...
option 3) we include it in the big recon plot,
and just make it clear in the caption (and table
that goes with the caption if you're going with
the table idea) that the Oerleman's curve, though
labeled global in the original paper, appears to
be representative of (or weighted mostly by, or
?) glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere (per his
Fig 3a). I think we should leave it to Keith and
Tim to figure out the best language, but I think
this will work. Could be done as a footnote to
the table instead of the caption.
Make sense? thanks, Peck
>Hi, this is what I got from Oerlemans.
>If we go with his data it has to be the global curve it seems....
>
>Eystein
>
>>From: "J. Oerlemans" <J.Oerlemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>Subject: Re: Data for IPCC
>>Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:31:19 +0100
>>To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf
>>X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -15 hits, 8.0 required
>>X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
>> -15 From is listed in 'whitelist_SA'
>>
>>Dear Eystein,
>>
>>Just returned from abroad and have some time now to look at your request.
>>
>>I don' t think it is a very good idea to
>>consider hemispheric temperatures from glacier
>>records separately. The error bars are just too
>>large. I am currently extending the dataset
>>substantially, but it will take some time
>>before hemispheric averages have a similar
>>error bar as the global mean right now (figure
>>3b in my paper).
>>So I propose you only present the estimated
>>global mean temperature, which I give below.
>>
>>With best wishes,
>>Hans
>>====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Feb 3, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Eystein Jansen wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Hans,
>>>I am co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC
>>>AR4 Paleoclimate chapter. In our section on
>>>the last 2000 years we would like to include
>>>your T-reconstruction from glaciers that was
>>>published in Science. We would like to have
>>>the data separate for each hemisphere plus the
>>>global mean and include this into a figure
>>>showing a suite of T reconstructions. There is
>>>an urgency to this and we hope that you could
>>>send us the data very soon, in order for the
>>>data to bbe incorporated into the 2nd draft of
>>>the report.
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>Eystein
>>>--
>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>Eystein Jansen
>>>Professor/Director
>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>>>All
Original Filename: 1139592077.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: some figures at last!
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Stefan and Fortunat: Attached are the draft figs that include
proxy obs, simulations, and comparisons of the two. As you can see,
Tim just sent them. Big job, but they look great in my eyes.
See Tim's email below for more background info.
We need fast feedback from you both, specifically:
1) any general comments on the figs - this is a crux set of figures
and we need your eyes to look at them carefully
2) is it wise to keep the new EMIC run panel attached to the second
figure as attached? I vote yes, but what do you think. It fits w/ the
other panels pretty well.
3) either way, we need caption prose from you (perhaps Fortunat
start, and Stefan edit, or vice versa if Stefan can start first) on
the new EMIC panel.
4) also, we need a new para, or prose that can be added to a para,
that describes the panel and it's implications as it informs our
assessment. Keith will then integrate this into the section. I'm not
sure of this, but perhaps you could start with a new question
heading, and then have a short para to go under it - something like
"What is the significance of the new reduced-amplitude estimates of
past solar variability?"
Of course, we need your feedback and prose asap. Please send to me,
Eystein, Keith and Tim.
Thanks in advance for the help. Best, peck
>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:00:19 +0000
>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
> Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: some figures at last!
>Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
>X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Dear Peck and Eystein,
>
>the attached word file contains the latest versions of two of our figures.
>
>First, is the reconstructions with many requests now done: linear
>time scale, dotted early instrumental temperatures not solid line,
>Oerlemans added, new panel showing shading for the overlapping
>regions of temperature reconstructions.
>
>Second, is the forcings and models. Stendel ECHAM simulation added
>(1xxx xxxx xxxx). New ECHO-G Erik2 simulation just published in GRL from
>Gonzalez-Ruoco et al. added (1xxx xxxx xxxx). Reconstruction "envelope"
>replaced by new shading of overlaps in the temperature
>reconstructions. Correction of some labelling errors. Those runs
>that did not include 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling are
>dotted or dashed after 1900 (the two low ones also omitted CH4, N2O,
>CFCs, O3, hence still cool despite omitting aerosol cooling). The
>ECHO-G Erik1 simulation with the very out-of-equilibrium initial
>conditions is dashed. Finally, the extra panel with the new EMIC
>runs is included as panel (e), again with the new shading of
>overlapping temperature reconstructions.
>
>Keith suggests sending to Stefan and Fortunat too for their views -
>can you do that (they may now be gone for the weekend, of course).
>
>Best wishes and sorry this is late. Am I right in thinking that the
>only other possible-TS figure is the location maps? Still working
>on those (had very little time in last 2 days due to media etc.
>attention re. Science paper).
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>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
--
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/
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachfigures_2000yr_10feb20061.doc"
Original Filename: 1139835663.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IN CONFIDENCE - opinion sought
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
I'm pretty sure they're just asking for a neutral discussion of the
science that you've done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed
by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you're
coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any
possibility Tim could do this instead? He's less intimately involved w/
the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for
him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they'll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that
McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the
legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Mike
> thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I
> have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is
> intense - but the real reason is that I really think it could be
> politic to retreat into "neutral" mode , at least until after the IPCC
> Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics
> are starting to attack on this "non neutral" stance, and the less
> public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I
> am a wimp here - just trying to go the way I think best.
> best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 17:14 09/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is
>> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood
>> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in
>> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest
>> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton
>> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn't
>> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and
>> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> I'm scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation
>> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on
>> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and
>> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven't heard anything.
>>
>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing
>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token
>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
>> http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?OpenDocument
>>
>>
>> So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you'd
>> like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone
>> number is xxx xxxx xxxx. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5
>> hours, but then free most of the day...
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Mike
>>> IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be
>>> frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
>>> Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>> X-SBRS: None
>>>> X-REMOTE-IP: 144.171.38.41
>>>> X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,98,1139202000";
>>>> d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32"; a="8557254:sNHT39904420"
>>>> Subject: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>>> Thread-Topic: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Thread-Index:
>>>> AcYce3i/tURJ1nRBSbezvDYAmbiDhQAAJeAgAABmHeAAAFz5YAABterwAAAqT9AAKTmk4AAFcV2QAAGRMBAAADHXgALyVAvAAJatBwAAACel8AABGFiwAAGtjsAAXF4z0A==
>>>>
>>>> From: "Kraucunas, Ian" <IKraucunas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>> To: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dr. Briffa,
>>>>
>>>> The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United
>>>> States is empanelling a committee to study "Surface Temperature
>>>> Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years". The committee
>>>> will be
>>>> asked to summarize the current scientific information on the
>>>> temperature
>>>> record over the past two millennia, describe the proxy records that
>>>> have
>>>> been used to reconstruct pre-instrumental climatic conditions, assess
>>>> the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data over large spatial
>>>> scales, evaluate the overall accuracy and precision of such
>>>> reconstructions, and explain how central the debate over the
>>>> paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific
>>>> knowledge
>>>> on global climate change. I have attached the complete study proposal
>>>> (Word document).
>>>>
>>>> Since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy, we
>>>> have taken great care to assemble an unbiased panel of scientific
>>>> experts with the appropriate range of expertise to produce an
>>>> authoritative report on the subject. The committee slate will be
>>>> formally announced on Wednesday, but I can tell you that Jerry North
>>>> (Texas A&M) will be chairing the committee, and NAS Members Mike
>>>> Wallace, Karl Turekian, and Bob Dickinson will be on the panel, in
>>>> addition to a half-dozen other scientists with expertise in
>>>> statistics,
>>>> climate variability, and several different types of paleoclimate proxy
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> The committee would like to invite you to come to Washington DC on
>>>> Thursday, March 2nd to speak about your extensive work with this area
>>>> and to discuss your perspective on the issues noted above and in the
>>>> study proposal. The committee will be familiar with the relevant
>>>> peer-reviewed literature, but is also interested in any recently
>>>> submitted or accepted papers. We will be inviting xxx xxxx xxxxother
>>>> experts to
>>>> speak; a complete agenda will be made available prior to the meeting,
>>>> and the meeting will be open to the public. Speakers will be
>>>> reimbursed
>>>> for travel expenses and invited to stay for the entire open session of
>>>> the meeting (which will include a reception on Thursday evening and a
>>>> few speakers on Friday morning).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your time and interest, I hope that you are
>>>> available and willing to meet with our committee. If you are not
>>>> available on March 2nd, we have a limited number of timeslots
>>>> available
>>>> on March 3rd. We are trying to finalize the meeting schedule by
>>>> Friday
>>>> so please let me know if there is a particularly convenient time
>>>> that I
>>>> could call you this week to discuss details and answer any
>>>> questions you
>>>> might have (or feel free to call me directly).
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Ian Kraucunas
>>>>
>>>> ~~~
>>>> Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D.
>>>> Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
>>>> National Research Council of The National Academies
>>>> 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705
>>>> Washington, DC 20001
>>>> Email: ikraucunas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>> Phone: (2xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> Fax: (2xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1139932579.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: some figures at last!
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi all - I commented on the reference period issue in my previous
email, and hope we can resolve it today, or tomorrow at the latest?
Tim and Keith should help convince Fortunat that their choice is
strong.
Tim - can you make the other changes suggested by Fortunat?
Thanks, peck
>Hi,
>
>I have now found the time to look over the figures. First
>congratulations to this effort. Looks great! A tremendous job - I
>assume many hours of work.
>
>I have, however, a few points
>
>1) The instrumental record - our best piece of information is
>missing in panel e. Please add to the EMIC panel.
>
>2) I am not very enthusiastic to normalize model results with
>respect to 1xxx xxxx xxxx. The EMIC panel is to illustrate two points -
>the difference between low and high solar forcing and with/without
>anthropogenic forcing.
>
>I think panel e (EMIC panel) would be more informative in this
>respect if all runs with anthropogenic forcing and the proxies are
>normalized as in panel b) (19xxx xxxx xxxx) and the runs without anth.
>forcing start at the same point as the ones with anth. forcing
>
>I have no strong opinion on panel d.
>
>3) Please change Bern2.5c to Bern2.5CC
>
>Thanks for considering this.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Fortunat
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Stefan and Fortunat: Attached are the draft figs that include
>>proxy obs, simulations, and comparisons of the two. As you can see,
>>Tim just sent them. Big job, but they look great in my eyes.
>>
>>See Tim's email below for more background info.
>>
>>We need fast feedback from you both, specifically:
>>
>>1) any general comments on the figs - this is a crux set of figures
>>and we need your eyes to look at them carefully
>>
>>2) is it wise to keep the new EMIC run panel attached to the second
>>figure as attached? I vote yes, but what do you think. It fits w/
>>the other panels pretty well.
>>
>>3) either way, we need caption prose from you (perhaps Fortunat
>>start, and Stefan edit, or vice versa if Stefan can start first) on
>>the new EMIC panel.
>>
>>4) also, we need a new para, or prose that can be added to a para,
>>that describes the panel and it's implications as it informs our
>>assessment. Keith will then integrate this into the section. I'm
>>not sure of this, but perhaps you could start with a new question
>>heading, and then have a short para to go under it - something like
>>"What is the significance of the new reduced-amplitude estimates of
>>past solar variability?"
>>
>>Of course, we need your feedback and prose asap. Please send to me,
>>Eystein, Keith and Tim.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for the help. Best, peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:00:19 +0000
>>>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
>>> Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>Subject: some figures at last!
>>>Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>
>>>Dear Peck and Eystein,
>>>
>>>the attached word file contains the latest versions of two of our figures.
>>>
>>>First, is the reconstructions with many requests now done: linear
>>>time scale, dotted early instrumental temperatures not solid line,
>>>Oerlemans added, new panel showing shading for the overlapping
>>>regions of temperature reconstructions.
>>>
>>>Second, is the forcings and models. Stendel ECHAM simulation
>>>added (1xxx xxxx xxxx). New ECHO-G Erik2 simulation just published in
>>>GRL from Gonzalez-Ruoco et al. added (1xxx xxxx xxxx). Reconstruction
>>>"envelope" replaced by new shading of overlaps in the temperature
>>>reconstructions. Correction of some labelling errors. Those runs
>>>that did not include 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling are
>>>dotted or dashed after 1900 (the two low ones also omitted CH4,
>>>N2O, CFCs, O3, hence still cool despite omitting aerosol cooling).
>>>The ECHO-G Erik1 simulation with the very out-of-equilibrium
>>>initial conditions is dashed. Finally, the extra panel with the
>>>new EMIC runs is included as panel (e), again with the new shading
>>>of overlapping temperature reconstructions.
>>>
>>>Keith suggests sending to Stefan and Fortunat too for their views
>>>- can you do that (they may now be gone for the weekend, of
>>>course).
>>>
>>>Best wishes and sorry this is late. Am I right in thinking that
>>>the only other possible-TS figure is the location maps? Still
>>>working on those (had very little time in last 2 days due to media
>>>etc. attention re. Science paper).
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
> Climate and Environmental Physics,
> Physics Institute, University of Bern
> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
> Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
--
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/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1139942831.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Invitation to an EU project
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:47:11 +0000
Clare, Keith,
Any thoughts on this?
Phil
From: "Andras Vag" <andras.vag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Invitation to an EU project
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:00:25 +0100
Organization: ATLAS
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Prof. Jones
My name is Andras Vag, I am working for a Hungarian organization (ATLAS Innoglobe),
which deals with environmental consultancy.
We are preparing an EU project proposal for the following call: Scientific Support to
Policies, Identifier: [FPxxx xxxx xxxxSSP-5-A] Budget: 77 million
Closing Date(s): 22 March 2006 at 17.00 (Brussels local time)
Specific programme: [Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area] ,
Activity area(s): [Policy-orientated research]
[1]http://fp6.cordis.europa.eu.int/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP6DetailsCallPage&call
_id=268
Are you / CRU is interested in the cooperation? The co-work with you would be a great
honour for us and definitely would improve the quality of the project.
Please see the attached Letter of Invitation to the planned project. I hope you like the
idea.
Best wishes
Andras Vag
ATLAS Innoglobe Ltd.
Magdolna str 6.
1221 Budapest
Hungary
xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]andras.vag@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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachLetterOfInvitation.pdf"
References
1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox13876.html??
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox13876.html??
Original Filename: 1140209561.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Fwd: URGENT review requested
Date: Fri Feb 17 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: URGENT review requested
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Hi Eystein, Keith and Fortunat - this is a special request for help from the Euro team,
so I know I have solid feedback by the time I get to work tomorrow am. Please respond
asap (using track changes if you can).
1) Tomorrow I have to send the TSU our Robust Findings and Key Uncertainties Table. I
have attached this table. Please edit, and if you think a Finding or Uncertainty is
missing, please suggest exactly how you think it should be worded, and, if it is a
Finding, suggest which existing one it should replace (I suspect they don't want more,
but we could try). Please keep in mind this table will be part of the TS (not our
chapter), and they must be VERY policy relevant - this is not the place for things a
policy maker would not understand. Also, we need to use plainer English than in our Exec
Summary bullets.
2) I also attach the latest Exec Summary, with the latest from Keith and Fortunat (e.g.,
reordered as you suggested). I will send this in to the TSU tomorrow too, so if you want
to read and edit (PLEASE USE TRACK CHANGES), that'll help too, but this is less
important than working on the Robust/Key table.
Many thanks! Cheers, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Suggestions re Box - see attached
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
[1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
2. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1156988605.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:43:25 +0200
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Hi Keith,
John should have the latest versions of the comments file and the chapter text, i.e. the
ones that went out for LA review this summer. I believe he is after some more specific
answers in the comments and not so much changes to the text, and has selected the
bristlecone issue, the divergency issue and the verification and robustness issues. If you
are unsure what comments or tetx he refers to, I think the best thing is for to ask John
for the specific comments he thinks are not adequate, or the specific lines of text which
he suggests changed. It seems he needs some reassurance rather than you writing much new in
terms of comments and text, so the best would be to talk to him and ask what he needs you
to do to the documents.
Best wishes,
Eystein
Envelope-to: Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:12 +0100
To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs
X-UEA-Spam-Score: -101.6
X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -13.8 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
-15 From is listed in 'whitelist_SA'
0.1 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
0.0 BODY: HTML included in message
1.1 BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
Eystein
John sent these remarks - have not talked with him yet - but not sure what is now
required
Keith
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,132,1154908800";
d="scan'208,217"; a="17827006:sNHT58118592"
Subject: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:14:52 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs
Thread-Index: AcbBRrj0FPNJH9bQTyCswuNw7Ln3bw==
From: "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.1
X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Hi Keith
I have tried to cindense what I think the main issues for the and what the response is
below. The weakest area seems to be statistical significance and by implication the
likely/ very likely statements. I can't think of any easy solution - in the TAR for
detection and attribution we used 95% limits on stats tests and them downrated them to
allow for other uncertainties.
I am interested in your comments
John
Issues
1. Reliance on Bristlecone pine -
Response - the issues are in calibration period- they agree with other indicators for
the rest of the record
2. Centring of principle components leads to "hockeysticks"-
Response - this makes only a small difference when standardised data used.
Comment - Would be useful to know which reconstructions do and donot make this
assumption- this could strengthen the response
3. The divergence issue-
Response - it is only apparent in high latitudes, and only with some trees.
Comment- Do we know what happens if we eliminate those records with a divergence
problem. The wider issue is whether or not it is reasonable to extend the
reconstructions outside the calibration range.
4. There are different ways of verifying reconstructions and assigning significance
levels( calibration period or seprate verifying period, different statistics)
Response ?
Comment- it is difficult in the text to gauge how well reconstructions are validated -
eg using the calibration period to estimate errors as opposed to an independent period
clearly makes a difference. This is important where "likely", "very likely"are used-
based on what statistics? I think this is the area where I think the current response is
weakest
5. Robustness- Burger and Cubasch show a wide range of results using different
assumptions-
Response ?
Mann makes a reasoned defence- there are other checks and tests which would rule out
many of the arbitrary assumptions explored by Cubasch and Burger, but this is not clear
in the response to M&M etc
--
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/
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All
Original Filename: 1160755490.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Keith,
I also figured this might be what you say, and I understand where you've
coming from. This represents a bit of a dillemma too, as it seems
unprofessional at best that Zorita and Von Storch have not made their
code public, when we of course have made ours public.
There are other sources where we could have gotten the GKSS data--I'm
checking w/ Caspar for confirmation. I know that the Cane group has it,
and I believe other groups have it nows too. So frankly, it is
effectively now 'public domain' whether VS and Zorita like it or not!
I propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will include
a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed that we get
similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll leave it at that.
We don't need to show that result necessarily, unless the
editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certaintly don't have to
reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned, there are enough
groups out there that now have it, that VS and Zorita would not know the
source, and we would not reveal it.
We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have confirmed
our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested above. Meanwhile,
we can pursue a more thorough, official collaborative effort in the future.
Thoughts on this?
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
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Return-Path: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2xxx xxxx xxxx) on mail.meteo.psu.edu
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Received: from tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (tr12g05.aset.psu.edu [128.118.146.135])
by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C5B204B4A
for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185])
by tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k9DFpkiX2199660
for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from [139.222.130.167] (helo=ueams2.uea.ac.uk)
by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1GYP3d-0000kt-V7
for mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:50 +0100
Received: from [139.222.104.74] (helo=angara.uea.ac.uk)
by ueams2.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51)
id 1GYP3d-00037Y-JU; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:45 +0100
Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.0.20061013163526.03552e98@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:36:51 +0100
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: GKSS results
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
In-Reply-To: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="=====================_48573031==_"
X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos
X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO
X-PSU-Spam-Hits: -2.599
<x-flowed>
Mike
Tim and I have discussed this round and round and our response is attached
what do you think
best wishes Keith
At 17:33 10/10/2006, you wrote:
>Dear Tim/Keith,
>
>I hope all is well with both of you.
>
>We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both
>the CSM simulation, and now more recently the GKSS simulation data
>we got from you. There are some methodological developments we'll
>describe soon, related to what is the most reliable regularization
>method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least squares.
>We are now leaning towards the latter because of potential
>non-convergence problems in some cases w/ the former. More on that soon.
>
>More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the
>attached plot, RegEM works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short
>calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx, corresponding to years xxx xxxx xxxxin the
>attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we used
>rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values).
>
>The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the
>full NH series well throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation,
>it does modestly underestimate the warmth of the earliest centuries
>in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else, including the
>LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to problem
>of correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR methods.
>
>The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show
>this result in a (very short!) J. Climate response we need to
>finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005) J. Clim by Zorita and
>Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course,
>and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver
>that this would be an acceptable course of action. We are hoping
>you are in agreement with this?
>
>please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days.
>
>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
>
>http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>
>
>
>
--
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/
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy documentseudoraattachletter to Mike - 131.10.06.doc"
Original Filename: 1161261884.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
Certainly not, and sorry for not clarifying. This is the response to the
J. Climate comment by Von Storch that we're talking about here. The
final draft is due this week, and so that's why I needed to check if you
& Tim wanted co-authorship if we were going to show the GKSS result.
We can certainly plan to do a more detailed followup analysis jointly, I
would very much enjoy that. Something we've talked about doing is a set
of experiments with "mixed proxies" where the proxies have a variable
combination of surface temperature and precip components--it will be
very interesting to see what happens in these cases.
Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for collaboration, where we
could apply this to several different models including CSM and the
models you guys are working with?
let me know what you think.
thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Great Mike - but hope this does not mean that you will exclude our
> possible contribution to this paper
> Keith
>
> At 13:52 18/10/2006, you wrote:
>
>> thanKs Tim. As luck would have it, zorita is providing the data to
>> Caspar anyway so this should now be a moot point. We'll keep you guys
>> updated on things,
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subj: Re: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
>> Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:37 am
>> Size: 6K
>> To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>
>> Hi Mike, your suggested compromise is acceptable to both Keith and
>> me. Good luck with the J. Clim. response. Cheers, Tim
>>
>> At 17:04 13/10/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>> >Keith,
>> >
>> >I also figured this might be what you say, and I understand where
>> >you've coming from. This represents a bit of a dillemma too, as it
>> >seems unprofessional at best that Zorita and Von Storch have not
>> >made their code public, when we of course have made ours public.
>> >
>> >There are other sources where we could have gotten the GKSS
>> >data--I'm checking w/ Caspar for confirmation. I know that the Cane
>> >group has it, and I believe other groups have it nows too. So
>> >frankly, it is effectively now 'public domain' whether VS and Zorita
>> >like it or not!
>> >
>> >I propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will
>> >include a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed
>> >that we get similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll
>> >leave it at that. We don't need to show that result necessarily,
>> >unless the editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certaintly
>> >don't have to reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned,
>> >there are enough groups out there that now have it, that VS and
>> >Zorita would not know the source, and we would not reveal it.
>> >
>> >We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have
>> >confirmed our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested
>> >above. Meanwhile, we can pursue a more thorough, official
>> >collaborative effort in the future.
>> >
>> >Thoughts on this?
>> >
>> >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
>> >
>> >http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Return-Path: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2xxx xxxx xxxx) on
>> mail.meteo.psu.edu
>> >X-Spam-Level:
>> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
>> autolearn=ham
>> > version=3.1.3
>> >X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >Received: from tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (tr12g05.aset.psu.edu
>> [128.118.146.135])
>> > by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C5B204B4A
>> > for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> (EDT)
>> >Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk
>> [139.222.130.185])
>> > by tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with ESMTP id
>> k9DFpkiX2199660
>> > for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >Received: from [139.222.130.167] (helo=ueams2.uea.ac.uk)
>> > by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
>> > id 1GYP3d-0000kt-V7
>> > for mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:50 +0100
>> >Received: from [139.222.104.74] (helo=angara.uea.ac.uk)
>> > by ueams2.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51)
>> > id 1GYP3d-00037Y-JU; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:45 +0100
>> >Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.0.20061013163526.03552e98@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
>> >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:36:51 +0100
>> >To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >Subject: Re: GKSS results
>> >Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >In-Reply-To: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >References: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >Mime-Version: 1.0
>> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>> > boundary="=====================_48573031==_"
>> >X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
>> >X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
>> >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>> >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos
>> >X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO
>> >X-PSU-Spam-Hits: -2.599
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >Tim and I have discussed this round and round and our response is
>> attached
>> >
>> >what do you think
>> >
>> >best wishes Keith
>> >
>> >At 17:33 10/10/2006, you wrote:
>> >>Dear Tim/Keith,
>> >>
>> >>I hope all is well with both of you.
>> >>
>> >>We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both
>> >>the CSM simulation, and now more recently the GKSS simulation data
>> >>we got from you. There are some methodological developments we'll
>> >>describe soon, related to what is the most reliable regularization
>> >>method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least
>> >>squares. We are now leaning towards the latter because of potential
>> >>non-convergence problems in some cases w/ the former. More on that
>> soon.
>> >>
>> >>More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the
>> >>attached plot, RegEM works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short
>> >>calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx, corresponding to years xxx xxxx xxxxin
>> >>the attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we
>> >>used rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values).
>> >>
>> >>The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the
>> >>full NH series well throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation,
>> >>it does modestly underestimate the warmth of the earliest centuries
>> >>in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else, including
>> >>the LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to
>> >>problem of correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR
>> methods.
>> >>
>> >>The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show
>> >>this result in a (very short!) J. Climate response we need to
>> >>finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005) J. Clim by Zorita and
>> >>Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course,
>> >>and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver
>> >>that this would be an acceptable course of action. We are hoping
>> >>you are in agreement with this?
>> >>
>> >>please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days.
>> >>
>> >>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
>> >>
>> >>http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >--
>> >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, Academic Fellow
>> 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
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1170724434.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email:
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Return-Path: X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Received:
from tr12n04.aset.psu.edu (tr12g04.aset.psu.edu [128.118.146.130]) by mail.meteo.psu.edu
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 160CA2D00B0 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:53:xxx xxxx xxxx(EST) Received:
from web60817.mail.yahoo.com (web60817.mail.yahoo.com [209.73.178.225]) by
tr12n04.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with SMTP id l160rCcf2019402 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007
19:53:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: (qmail 49251 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 2007 00:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Conten
t-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
b=folyoWjSumv93mmwcsECLmtGDEGDd6Y3/mv2WavTLrekb/5qH8IhkAvbh8+QfRCfOALVKIAxeGEmhPVbFkhVMGOET
Ykx4oF2q6wyDIVXVl+BSd06vv8o6hjSKJ/M+li1R05sH7KOixpNoxvSdjQNCDt1US3zQI3bmCWA4epZNw8=;
X-YMail-OSG: gSuRbqAVM1nhqat8Zt4GNlp5xY8qoAOh_P_TmtEgvuaLnZ0ixbR.Ev2V_eFEhTnCZQ-- Received:
from [128.115.27.11] by web60817.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:53:07 PST
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:53:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST) From: Curt Covey Subject: IPCC and sea level
rise, hi-res paleodata, etc. To: Christopher Monckton , Fred Singer Cc: Jim Hansen ,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Clifford Lee In-Reply-To: <20061229145211.611FC1CE304@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="xxx xxxx xxxx0723187=:47787"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <805971.47787.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO X-PSU-Spam-Hits: 0 Christopher and
Fred,
Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
above-referenced subjects.
It is indeed striking that IPCC's estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
(not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
taken a pass on Hansen's argument. The IPCC says their estimates are "excluding future
rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
lacking."
In this one respect (sea level rise) I agree with today's Journal editorial that the
science is not yet settled. Unfortunately, the editorial runs completely off the tracks
thereafter by (1) comparing 2006 vs. 2001 surface temperatures, among all the 150 or so
years on record, and (2) asserting a "significant cooling the oceans have undergone since
2003" based apparently on one published data-set that contradicts all the others. It is
not appropriate to cherry-pick data points this way. It's like trying to figure out
long-term trends in the stock market by comparing today's value of the Dow with last
Tuesday's value.
Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann's
without showing alternates. Phil's Jones' data was also available at the time. Focusing
so exclusively on Mann was unfair in particular to Mann himself, who thereby became the
sole target of criticism in the Wall Street Journal etc.
It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last
year's NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so. Of
course, like any good scientist Mann argues that his methods get you closer to the truth
than anyone else. But the bottom line for me is simply that all the different studies find
that the rate of warming over the last xxx xxxx xxxxyears is unusually high compared with
previous centuries.
Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
on Page 8, "Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
[pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . ." The
wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
-- and would appreciate seeing both Christopher's report mentioned in the Journal editorial
and Fred's comment on Rahmstorf's article published in Science last week.
Best regards,
Curt
Christopher Monckton <monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Dear Mr. Covey - Many thanks for coming back to me so quickly. You mention Hansen's recent
papers. I have recently been looking at an (attached) earlier projection of his - the
projection of temperature increase which he made to the US Congress in 1988, effectively
starting the "global-warming" scare. Updating his graph shows that annual global mean land
and sea surface air temperature is not rising anything like as fast as his
attention-grabbing but now manifestly-misconceived Scenario A suggested. Indeed, it is
beginning to look as though temperature is beginning to fall below his estimate based on
CO2 having been stabilized in 1988. Morner, the world's leading authority on sea level, has
been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC's sea-level
projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996
report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely
defines whatever t he IPCC says as the "consensus", then not only does the "consensus" not
agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.
As to future world population, I did some research on this several years ago, because the
UN was making alarmist noises and this alerted me to the likelihood that we were being fed
political propaganda masquerading as science. I learned that the prime determinant of dP in
any population is the general level of prosperity in that population. As prosperity
increases, dP tends to zero. The prosperity factor is many times more potent as an
influence on dP than even enforced, artificial contraception or child-killing. Since I
expect world prosperity to increase in the coming century, I regard it as near-certain that
dP will tend to zero in the next half-century. The reason for the plummet thereafter is the
widespread availability and use of artificial methods of birth-control. The combined
effects of rising general prosperity and the general availability of artificial
birth-control on depressing indigenous population are already discernible in all those
Western European populations not having to cope with mass immigration from poorer
countries. In Russia, the indigenous population is falling so fast that Muslims will soon
form more than half the population.
As to the "hockey-stick" problem, the NAS report does state very clearly that, though the
conclusion of Mann et al. is "plausible", evidence going back more than 400 years before
the present is increasingly unreliable, and that very few reliable conclusions can be drawn
if one goes back more than 900 years. This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the
climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are
trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This
should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses: but
anyone with diplomatic knowledge of the fast-emerging, fast-growing fast-polluters such as
China, India, Indonesia and Brazil will tell you that the ruling regimes in these countries
will not try to prevent their people from enjoying the fossil-fuelled economic growth we
have already enjoyed unless and until the science is honest, the uncertainties are admitted
and the case is strengthened by the accumulation of measurements and the improvement of
analytical techniques in the coming years.
Finally, you are right to take me to task for using words such as "rubbish" and "useless".
I apologize. That said, a validation skill not significantly different from zero indicates
that no valid scientific conclusion may be drawn from the "hockey-stick" graph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Covey"
To: "Christopher Monckton"
Subject: Sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:05:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST)
Dear Dr. Monckton,
Thanks for copying me on your correspondence with Fred and prompting me to look again at
IPCC sea level rise estimates for 2100. I agree you are comparing like-for-like. The
2001 report has an upper limit of 0.7 meters for the A1B scenario. If the 2007 report
lowers this to 0.43 meters (or if the number gets raised again before the report is made
final) it will certainly be appropriate to ask why. After reading Hansen's recent
papers, I don't see how to justify such small upper limits.
It also seems obvious to me (and apparently to you but not to Fred) that the A2 scenario
would entail more sea level rise than A1B. Regarding the relative likelihoods of
scenarios, I don't agree with you that it's "almost certain" that world population will
"plummet" in the second half of this century.
Regarding the issue of recent vs. earlier global warming, when I look at the totality of
data compiled by North et al. this year for their NAS / NRC report (see attached
graphic), it seems clear that most of the warming since about 1850 (or 1900) occurred in
recent decades. Going farther back in time, the data are of course more uncertain and
estimates vary, but it appears that the warming rate for the 20th century was unusually
high compared with the past 2000 years. This conclusion follows whether or not one
includes Mike Mann's data.
For the record, I must add that I do not share your characterization of Mann's work as
"rubbish" or "useless." Nor do I see a situation of "flagrant dishonesty in which the
UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and
extreme claims has been properly demonstrated."
Sincerely,
Curt Covey
Christopher Monckton <monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Dear Fred, - Many thanks for sending me this exchange. Some comments:
Temperature: This question, like so many others to do with supposed "climate change", is
bedevilled by the recency of reliable, instrument-based observations. Nevertheless, some
conclusions can be attempted. The Dalton Minimum is generally considered to have come to an
end in 1910. The five-year mean global land and sea surface air temperature anomaly for
1xxx xxxx xxxx, calculated from NCDC annual figures, was --0.3579K. By 1940 there had been a
rapid increase of 0.4700K to +1121K. By 2004 (again taking the five-year average, including
2006) there had been a further increase of +0.4413K to +0.5534. The mean annual increase in
the 30 years 1xxx xxxx xxxxwas thus 0.0157K more than two and a quarter times greater than the
0.0069K mean annual increase in the 64 years to 2004. Mean global temperature has hardly
risen at all in the five years since the IPCC's last report. And the fact of the
20th-century temperature increase tells us nothing of the cause. It is interesting, for
instance, that the polar icecaps on Mars are receding, inferentially in response to
increased solar activity. At any rate, it is certain that anthropogenic planetary warming
is not responsible. It is possible, therefore, that most of the warming both before and
after 1940 was heliogenic.
Sea level: Your correspondent does not disagree with my statement that the IPCC has revised
its upper-bound estimate of sea level rise to 17 inches (0.43m). He says, however, that
this upper bound is based on the A1 scenario, by which world population will peak in
mid-century at ~9bn and fall thereafter. So was the 2001 report's upper bound of 0.88m. I
was correctly comparing like for like. The Sunday Telegraph, which reported these figures,
has been told that the revisions arise from "better data" now available to the IPCC,
supporting skeptics' conclusions that the IPCC's figures are little better than exaggerated
guesses. Morner (2004) concludes firmly that there is little evidence for sea level rising
any faster now than it has in geologically-recent times. Your correspondent says that the
A2 scenario is "business-as-usual": in fact, it is an extreme scenario regarded by very
nearly all serious demographers as absurdly unrealistic, in that it posits an increase in
world population to 15bn by 2100, when it is now almost certain that rising prosperity and
the consequent decrease in birth rates will cause population to peak somewhere between 9bn
and 10bn in mid-century, and plummet thereafter.
Reliability of the IPCC's reports: I understand that the IPCC's 2007 draft does not contain
an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of
Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from
zero". In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have
confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the
peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been
useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to
use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the
main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus".
The supposed scientific "consensus": Your correspondent seems unaware of the letter written
by 61 Canadian and other scientists in climate and related fields to the Canadian Prime
Minister. At the end of the attached commentary on Al Gore's recent attempt to rebut my
articles on climate change in the Sunday Telegraph, beneath the references, I have appended
the full text of the letter and the names, qualifications and then-current affiliations of
all 61 scientists. Al gore and others tend to lean rather more heavily than is wise upon a
single, rather bad one-page essay in Science for their contention that there is a
scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was
anthropogenic. The essay was by Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928
abstracts mentioning "climate change" published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson
ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the
"consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more
careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the
search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some
12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117
articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus"
as defined by Oreskes"; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or
outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit
agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious
defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science
at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his
had been widely reported on the internet, his paper would not be published. As far as I can
discover, Science has not published any corrigendum to this day, providing further
confirmation of what I have long suspected: that the leading peer-reviewed journals, having
unwisely taken strongly-political editorial positions on the question of climate change,
are no longer objective.
The need for honest science: It was only after years of increasingly-public pressure that
Nature was induced to oblige Mann et al., the authors of the useless "hockey-stick" graph
that starred in the IPCC's 2001 report, to publish a mealy-mouthed, partial and
unsatisfactory corrigendum. In such an environment of flagrant dishonesty in which the UN
and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme
claims has been properly demonstrated, it is in my view unreasonable to expect China,
India, Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-polluting countries to deny to themselves the
fossil-fuelled economic growth which we in the West have been fortunate enough to enjoy.
Until there is honest science, no one will believe either the UN or the journals to the
extent of adopting the expensive and (on my calculations) probably futile remedial measures
which they and their supporters so stridently advocate. - Christopher
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Fred Singer"
To: "Curt Covey"
Subject: Re: Belated response to "Say You're Sorry"
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
At 07:15 PM 12/18/2006, Curt Covey wrote:
Received your 5 May 2006 e-mail via Andy Revkin last week. Regarding the Wall Street
Journal and "other forums that substitute quips, showmanship, hyperbole, and conjecture
for substantial discussion," the following recent quips from their Letters to the Editor
may interest you:
Fred Singer's claim (13 December) that "more than 70% of the warming observed since the
end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 occurred before 1940, and thus before much
human-emitted CO2." Fred has been saying this for a long time. I think it was true 20
years ago. Up-to-date records (e.g. this year's NAS report from North et al.) show that
much more than half the warming since c.1850 has occurred after 1940.
Dear Curt, I am sure you are aware of the fact that such ratios depend entirely on
the choice of time intervals. I don't want to quibble but surely the relevant fact
is that most agree (incl IPCC -- but not Tom Wigley) that the pre-1940 warming was
mostly due to natural causes.
Lord Monckton's claim (13 December) that "The U.N. [presumably IPCC] is about to cut its
high-end estimate of sea-level rise in 2100 from three feet to just 17 inches." We are
not supposed to discuss IPCC reports before they become final, but the last draft I saw
does indeed project 17 inches (0.43 meters) of sea-level rise as the high-end climate
model estimate from Emissions Scenario A1B. The scenario itself, however, is one in
which (to quote IPCC) "global population peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter,
and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies" has atmospheric CO2
leveling off by the end of the century. A business-as-usual scenario (like A2) would
give much higher sea-level rise by 2100.
I don't think so. But you will have to read my forthcoming response to Rahmstorf (in
SciencExpress). Meanwhile, peruse the attached.
Senator Inhofe's comment today (18 December) that "60 scientists" together with "Claude
Allegre, a leading French scientist who is a member of both the U.S. and French National
Academies of Sciences" have concluded that agreements like Kyoto are "unnecessary"
because "the cause of global warming is 'unknown.'" Presumably true, but so what?
Allegre is an award-winning geochemist; the other 60 scientists are unidentified. There
are tens of thousands of members of the American Geophysical Union alone (many of whom
are petroleum geologists). I'm sure you can find a few hundred to support any claim you
want to make about global warming.
I am one of the xxx xxxx xxxxand I am sure you know most of the other 59.
Best for 2007! Fred
S. Fred Singer, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
1600 S. Eads St, #712-S
Arlington, VA 22xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: 703/xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http ://[2]www.sepp.org
<singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Read about what is really causing warming
Unstoppable Global Warming : Every 1500 Years
(Natural climate cycles as seen in the geological record)
by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
Rowman & Littlefield (20xxx xxxx xxxxpp. $25.00 plus $5 S&H
Send tax-deductible donations to SEPP
<< Supreme arguments2.doc >>
--
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com << nrc_2006_figS1.jpg >>
--
______________________________________________________________________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. [3]Get started! Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachcovey_glwarm_Feb07.pdf"
References
Visible links
1. http://www.sepp.org/
2. http://www.sepp.org/
3. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
Hidden links:
4. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=en-mail_a_01
5. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=en-mail_a_01
Original Filename: 1177158252.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:24:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ben Santer" <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don't think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the
huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with
nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.
How about "I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but
I was unable because he doesn't have such a paper because he has not done
any constructive work!"
There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct
if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the
metadata do not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be
used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a
trivial manner will undermine his case.
Kevin
> Hi Phil,
>
> This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
> for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
> facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
> can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
> thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
> entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
> landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
> they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
> possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The
>
> So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
> legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
> feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
> longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
> become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
> in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
> place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
> contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
> development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
> bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
> easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
> tougher in the states),
>
> mike
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>> Kevin,
>> Have a look at this web site. I see you're away.
>> The websites can wait, but scroll down to the letter below
>> from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479
>>
>> One is about data from a paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)
>>
>> Also there is this email (below) sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was
>> one of the co-authors on the 1990 paper. Wei-Chyung is in
>> China, and may not yet have seen this. When he's back in
>> Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is
>> all malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get
>> any thoughts from their experiences.
>>
>> If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I'm talking
>> to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.
>>
>> On the 1990 paper, I have put the locations and the data for
>> the rural stations used in the paper on the CRU website. All
>> the language is about me not being able to send them the
>> station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't
>> have this information, as we have much more data now
>> (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
>> more stations in western USSR are as well.
>>
>> As for the other request, I don't have the information on
>> the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.
>> We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from
>> Jim Renwick recently) , but we don't keep a source code
>> for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and
>> only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly
>> by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>>
>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
>> all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
>> scientists.
>>
>> A lot of the issues are in various papers, but they never
>> read these. Also certainly no use talking to them.
>>
>> In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson will
>> be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>> letter knocked me back a bit.
>>
>> I seem to be the marked man now !
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "D.J. Keenan" <doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: retraction request
>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Dr. Wang,
>> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
>> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
>> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from
>> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
>> 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have
>> substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have
>> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
>> distant--over 20 km.
>> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>>
>> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
>> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
>> histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>>
>> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
>> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I
>> have received no response.
>>
>> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
>> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
>> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
>> university at Albany.
>>
>>
>> Douglas J. Keenan
>> http://www.informath.org
>> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>
>
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Original Filename: 1177163150.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: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,
This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The
So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
tougher in the states),
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Kevin,
> Have a look at this web site. I see you're away.
> The websites can wait, but scroll down to the letter below
> from Keenan - the last sentence.
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments
>
> and
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479
>
> One is about data from a paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)
>
> Also there is this email (below) sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was
> one of the co-authors on the 1990 paper. Wei-Chyung is in
> China, and may not yet have seen this. When he's back in
> Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is
> all malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get
> any thoughts from their experiences.
>
> If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I'm talking
> to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.
>
> On the 1990 paper, I have put the locations and the data for
> the rural stations used in the paper on the CRU website. All
> the language is about me not being able to send them the
> station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't
> have this information, as we have much more data now
> (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
> more stations in western USSR are as well.
>
> As for the other request, I don't have the information on
> the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.
> We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from
> Jim Renwick recently) , but we don't keep a source code
> for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and
> only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly
> by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>
> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
> all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
> scientists.
>
> A lot of the issues are in various papers, but they never
> read these. Also certainly no use talking to them.
>
> In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson will
> be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
> letter knocked me back a bit.
>
> I seem to be the marked man now !
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> From: "D.J. Keenan" <doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: retraction request
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
> Dear Dr. Wang,
> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from
> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
> 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have
> substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have
> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
> distant--over 20 km.
> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>
> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
> histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>
> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I
> have received no response.
>
> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
> university at Albany.
>
>
> Douglas J. Keenan
> http://www.informath.org
> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>
>
>
>
> 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
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1177423054.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
office for a few days.
This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
scientists I know.
Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.
The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
- in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
this basic message.
Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
Science Review Group meeting in May?
With best regards,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> All,
> Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
> away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
> till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
> no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
> hears.
> I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
> responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
> for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
> be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
> The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
> in any response.
> The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
> resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
> 3 months.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the attacks
>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>> K
>>
>>
>>> I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>> you to respond to that. but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>> about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>> way.
>>> In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as
>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys and
>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>> to
>>> construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling
>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble
>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>> some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>> seems like a good thing to do. How about "I tried to get some data from
>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!" There is
>>> no
>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have to
>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental data
>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>> do
>>> not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>> manner will undermine his case. Kevin Hi Phil, This is all
>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>> thing
>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might be
>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on
>>> the
>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is
>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised. Of
>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they want
>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>> (let
>>> alone even the trends for China). The So they are simply hoping to blow
>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The last
>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to
>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power here
>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>> rants
>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would advise
>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the states),
>>> mike Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Have a look at this
>>> web site. I see you're away. The websites can wait, but scroll down to
>>> the letter below from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments and
>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479 One is about data from a
>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990) Also there is this email
>>> (below)
>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>> he's
>>> back in Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is all
>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any thoughts
>>> from their experiences. If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>> well,
>>> but I'm talking to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out. On the 1990 paper, I have put the
>>> locations and the data for the rural stations used in the paper on the
>>> CRU website. All the language is about me not being able to send them
>>> the station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't have
>>> this information, as we have much more data now (much more in Australia
>>> and China than then) and probably more stations in western USSR are as
>>> well. As for the other request, I don't have the information on the
>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database. We are adding in
>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>> don't keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have
>>> multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>> things
>>> roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does all come from
>>> the
>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from scientists. A lot of the issues
>>> are
>>> in various papers, but they never read these. Also certainly no use
>>> talking to them. In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>> will be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>> letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man now !
>>> Cheers Phil From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" Cc: "Phil
>>> Jones" Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>> +0100
>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>> Jones
>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>> problems.
>>> In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>> that can be classified as follows. 49 have no histories 08 have
>>> inconsistent histories 18 have substantial relocations 02 have
>>> single-year relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 The above
>>> contradicts
>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim is
>>> crucial for the research conclusions. I e-mailed you about this on
>>> April
>>> 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>> meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response. I ask
>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>> in
>>> Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to
>>> publicly
>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>> Albany.
>>> Douglas J. Keenan http://www.informath.org phone xxx xxxx xxxx2 The
>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research
>>> Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxxSchool of Environmental
>>> Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxxUniversity 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 xxxxWalker Building FAX:
>>> (814)
>>> xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>> Box
>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>
>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science
>>> Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
>>> xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> The
>>> Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Park,
>>> PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>> ___________________
>> Kevin Trenberth
>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>> PO Box 3000
>> Boulder CO 80307
>> ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1177534709.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really
like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley. They seem to
have no understanding of how science is actually done - no appreciation
of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once
again, just let me know how I can help....
It will be good to see you in Exeter. I'm looking forward to that. I'll
have two nights in London after the meeting, and am hoping to spend some
time wandering around the British Museum.
I met a very nice lady (Stephanie) while I was giving a series of
climate change lectures in Puerto Rico back in January. She's a
Professor at the University of San Francisco, and (fortuitously),
specializes in the policy implications of climate change, risk
assessment, etc. She also likes hiking and climbing. It's fun to "have a
life" again (as they say over here).
Best wishes to you and Ruth,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for the thoughts. I'm in Geneva at the moment,
> so have a bit of time to think. Possibly I'll
> get the raw data from GHCN and do some work to replace
> our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw
> (i.e. as transmitted by the NMSs). This will annoy them
> more, so may inflame the situation.
>
> Got some ideas/thoughts from Mike, Kevin and Gavin Schmidt.
>
> Some of the stuff on the Climat Audit web site is awful.
>
> Will also be talking to someone at UEA, is they have
> anything useful to say.
>
> Also talking to Wei-Chyung about how he'll respond.
>
> I will be in Exeter. Get back from Tarragona on the
> Weds am, so should be there for dinner on the first day.
>
> Lots of odd things going on at the HC by the way.
>
> See you in Exeter.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
>> office for a few days.
>>
>> This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
>> irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
>> scientists I know.
>>
>> Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
>> completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
>> that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
>> real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
>> else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
>> records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
>> tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
>> scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
>> ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
>> inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
>> mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
>> quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
>> etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.
>>
>> The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
>> They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
>> This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
>> - in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
>> radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
>> profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
>> accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
>> changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
>> towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
>> in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
>> in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
>> now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
>> past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
>> this basic message.
>>
>> Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
>> there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
>> Science Review Group meeting in May?
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>> All,
>>> Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
>>> away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
>>> till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
>>> no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
>>> hears.
>>> I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
>>> responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
>>> for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
>>> be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
>>> The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
>>> in any response.
>>> The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
>>> resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
>>> 3 months.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the
>>>> attacks
>>>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>>>> you to respond to that. but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>>>> about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>>>> way.
>>>>> In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests
>>>>> as
>>>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys
>>>>> and
>>>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>>>> to
>>>>> construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling
>>>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble
>>>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>>>> some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>>>> seems like a good thing to do. How about "I tried to get some data
>>>>> from
>>>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!" There is
>>>>> no
>>>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have
>>>>> to
>>>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
>>>>> data
>>>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>>>> do
>>>>> not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>>>> manner will undermine his case. Kevin Hi Phil, This is
>>>>> all
>>>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>>>> thing
>>>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might
>>>>> be
>>>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on
>>>>> the
>>>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say
>>>>> is
>>>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised.
>>>>> Of
>>>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they
>>>>> want
>>>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>>>> (let
>>>>> alone even the trends for China). The So they are simply hoping to
>>>>> blow
>>>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The
>>>>> last
>>>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is
>>>>> to
>>>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power
>>>>> here
>>>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>>>> rants
>>>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would
>>>>> advise
>>>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the
>>>>> states),
>>>>> mike Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Have a look at
>>>>> this
>>>>> web site. I see you're away. The websites can wait, but scroll down
>>>>> to
>>>>> the letter below from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments and
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479 One is about data from
>>>>> a
>>>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990) Also there is this email
>>>>> (below)
>>>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>>>> he's
>>>>> back in Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is all
>>>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any
>>>>> thoughts
>>>>> from their experiences. If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>>>> well,
>>>>> but I'm talking to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out. On the 1990 paper, I have put
>>>>> the
>>>>> locations and the data for the rural stations used in the paper on
>>>>> the
>>>>> CRU website. All the language is about me not being able to send them
>>>>> the station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't have
>>>>> this information, as we have much more data now (much more in
>>>>> Australia
>>>>> and China than then) and probably more stations in western USSR are
>>>>> as
>>>>> well. As for the other request, I don't have the information on the
>>>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database. We are adding
>>>>> in
>>>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>>>> don't keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have
>>>>> multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>>>> things
>>>>> roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a
>>>>> while.
>>>>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does all come from
>>>>> the
>>>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from scientists. A lot of the issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> in various papers, but they never read these. Also certainly no use
>>>>> talking to them. In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>>>> will be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>>>> letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man now !
>>>>> Cheers Phil From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" Cc:
>>>>> "Phil
>>>>> Jones" Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score:
>>>>> 0.0
>>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>>>> Jones
>>>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>>>> problems.
>>>>> In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>>>> that can be classified as follows. 49 have no histories 08 have
>>>>> inconsistent histories 18 have substantial relocations 02 have
>>>>> single-year relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 The above
>>>>> contradicts
>>>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim
>>>>> is
>>>>> crucial for the research conclusions. I e-mailed you about this on
>>>>> April
>>>>> 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>>>> meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response. I ask
>>>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>>>> in
>>>>> Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to
>>>>> publicly
>>>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>>>> Albany.
>>>>> Douglas J. Keenan http://www.informath.org phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>>>>> The
>>>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic
>>>>> Research
>>>>> Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxxSchool of Environmental
>>>>> Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxxUniversity 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 xxxxWalker Building FAX:
>>>>> (814)
>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>>>> Box
>>>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System
>>>>> Science
>>>>> Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> The
>>>>> Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University
>>>>> Park,
>>>>> PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>> ___________________
>>>> Kevin Trenberth
>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>> PO Box 3000
>>>> Boulder CO 80307
>>>> ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>