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: 1123529413.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: wow]
Date: Mon Aug 8 15:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
OK. I agree with her on most. I was looking at the file over the
weekend. The new 3.8.4 has helped as will the new ones on DTR
when we get them In the longer run I would like to get 3.7.1 and
3.7.2 redone - at least plotted better.
Also, in time, we will need to get the Sahel plot updated to
have 2004 and 2005 in. Neil Ward was here for a few hours last
week. He's now back at IRI, but he was surprised by the UK
media and their reporting of the famine in Niger -
saying it was all down to lack of rainfall. June in the region
was above normal. Problems last year and locusts are the
reason. The real reason may not matter on the ground, but
the problems will recur as very little is planted this year.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:10 08/08/2005, you wrote:
I had an email exchange with Susan the preceded this.
She is making an early start on reading the chapter and started with ours, using the
version I posted on thursday: so she is referring to the figure file for Ch 3.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Which ones ? Which version is she looking at?
Susan's been suggesting figures for the paleo chapter. At
least we haven't had to cope with that.
Phil
At 15:01 08/08/2005, you wrote:
FYI
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: wow
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Susan Solomon [1]<ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: [2]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
References: [3]<p06020416bf194a5ef9bc@[140.172.240.163]>
[4]<4001.128.117.68.3.1123283585.squirrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[5]<p0602040bbf19a6388172@[140.172.240.163]>
[6]<4148.24.8.173.64.1123285320.squirrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
some amazing figures in your chapter, wow
Susan
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [7]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [9]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:p06020416bf194a5ef9bc@%5B140.172.240.163%5D
4. mailto:4001.128.117.68.3.1123283585.squirrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:p0602040bbf19a6388172@%5B140.172.240.163%5D
6. mailto:4148.24.8.173.64.1123285320.squirrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
9. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1123611283.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jason E Smerdon <jsmerdon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: SH figure for IPCC AR4
Date: Tue Aug 9 14:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Henry Pollack <hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Thanks for the comments Jason/Henry. Just wanted to let you know that I've dropped the
uncertainty ranges to be consistent with the other records and also cut the borehole series
at the median sampling dates.
Cheers
Tim
At 16:45 04/08/2005, Jason E Smerdon wrote:
Hi Tim,
Henry and I apologize for not being available the last few days. Henry has been out of
town and I have been in the midst of moving to New York. Nevertheless, we had the chance
to cross paths today and discuss the figure and caption. We hope it is not too late to
add our two cents.
We agree that the uncertainties on the borehole curves should be removed to make the
display more consistent. We have also decided that it would be best to truncate the
borehole curves at their median logging dates. For Australia and Africa those years are
1972 and 1986, respectively. If you wish to discuss the sampling densities, the total
number of boreholes in Australia and Africa are 57 and 92, respectively. The SH has a
total of 165 holes, compared to 695 in the NH.
Let us know if you need anything else. I hope this has not arrived too late and good
luck with everything.
Best Regards,
Jason
Original Filename: 1123612499.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Original Filename: 1123622471.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: jto@u.arizona.edu,eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Section on last 2000-years
Date: Tue Aug 9 17:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Peck and Eystein
in case you tried (!), my phone has been broken for the last few days (yes - honestly).
I am sorry I had to rush off - and stay longer than I had anticipated . The funeral was
delayed
while a post-mortem examination had to be held to establish the precise cause of death.
Ironic
that dad had struggled on having had at least 3 heart attacks, 2 strokes, chronic diabetes
and partial liver and kidney failure for some years (besides being virtually immobile and
completely blind for 18 months). All in all , though it was a release, the actual demise
was sudden and unexpected and I managed to arrive too late to be with him at the end.
Given the time constraint , this "final" revision is not as considered as it might have
been , but we have tried to take into account all comments available , and have given
considerable attention to the IPCC terminology and emphasis on the bullet points . At this
stage , however, there are some clear areas where future work will be required to keep
abreast of recent developments and , perhaps, to re-balance the emphasis and structure. I
apologise for not having responded directly to Fortunat, Stefan, Ricardo.Olga, David and
Tom, but please be aware that I have considered all of their comments and done what I could
to address them .Thanks Fortunat and Ricardo (and Ed - who should be added to the list of
CAs) for the text and Figures and Henry and Jason for the help and data . David's
suggestions about re-ordering the paragraphs was particularly difficult to resolve in my
own mind , because I do see the logic , but equally , did not want to interfere with the
time line approach to describing post- TAR work that underlies the current structure. as
you can see I decided to leave the order as it was. It would be great if David and Fortunat
could check cross Chapter referencing (eg in relation to forcings and detection chapters).
We can revisit this , and the issue of McIntyre and McKitrick (centering of PCs in Mann et
al reconstruction - which is clearly unfounded) until such time as the numerous responses
are published.
The new SH section is in , and the MWP box slightly amended to take account of the new
Figure.
Peck, I have considered your text on the regional section - and you will see that I have
edited out some relating to future (and association between drought and SSTs) . I feel
strongly that you are venturing into "observational" territory and speculation beyond what
we should say. I have also amended the bullet points to reflect this. YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE
ARBITERS and it is up to you if you wish to re-insert , but I will give you a continuing
argument later about our overstepping the "paleo" boundary. Note also that the bullet on
European summer 2004 has bee altered to reflect what was a last minute , one-sentence ,
insertion in the first paragraph regarding Jurg Lutterbacher's Science paper - as there was
no mention of it otherwise. We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am
not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of "likely" , "very
likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.
Tim has been a rock in the last minute rush here - not only doing the Figures , but also
helping with the text. I am really grateful to him. He has sent the text , with some
comments, and highlighted references, that need attention. If Oyvind can identify
references and handle these problems with Endnote , we are also really grateful.
The final references , if missing , are probably in the current text, the previous Endnote
library , or in sections of text sent by Ricardo, Fortunat, Peck and Eystein. I trust when
you guys have stiched the new text back in and the Figures etc. we will perhaps get a last
chance to correct and check references etc. Thanks
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1123685358.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Lemke <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 3.9
Date: Wed Aug 10 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Peter, Kevin
Not having seen Ch 4, I agree that the term 'local heat budget' can be ambiguous. Are
you also discussing the issue of 'dirty' glaciers? For the Alps, the Swiss (well Wilfried
Haeberli) reckon that temperature alone cannot explain all the retreat in some recent
summers (especially 2003). Would local heat budgets include the effects of local
anthropogenic pollutants making the snow less white?
Lonnie Thompson has been on Quelccaya in the last couple of months and reports
that it is in an awful state. Like Kilimanjaro, the recent annual layers aren't
distinguishable. Lonnie reckons a lot of retreat is caused by sublimation. On Quelccaya
Lonnie and Ray Bradley have put up an AWS (on Sajama too). They've not got as much
data as they hoped as both have fallen over due to melting and also the guide who
helped them put one on Quelccaya later went back and brought it back down to
try and sell !
I'm happy with Kevin's draft, if local heat budgets is explained in your chapter.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:29 09/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Peter, Thanks (sorry I can't get rid of the blue).
I am cc'ing Phil on this: Georg has suggested instead the following.
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent with strongest recession rates in the 1930s and
1940s and after 1990 and little changes around 1970. Tropical glacier changes are
synchronous with global ones, Kilimanjaro being an exception with radiatively forced
constant retreat of the plateau ice. 20^th Century glacier retreats are consistent with
temperature variations. Before 1900, glacier fluctuations are probably not only
reflecting temperature variations but mainly precipitation anomalies. In the Tropics,
glacier changes are related to atmospheric moisture variations which, in turn, correlate
with sea surface temperatures in the respective source regions and varying atmospheric
circulation modes. In some regions (Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram) moderately increased
accumulation is observed indicating an amplified hydrological cycle.
I am not altogether happy with this wording. In this bullet it reflects findings from
your chapter and ours (wrt precip, temp, circulation etc). I would propose the
following as a compromise between the old text and the proposed:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America, Africa and Tibet are synchronous with global ones, and all have shown
declines in recent decades. If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years.
Local temperature records all show a slight warming, but not of the magnitude required
to explain the rapid reduction in mass of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro), which
instead depends on local heat budgets. Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and before 1900, glacier fluctuations
are probably not only reflecting temperature variations but mainly precipitation
anomalies. In some regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades
is consistent with changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter
precipitation (e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram,
and Fjordland of the South Island of New Zealand).
Note I have retained a bit more detail on the regions affected, and tried to stay away
from "radiatively forced" (whatever that means) and vague terms like "amplified
hydrological cycle". I also want to retain more specific reference to the precip and
circulation changes going together. Whether "local heat budgets" is adequate is my main
question? I gather this is related to changes in cloud and sunshine, increased heating
that goes into melting and ablation rather than temp increases. Should we spell that
out? Do you deal with that? I also did not add the detail on the dates in first
sentence as those should be in your chapter and they don't relate directly to the other
variables.
Are my terms "20th century" and "recent decades" correct?
Thanks
Kevin
Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Kevin,
after his return from the Kilimanjaro Georg has supplied a modification to the text in
3.9 concerning the glaciers.
I have made a tiny change further down in the text replacing "order" by "approximately"
meaning 1mm/year and not implying, say, 3mm/year.
Best regards,
Peter
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1123708417.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed Aug 10 17:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Fine with me. Let's hope they agree by tomorrow.
Phil
At 17:11 10/08/2005, you wrote:
Ok so here is how it now reads:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases. Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange.
Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900 in glacier fluctuations. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Sort of arguing that way. It is also the before 1900 part. Precip and temp anomalies
are important at all times for glaciers. Their influence didn't change around 1900.
So what about Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900.
I'd not got the implication. Adding also makes it clearer.
Phil
At 16:56 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Phil is arguing for changes to 4.5. Maybe the statement is too strong although it is
consistent with the last para of 4.5.2.? An alternative might be: Precipitation
anomalies are important before 1900. In the context this implies in addition to
temperature.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Georg,
I've now also looked at the figures you sent from Ch 4. Kevin has the sentence,
which Peter may have added? I reckon this is too strong. Can we omit it?
Sentence is
Before 1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies.
Reasoning
Is this a general statement. I wonder if we need it. Oerlemans uses estimated
glacier termini positions (and related ELA changes) to infer past temperatures
and you have his figure. I know he assumes precip to have remained essentially
the same but he backs out temperature. Also glaciers in Europe advanced
in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was cooler then (more so in winter than
summer). I also have a paper resubmitted to JGR where Alpine precip shows
no long-term changes since 1800. This uses loads of stations and is from the
ALP-IMP project that ZAMG co-ordinate (Reinhard Boehm).
So the advances are caused by more precip, but the retreats by higher summer T
and maybe less winter precip.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:23 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Georg
Many thanks for the attachments. I had looked at the ZOD but this is much more
informative. Based on your comments and the 4.5 section I have come up with the
following bullet. Note that here we are writing for a general audience. I have now
tried to include more clearly the factors involved. I think these are consistent with
your chapter but the language in your chapter might be improved in a couple of places.
For instance an important forcing is radiation (solar and IR) which are greatly impacted
by clouds, water vapor, and albedo (the dirty cover on top of snow Phil referred to),
and I thought these could be brought out better in your chapter. These are perhaps more
basic that temperature lapse rates and precipitation gradients which are consequences.
In 4.5.2 you use the term "radiatively forced" but it is not clear what that means. I
suggest using some of these terms. Also it is not clear what "amplified hydrological
cycle" means. [FYI, the expectation is for more intense precipitation, not necessarily
for more total (owing to pollution effects). The former is determined by increased
water vapor]. I took some of your words in the following. We need to emphasize that
glaciers are not just high latitudes. I retained Kilimanjaro as that has received a lot
of publicity. Some of this is necessarily abrupt, but there will be a reference to 4.5
immediately following this bullet. So the recent reversals in NZ and Norway can not be
dealt with here.
Let me know if you have further suggestions. Again, many thanks
Regards
Kevin
o The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases. Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange. Before
1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Georg Kaser wrote:
Kevin,
Have many thanks for compiling and editing 3.9. I agree that the "radiatively forced"
and the "amplified hydrological cycle" should be removed and I also agree with Phil's
comment on the "local heat budget". In glaciology, the sum of each energy flux toward
and from the respective snow/ice surface is considered to make up the "local heat
budget". This also includes the sensible heat flux.
There are some other points in the text which I would like to comment:
1. Tropical glaciers are considered those in the South American Andes between Venezuela
and Norhern Boliva, those in East Africa and those in Irian Jaya (New Guinea). In
Chapter 4, Tibetean glaiers are taken as part of the Asian High Mountains (find the
present state Chapter 4.5. "Glaciers and Ice Caps attached).
2. Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, Norway and NZ cannot be merged in the respective
statement. In Alaska and Patagonia, moderately increase accumulation is accompanied by
strongly enhanced ablation making the mass balances markedly negative. From
glaciological site, no studies concerning atmospheric circulation patterns are provided
in the respective studies.
In the Karakoram mountains, enhanced accumulation has led to considerable glacier
advances, increased winter accumulation from the Westerlies is only suggested but not
subject of detailed studies. Heavy debris loads on the tongues probably prevent from
enhanced abaltion.
In Southwest Norway and NZ South Island, glaciers advances have ceded around 2000. I
don't know whether their advances shall still be mentioned in extension; I would not do
so beyond the respective statement in Ch. 4.5.
3. "If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years." This sentence can stand
for every mountain region in the world and should not be used for tropical mountains
only. Everywhere, many small glaciers have disappeared since the 19th Century maxima and
many will disappear soon in the Alps, the Caucasus, in the Asian High mountains etc. as
well as in the Tropics. From the today's perspective Mount Kenya, all Mountains in the
Rwenzori Range except Mt. Stanley, Irain Jaya will be without glaciers soon, probably
sooner than Kilimanjaro; well known and studied glaciers in the Andes like Chacaltaya,
Charquini and Pastoruri will also disappear soon. This is not because of a particular
regional climate feature but just because they were already small when retreats started.
As you will see from Figure 4.5.5. Kilimanjaro's plateau ice is particular, slope
glaciers are less. The plateau glaciers retreat from their vertical walls where no
accumulation is possible and since they do so, there is no way to find an equilibrium
besides disappearance. The vertical walls are a result of cold temperatures high
sublimation and strong solar radiance. There is no way to replace the retreat by ice
dynamics on the flat summit plateau. Slope glaciers are only partially subject of this
kind of ablation and their retreat rate seems to have slowed markedly (See insert of Fig
4.5.5). If Kilimanjaro is mentioned in 3.9. it must also be added that it is a
particular case with complex relation to climate change.
4. All studies which investigate tropical glacier retreat and climate show the dominance
of changes in energy and mass balance terms which are related to the atmospheric
moisture content rather than locally measured air temperatures. Both increased and
reduced moisture can lead to negative mass balances and it has done so in most cases
studied (Cordillera Blanca, Peru, Cordillera Real, Bolivia, Antisana, Ecuador, Rwenzori,
Mt. Kenia, Kilimanjaro). Yet, wherever respective analyses were made, correlations were
found to anomalies in ENSO or Indian Oceans Indian Ocean Dipole Mode respectively
strongly indicating global warming as the principle reason of th eretreat.
I give you this lengthy explanation in order to make sure that the very compressed and
condensed bullet in 3.9. gets the right content. I have started to change your paragraph
suggestion accordingly but have to admit that, not being a native speaker myself, it
either becomes very long or very awkward.
I also appreciate Phil's statement about Quelccaya and Sajama. Doug Hardy and Ray
Bradley run AWS' there since a couple of years as well as on Kilimanjaro with all the
problems of recording data at such high elevation sites. Doug is preparing a paper on
the climate records there but it has still not reached it's final state.
Information on sublimation on Quelccaya is not published such as the positive mass
balances and advances on several Andean glaciers between 1998 and 2002 are not
published. Kilimanjaro has experienced both ablation as well as accumulation layers on
the horizontal surfaces over the last years. I have just come back from fieldwork there
last week and the last half year was a mass loss year. Being very much involved into
tropical glaciers myself, I have to accept that such detailed information would be
available for several hundreds of glaciers in the world each one providing 10 or more
publications. Going into such details cannot be the aim of the report, I am afraid.
Best wishes,
Georg
Georg Kaser
-------------------------------------------------
Institut fuer Geographie
Innrain 52
A-6020 INNSBRUCK
Tel: +xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[2]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
1318
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [4]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[5]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1123860080.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Storch drift]
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Caspar,
Thanks for the comments. Frankly, Von storch is being duplicitous here.
He may tell certain audiences (like the NCAR group last month) that he
is not suggesting that the GKSS simulation is reealistic, because he
knows he'll get skewered if he claims othewise. But then he turns around
to the press, and talks about how the Moberg et al reconstruction
matches their model, etc. I frankly consider this dishonest, at best!
If what Stefan says is true (that the entire long-term trend, including
the cold LIA in the model, is all due to the spinup problem), then it
completely invalidates the use of that model for testing statistical
reconstruction methodologies which require physically-consistent
patterns of variance in the calibration period to reconstruct the past.
But that's a separate issue.
As we now know, the far more damning fact is that Von Storch et al
knowingly applied a procedure which is not the MBH98 procedure, and they
think they can get away w/ admitting this now in some obscure Italian
journal which isn't even in the ISI database. Tim/Phil/Keith: you may
not know about the latter, but Caspar should be able to fill you in on
this shortly...
Meanwhile, lets enjoy the media fiesta on MSU...
Mike
Caspar Ammann wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> this is very important news indeed. The runs will get a huge hit from
> this. The only way a coupled model can get a continued trend (without
> invoking an energy leak somewhere) is when there is a terrible
> deep-ocean spin up available even for their present day
> initialization, not to speak about the subsequent shock to
> pre-industrial conditions. Did you really say 1.5 degrees? Wow, that
> is quite a bit. Seems to me they must have used Levitus ocean data
> with an atmospheric restart file, then hit it with the solar/GHG
> changes. It seems rather large of a drop to come from a fully coupled
> stage. 1.5 degrees is about 30% too large to be exclusively from the
> atmospheric composition and solar irradiance, thus my suspicion
> regarding levitus. Now it would be important to know what happend
> because some people are using the run as a possible real-world
> scenario (although Hans in talks does not claim so).
>
> Caspar
>
> PS Now, bare in mind that the Science paper applies to the
> reconstruction, and for the general discussion the influence of spinup
> should not make that big of a difference (other than inflating the
> difference of the coldest period to the calibration period, which
> creates some issues discussed by Mike previously).
>
>
>
> Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject:
>> Storch drift
>> From:
>> Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Date:
>> Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:37:27 +0200
>> To:
>> mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>> To:
>> mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> CC:
>> Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa
>> <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> here is some interesting new info on the drift problem in the VS04
>> runs. Irina Fast and Gerd B
Original Filename: 1123881502.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Storch drift]
Date: Fri Aug 12 17:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Yes it was him !
Phil
At 17:17 12/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
Yeah--I've been told that one of the co-authors of the chapter (w/ the initials D.R.)
has behaved poorly. Fortunately, w/ Peck, Stefan R., and Keith all authors on the
chapter, it sounds as if the voices of reason are prevailing...
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
OK. Keith is also away next week. He's
already gone.
He'll need to look more at all this before the
next IPCC meeting in December.
You should have seen some of the crap
comments he got. Not yours, but some
of the other authors on the paleo chapter.
People who you think ought to know
better. Most relating to MM. All mostly
ignored. You'll be able to register to get
the draft by early Sept.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 12/08/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Can you tell Keith (confidentially) that Ammann and Wahl are submitting a comment to
Science pointing out that von Storch knowingly did not apply the MBH98 procedure, and
that all of the conclusions in that paper are wrong! There may be calls on Science to
retract VS04, because the mistake undermines every single conclusion!!
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
We have the Italian paper Well Keith does for his AR4 work.
Submission day for AR4 is today by the way.
I think the Italian journal is the one from a conf I went to
3 weeks after the Berne meeting. I didn't bother sending
anything to the Italian meeting either, just like Berne. The
journal the Italians were planning did look obscure when
I was there, but I didn't write anything down, as I had
no intention of sending anything.
Yes the MSU stuff is out. There will be something
in Nature next week on it.
Off next week as a break from IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:21 12/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Caspar,
Thanks for the comments. Frankly, Von storch is being duplicitous here. He may tell
certain audiences (like the NCAR group last month) that he is not suggesting that the
GKSS simulation is reealistic, because he knows he'll get skewered if he claims
othewise. But then he turns around to the press, and talks about how the Moberg et al
reconstruction matches their model, etc. I
frankly consider this dishonest, at best!
If what Stefan says is true (that the entire long-term trend, including the cold LIA in
the model, is all due to the spinup problem), then it completely invalidates the use of
that model for testing statistical reconstruction methodologies which require
physically-consistent patterns of variance in the calibration period to reconstruct the
past. But that's a separate issue.
As we now know, the far more damning fact is that Von Storch et al knowingly applied a
procedure which is not the MBH98 procedure, and they think they can get away w/
admitting this now in some obscure Italian journal which isn't even in the ISI database.
Tim/Phil/Keith: you may not know about the latter, but Caspar should be able to fill you
in on this shortly...
Meanwhile, lets enjoy the media fiesta on MSU...
Mike
Caspar Ammann wrote:
Stefan,
this is very important news indeed. The runs will get a huge hit from this. The only way
a coupled model can get a continued trend (without invoking an energy leak somewhere) is
when there is a terrible deep-ocean spin up available even for their present day
initialization, not to speak about the subsequent shock to pre-industrial conditions.
Did you really say 1.5 degrees? Wow, that is quite a bit. Seems to me they must have
used Levitus ocean data with an atmospheric restart file, then hit it with the solar/GHG
changes. It seems rather large of a drop to come from a fully coupled stage. 1.5 degrees
is about 30% too large to be exclusively from the atmospheric composition and solar
irradiance, thus my suspicion regarding levitus. Now it would be important to know what
happend because some people are using the run as a possible real-world scenario
(although Hans in talks does not claim so).
Caspar
PS Now, bare in mind that the Science paper applies to the reconstruction, and for the
general discussion the influence of spinup should not make that big of a difference
(other than inflating the difference of the coldest period to the calibration period,
which creates some issues discussed by Mike previously).
Michael E. Mann wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Storch drift
From:
Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date:
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:37:27 +0200
To:
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To:
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
CC:
Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Mike,
here is some interesting new info on the drift problem in the VS04 runs. Irina Fast and
Gerd B
Original Filename: 1124742148.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Last week's events
Date: Mon Aug 22 16:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben and Tom,
Congratulations on the paper coming out on Aug 12.
I did talk to Nature about the three papers.
Last week seems to have been a good one to have had off.
I did this because of the IPCC submission deadline of Aug 12.
As you said Tom, there were some stupid messages going
around. If only these people would try and write peer-review
papers, provided they get proper reviews. The one from
Sonia should be kept as it proves that E&E is not a
proper journal.
I almost missed the one with Pielke's resignation in. Is this
going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably
now you'll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe
you'll be able to ignore them?
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1124994521.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:28:41 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Christoph,
It also looks OK to me. The bit highlighted in blue, should probably say
something like ...identify the key issues.
I agree with Mike that the last two names on the list should be removed.
I have sent an email about the 4th meeting of IPCC, which I
think is June 26-30, 2006. Just checking it is still that week, so
there won't be a clash.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:40 25/08/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>Dear Christoph,
>
>Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible
>participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) we
>concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be
>unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to
>contribute to concensus and progress. A preferred alternative who was
>mentioned was Simon Tett (though, it was pointed out, he may not be able
>to participate for other reasons). We also noted that both Keith B. and
>Tim. O are in the same European project as the two individuals in
>question, and could adequately (better, in my opinion) represent any
>contributions to the discussion from that project.
>
>mike
>
>Christoph Kull wrote:
>
>>Dear Phil, Keith, Mike and Heinz,
>>After dealing with the PAGES OSM the past weeks I made an attempt to
>>finalize our "Past Millennia Workshop Concept" in order to contact CLIVAR as
>>soon as possible for requesting support.
>>I incorporated your comments and suggestions in a balanced way and hope that
>>finally all of you may agree to the presented attached draft.
>>
>>Please get back to me with final remarks by Monday next week. I will
>>afterwards contact the CLIVAR office.
>>
>>All the best, thanks a lot for your cooperation and help!
>>Looking forward setting up a hopefully successful project.
>>Christoph
>
>
>--
>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.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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1125067952.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Phil et al,
I agree on Mike Evans. I'm afraid I don't agree on Zorita. He has engaged in some very
nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine
who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von
Storch. Given this, I don't believe he can be involved in constructive dialogue of the
sort we're looking for at this workshop. There are some similarly problematic issues w/
Cubasch, who like von Storch, who has engaged in inflammatory and ad hominem public
commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.
If the Germans need to be represented here, I would suggest instead someone from the
Potsdam group, such as Eva Bauer, who has been doing some very interesting work on
modelling the climate of the past 2K,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Christoph,
I have checked with IPCC and their 4th meeting is in the June 26-30
week in Bergen..
As for Heinz's suggestions
- Mike Evans would be OK
- I'm nor sure that Mikami would contribute much
See Keith's comment on Zorita
Cheers
Phil
At 14:39 26/08/2005, Heinz Wanner wrote:
Dear Christoph,
I have only a few additional comments concerning the planned workshop.
First of all, I support this concept. Related to the topics, I heavily support to
organize a discussion about how we can reconstruct different paremeters independently.
It is important to try to reconstruct air pressure as a basic circulation parameter - if
possible.
Concerning the participants:
- Write GooSSe;
- Mikami from Japan (Tokyo Metropolitan University) could be an interesting Asian
participant;
- You mentioned Kevin Trenberth or Mark Cane. Both are absolutely okay, but why not
invite a younger colleague like Mike Evans from Tucson?
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to invite him (and
Eduardo Zorita?);
- For me Ulrich Cubasch is an interesting modeler with good ideas about paleomodeling.
Maybe Gavin can comment this when he is back from his China trip?
Cheers, Heinz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Dr. Heinz Wanner
Prof., Director NCCR Climate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Office Institute: Office NCCR Climate:
Institute of Geography NCCR Climate
Climatology and Meteorology Management Center
Hallerstrasse xxx xxxx xxxx Erlachstrasse 9a
CH-3012 Bern CH-3012 Bern
Phone +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx Phone +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/ [2]www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch
[3]wanner@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 [4]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: [5]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[6]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/
2. http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/
3. mailto:wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1125085162.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Heinz Wanner" <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Christoph Kull" <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:39:22 +0200
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorsten Kiefer" <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Christoph,
I have only a few additional comments concerning the planned workshop.
First of all, I support this concept. Related to the topics, I heavily support to organize
a discussion about how we can reconstruct different paremeters independently. It is
important to try to reconstruct air pressure as a basic circulation parameter - if
possible.
Concerning the participants:
- Write GooSSe;
- Mikami from Japan (Tokyo Metropolitan University) could be an interesting Asian
participant;
- You mentioned Kevin Trenberth or Mark Cane. Both are absolutely okay, but why not invite
a younger colleague like Mike Evans from Tucson?
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to invite him (and
Eduardo Zorita?);
- For me Ulrich Cubasch is an interesting modeler with good ideas about paleomodeling.
Maybe Gavin can comment this when he is back from his China trip?
Cheers, Heinz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Dr. Heinz Wanner
Prof., Director NCCR Climate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Office Institute: Office NCCR Climate:
Institute of Geography NCCR Climate
Climatology and Meteorology Management Center
Hallerstrasse xxx xxxx xxxx Erlachstrasse 9a
CH-3012 Bern CH-3012 Bern
Phone +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx Phone +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax +41 (0xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/ [2]www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch
[3]wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
References
1. http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/
2. http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/
3. mailto:wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1127491287.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Polar Urals
Date: Fri Sep 23 12:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
Can you crossdate these two series (trw and mxd) for the Polar Urals?
Particularly check the 1032 value when only 3 samples.
Found this on the blogg site that Tim sent round. Whatever you do,
don't respond on the blogg.
Cheers
Phil and Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1127614205.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To:
Original Filename: 1128000000.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: McIntyre and D'Arrigo et al (submitted)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:20:00 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck,
I've already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein's
and Peck's benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre
downloading a PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and
then apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that
the paper is currently going through at JGR.
I think this is an abuse of McIntyre's position as an IPCC reviewer.
Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they *do* want this
taken further. So...
Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael Manning.
Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?
Cheers
Tim
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
>To: "Rob Wilson" <rob.wilson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rosanne D'Arrigo"
><druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
>Cc: <K.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>Dear Rob and Rosanne,
>
>I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC
>reviewer! The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I
>think there's no need for the data you used to be publicly available
>until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the
>editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could
>clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very
>unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by
>others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
>was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is
>the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of
>a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by
>contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms -
>fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to
>submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper
>was already in press. In your case, with the editor's decision
>still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
>influence the decision in your case - and this certainly should not happen.
>
>The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed
>to before downloading your manuscript were:
>
>"This site also provides access to copies of some submitted,
>in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited
>in the draft WG I report. All such material is made available only
>to support the review of the IPCC drafts. These works are not
>themselves subject to the IPCC review process and are not to be
>distributed, quoted or cited without prior permission from their
>original authors in each instance."
>
>I don't think that contacting the journal editor with criticisms is
>"only to support the review of the IPCC drafts".
>
>I will take this issue up with the chapter lead authors and the WG1
>technical support unit - unless you prefer that I didn't. Please let me know.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 08:33 28/09/2005, Rob Wilson wrote:
>>Hi Tim and Keith,
>>please see the e-mail (below) from Steve Macintyre to the Editor of JGR.
>>
>>This seems a major abuse of his position as reviewer for IPCC?
>>
>>In some respects, I don't mind having to address his comments (many
>>of which are already adequately explained I think, although a
>>detailed list of all data used could certainly go in an
>>appendix), but this just seems a bit off. After all, we have
>>addressed the reviewers comments and are currently awaiting a
>>decision. This e-mail may effect the decision greatly.
>>
>>Is he going to do this for all papers he does not quite agree with.
>>
>>comments?
>>
>>Rob
>>
>>----------
>>
>>
>>>From: "Steve McIntyre"
>>><<mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>To: "Colin O'Dowd" <<mailto:jgr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>jgr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>Cc: "Rob Wilson"
>>><<mailto:rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>>> "Rosanne D'Arrigo"
>>> <<mailto:druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>Subject: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
>>>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>Dear Dr O'Dowd,
>>>I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR)
>>>and am writing in respect to a submission to your journal by
>>>D'Arrigo et al., entitled "On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th
>>>Century Warming." This article was referenced in chapter 6 of the
>>>Draft IPCC 4AR and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course
>>>of my review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D'Arrigo, for the
>>>FTP location of the data used in this article or for alternative
>>>access to the data. Dr D'Arrigo categorically refused and I was
>>>referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.
>>>
>>>
>>>Data Citation and Archiving
>>>I point out that AGU policies for data citation and data archiving
>>>(<http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html>http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html
>>>) specifically require that authors provide data citation
>>>according to AGU standards and require that contributors archive
>>>data in permanent archives, such as the World Data Center for
>>>Paleoclimatology. For example, the policy states:
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Data sets cited in AGU publications must meet the same type of
>>>standards for public access and long-term availability as are
>>>applied to citations to the scientific literature. Thus data cited
>>>in AGU publications must be permanently archived in a data center
Original Filename: 1132094873.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: heads up...
Date: Tue Nov 15 17:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike
thanks for this. When time allows we will do a response to this poster and simply post it
on our web page. As others have said , the dating of the chronology in the Urals is not
wrong - but the magnitude of the extreme years in the early Urals reconstruction were not
adjusted to account for inflated variance related to low chronology replication - so they
are sort of right that the emphasis on 1032 is probably overdone.
Anyway thanks again
Keith
At 15:29 15/11/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Thanks Tim, Phil
yes, I never had any doubt he's wrong. In fact he's been wrong about just about every
claim he's ever made. He almost had a point w/ the PCA centering, but as we all know,
that doesn't matter at all in the end. The issue isn't whether or not he's right, as we
all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have enough superficial
plausability to get traction. In this case, they might, so probably good to at least be
prepared.
I was told by a journalist Paul Thacker that his poster got prominent placement,
probably not an accident (see forwarded email). I believe that Mike Schlesinger and
David Karoly were there in the same session, so might be worth checking w/ them. I think
Connie Woodhouse and Tom Wigley were also at the meeting, but not sure...
I suspect that this is the first in a line of attacks (I'm sure Tom C is next in line)
that will ultimately get "published" one way or another. The GRL leak may have been
plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have "Climate
Research" and "Energy and Environment", and will go there if necessary.
They are telegraphing quite clearly where they are going w/ all of this...
Mike
Tim Osborn wrote:
Thanks for this Mike. We'd spotted an earlier draft of his poster and were a bit
concerned about this receiving prominence at the meeting.
Did it arouse much discussion, do you know? Keith and Tom Melvin looked into the dating
a while back when McIntyre first raised it and were quite satisfied with the published
dating I think. Not sure what should be done - unless he submits something for
peer-review. Cheers, Tim
At 14:53 15/11/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
not sure if you guys are aware, McIntyre presented this poster at the CCSP meeting.
Apparently, they gave him a very prominent location, so that everyone entering the
meeting would have seen the poster...
mike
can find at:
<[1]http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/abstracts/p-gc-1.htm>http://www.climatesc
ience.gov/workshop2005/abstracts/p-gc-1.htm
P-GC1.4
More on Hockey Sticks: The Case of Jones et al. [1998]
Stephen McIntyre, <[2]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Multiproxy studies purporting to show 20th century uniqueness have been applied by
policymakers, but they have received remarkably little independent critical analysis.
Jones et al. [1998] is a prominent multi-proxy study used by IPCC [2001] and others to
affirm the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. [1998].
However, the reconstruction of Jones et al. [1998] is based on only 3-4 proxies in the
controversial Medieval Warm Period, including non-arms-length studies by Briffa et al.
[1992] and Briffa et al [1995]. We show that the Polar Urals data set in Briffa et al
[1992] fails to meet a variety of quality control standards, both in replication and
crossdating. The conclusion of Briffa et al. [1995] that 1032 was the "coldest year" of
the millennium proves to be based on inadequate replication of only 3 tree ring cores,
of which at least 2 are almost certainly incorrectly crossdated. We show that an ad hoc
adjustment to the Tornetrask data set in Briffa et al [1992] cannot be justified. The
individual and combined impact of defects in the Polar Urals data set and Tornetrask
adjustments on the reconstruction of Jones et al [1998] is substantial and can be seen
to have the effect of modifying what would otherwise indicate a pronounced Medieval Warm
Period in the proxy reconstruction. Inhomogeneity problems in the Polar Urals and
Tornetrask data sets, pertaining to altitude, minimum girth bias and pith centering bias
will also be discussed.
--
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:
<[3]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
<[4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>[5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/
mann.htm
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: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[8]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
[9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/abstracts/p-gc-1.htm%3Ehttp://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/abstracts/p-gc-1.htm
2. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Emann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
5. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
7. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
9. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1133360497.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC ref. regarding McIntyre and McKitrick
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Thanks Caspar. This is good news. Please keep us posted. Best, Peck
>Hi everybody,
>
>just a quick update that I got word from the Chief Editor of GRL
>(Jay Famiglietti) that our comment in GRL about the MM paper earlier
>this year has finally been accepted. They are now soliciting a
>response from McIntyre and McKitrick, but that should now move
>rather quickly. No official word on the Climatic Change paper just
>yet.
>
>Cheers,
>Caspar
>
>PS Here the full references:
>
>Ammann C.M., and E.R. Wahl, accepted: Comment on "Hockey sticks,
>principle components, and spurious significance" by S. McIntyre and
>R. McKitrick, Geophys. Res. Lett., accepted.
>
>Wahl, E.R and C.M. Ammann, revised: Robustness of the Mann, Bradley,
>Hughes reconstruction of surface temperatures: Examination of
>criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate
>evidence. Climatic Change, revised and in review.
>
>
>--
>Caspar M. Ammann
>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
>1850 Table Mesa Drive
>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
--
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: 1133366680.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | 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: 1133532909.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Esper et al...
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
thought you all would be interested in this. Esper et al have played
right into the hands of the contrarians:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177380,00.html
The wording o their abstract is franklyjust irresponsible...
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>
Original Filename: 1134418588.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HadCRUT2v
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru
Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
Also -- more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
by a single
box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
would be
better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.
I have had to do this in my code -- but you really should fix the 'raw'
gridded data.
For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole represent
the whole
region south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of this
region. It
is pretty obvious to me what is better.
This affects the impression of missing data too of course.
Tom.
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1134497252.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Tom Wigley" <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: HadCRUT2v
Date: Tue Dec 13 13:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Ben Santer" <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear all,
attached is a plot of the monthly anomalies from the only box with non-missing data in the
bottom row of Phil's grid (centred at 87.5 S). This is from HadCRUT2v that I picked up
from the CRU data store in June this year.
Clearly the dates Tom listed are missing in my version too. Furthermore, the values from
1xxx xxxx xxxxare abnormal. They are not all identical, but are all near zero. Perhaps
multiplied by 0.1?
Similar problems are apparent in HadCRUT and CRUTEM2v too.
But CRUTEM2 has no gaps and no abnormal periods at the South Pole, so perhaps CRUTEM2 is
fine? Tom - if it's urgent, you could extract the South Pole time series from CRUTEM2 and
use it to overwrite the other 3 data sets until Phil corrects them.
Regarding the weighting issue...
Given that the grid doesn't have equal-area boxes, there are always going to be compromises
with weighting. Even if you do something to sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about
the isolated boxes around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight
than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1 station in. This is
partly reasonable because of differences in spatial correlation of temperatures between
tropics and high latitudes, but I'm sure that they don't compensate exactly.
Specifically for the poles...
Putting the temperature data into a single box will clearly underweight its contribution in
area averages (is it significant from a practical point of view once you get to hemispheric
or global scales though?).
Replicating it into all boxes in the bottom row will, on the other hand, gives it too much
weight. If the area weighting is calculated simply as cos(latitude) then the South Pole
data will be given this weighting:
72*cos(87.5) = 3.14
whereas one box on the equator (or just off) will be given this weighting:
1*cos(2.5) = 1.00
so, if replicated around all boxes at 87.5 S, the South Pole would have three times the
weight of a single tropical box (compared with 23 times less weight if South Pole data
appears in only one box).
Perhaps put it in every fourth box, giving a weighting of 0.79 (bit less than tropical,
which is reasonable for spatial correlation reasons)?
Cheers
Tim
At 04:11 13/12/2005, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Tom,
In NZ at the IPCC meeting. Will be here until Dec 17.
When I get back I'm off to Switzerland for Christmas on
Dec 21.
The South Pole shouldn't be missing. I have all the
data for Amundsen-Scott from 1957. I put the data in at
one 5 degree grid box, so it doesn't get overweighted.
The South Pole should be at the last grid box (2592)
in the 72 by 36 array. Putting the data in all 87.5-90S
boxes would overweight the S.Pole stations.
There isn't any data at the N. Pole.
Maybe Tim could check on the missing S.Pole data.
I reckon it should be there in all the datasets CRUTEM2
and HadCRUT2 and the v versions.
Cheers
Phil
> Phil,
>
> Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75
> thru
> Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
> Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
>
> Also -- more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
> by a single
> box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
> would be
> better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.
>
> I have had to do this in my code -- but you really should fix the 'raw'
> gridded data.
>
> For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole represent
> the whole
> region south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of this
> region. It
> is pretty obvious to me what is better.
>
> This affects the impression of missing data too of course.
>
> Tom.
>
Original Filename: 1134526470.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: jen.hardwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [Fwd: Re: HadCRUT2v]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:14:xxx xxxx xxxx(GMT)
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Jen,
There seems to be a problem with the South Pole
box (#2592). The data are in CRUTEM2(v) but not in
HadCRUT2(v). See the plot and email from Tim Osborn.
Email Tim if you can find what is up. The boxes in
the two datasets should be the same.
I'm in NZ at IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: HadCRUT2v
From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, December 13, 2005 1:07 pm
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
"Tom Wigley" <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Ben Santer" <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
attached is a plot of the monthly anomalies from the only box with
non-missing data in the bottom row of Phil's grid (centred at 87.5
S). This is from HadCRUT2v that I picked up from the CRU data store
in June this year.
Clearly the dates Tom listed are missing in my version
too. Furthermore, the values from 1xxx xxxx xxxxare abnormal. They are
not all identical, but are all near zero. Perhaps multiplied by 0.1?
Similar problems are apparent in HadCRUT and CRUTEM2v too.
But CRUTEM2 has no gaps and no abnormal periods at the South Pole, so
perhaps CRUTEM2 is fine? Tom - if it's urgent, you could extract the
South Pole time series from CRUTEM2 and use it to overwrite the other
3 data sets until Phil corrects them.
Regarding the weighting issue...
Given that the grid doesn't have equal-area boxes, there are always
going to be compromises with weighting. Even if you do something to
sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about the isolated boxes
around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight
than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1
station in. This is partly reasonable because of differences in
spatial correlation of temperatures between tropics and high
latitudes, but I'm sure that they don't compensate exactly.
Specifically for the poles...
Putting the temperature data into a single box will clearly
underweight its contribution in area averages (is it significant from
a practical point of view once you get to hemispheric or global
scales though?).
Replicating it into all boxes in the bottom row will, on the other
hand, gives it too much weight. If the area weighting is calculated
simply as cos(latitude) then the South Pole data will be given this
weighting:
72*cos(87.5) = 3.14
whereas one box on the equator (or just off) will be given this weighting:
1*cos(2.5) = 1.00
so, if replicated around all boxes at 87.5 S, the South Pole would
have three times the weight of a single tropical box (compared with
23 times less weight if South Pole data appears in only one box).
Perhaps put it in every fourth box, giving a weighting of 0.79 (bit
less than tropical, which is reasonable for spatial correlation reasons)?
Cheers
Tim
At 04:11 13/12/2005, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Tom,
> In NZ at the IPCC meeting. Will be here until Dec 17.
> When I get back I'm off to Switzerland for Christmas on
> Dec 21.
> The South Pole shouldn't be missing. I have all the
> data for Amundsen-Scott from 1957. I put the data in at
> one 5 degree grid box, so it doesn't get overweighted.
> The South Pole should be at the last grid box (2592)
> in the 72 by 36 array. Putting the data in all 87.5-90S
> boxes would overweight the S.Pole stations.
>
> There isn't any data at the N. Pole.
>
> Maybe Tim could check on the missing S.Pole data.
> I reckon it should be there in all the datasets CRUTEM2
> and HadCRUT2 and the v versions.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75
> > thru
> > Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept
88,
> > Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
> >
> > Also -- more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
> > by a single
> > box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
> > would be
> > better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.
> >
> > I have had to do this in my code -- but you really should fix the 'raw'
> > gridded data.
> >
> > For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole represent
> > the whole
> > region south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of this
> > region. It
> > is pretty obvious to me what is better.
> >
> > This affects the impression of missing data too of course.
> >
> > Tom.
> >
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
Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy documentseudoraattachsouthpole.gif"
Original Filename: 1134572247.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: HadCRUT2v
Date: Wed Dec 14 09:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
At 21:58 13/12/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Before you finalize anything, please let me get back to you with some
additional thoughts. There are some wrinkles that you and Tim don't
seem to have thought of.
Tom.
Tom
One further thing (possibly one of the extra wrinkles?) is that while you could put the S
Pole data from CRUTEM2 (where it seems correct) into HadCRUT2, it isn't quite correct to
put it (as I wrongly suggested) into CRUTEM2v and HadCRUT2v because those should have their
high frequency deviations scaled to remove sample-size-related biases. Only a minor
difference.
Tim
Original Filename: 1134931991.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: more on TS feedback
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Keith, Bette and Eystein:
This email should be read after the one to the entire team - it
provides post LA3/TS feedback on figures. Since Bette is going on a
short vacation, she and I emailed about her new LIG fig before I
left, so she's ready to go when she gets home.
Keith (and Tim), on the other hand, have lots to consider, and I just
wanted to reiterate to you (and Bette) that it's a priority for me
and Eystein to help you brainstorm all these figures. Here are a few
more comments I got on Keith/Tim Figs:
For 6.8:
1) removing the oldest portion of the records from the plot is only ok IF:
-we can justify on an obvious and objective basis - for example that
sample depth hits goes down significantly at ca. 700AD or wherever we
want to chop it.
-We don't remove part of the series that will give rise to accusations of bias
Thus, it might be better to leave as was in the FOD, just to be safe,
or to try multiple versions.
2) had a long talk with Martin Manning about the idea of multiple
plots, vs just the existing one (by the way, the TS team WANTS the
instrumental part of the fig as we agreed to modify in Chap 6
sessions). I think the best idea is to keep the bottom panel as is,
with modifications
- keep the error bars as is
- try a version with some sort of annually-resolved volc forcing
placed at the top of the panel, with eruption (sufate) lines sticking
down farther for big eruptions
- try inserting some representation of average (median? or?) sample
depth along the bottom (time) side of the panel. This will thus show,
lots of sample depth back to ca. 1700, then less and less (in
steps?). Martin suggests we go one step farther and color the sample
depth part of the plot with different colors, based on our expert
judgement of confidence. We could have two or three colors - one
color for the interval overwhich we have "very likely" confidence
(e.g., in the exec summary) and another for just "very." perhaps we
want a third for some term reflecting "don't trust inferences
regarding hemispheric temp that much over this interval" - this will
obviously take some thinking/creativity, but this fig will go all the
way to the TSM, so it's worth the effort.
3) linear axis for sure
4) if would still be good to try a density shaded version of this
plot (instead of all the recon lines) for the TS and SPM. When in
doubt, make an extra version. We can then share with our team and
with Susan.
Thanks for doing this!
Also, FYI, Gabe indicated that her regional plots were not scaled
separately. Surprising, but maybe the models are actually better than
we thought.
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/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1135033853.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "David Willans" <david@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <training@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Training Dates
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hello,
Some dates for your new year diary...
Futerra are launching a series of masterclasses on communicating sustainable development in
early 2006.
Communicating Climate Change on a Local and Regional Level
12.xxx xxxx xxxx.30pm
Thursday 26 January 2006
Communicating Sustainable Development
12.xxx xxxx xxxx.30pm
Thursday 23 February 2006
Communicating Climate Change
12.xxx xxxx xxxx.30pm
Thursday 30 March 2006
Using international case studies and proven communication tools, each session is designed
to build your confidence to plan and implement campaigns.
"Enthusiastic and friendly trainers with a tremendous amount of knowledge" - Past
participant
For more information or to book then please see the attached flyer or visit our [1]website.
The groups will be kept to only 15 people, so please sign up early to avoid disappointment.
The Futerra team wish you a very merry Christmas!
David
David Willans
Consultant
Futerra Sustainability Communications Ltd
[2]www.futerra.co.uk
We've moved! Please note new contact details
Direct Dial: +44 (0xxx xxxx xxxx
Switchboard: +44 (0xxx xxxx xxxx
84 Long Lane
London SE1 4AU
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachFuterra_Masterclass.pdf"
References
1. http://www.futerracom.org/auto.php?inc=case&site_cat=1&site_sub=17&case=0
2. outbind://xxx xxxx xxxxC60442BB81504F4199CB74C59420FE1E049E2A00/www.futerra.co.uk