Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1170724434.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | 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: 1171550268.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EJ on hockey stick
Date: Thu Feb 15 09:37:xxx xxxx xxxx

Thanks Eystein
the sceptic troupe are fading away
At 07:58 15/02/2007, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
I was asked about AR4 and the Hockey stick by a journalist. This was picked up by
McIntyre

Original Filename: 1171901402.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "thomas.c.peterson" <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Marooned?]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:10:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi, Phil,

I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related
commentary below.

I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us.
It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred
Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn't
know how different parts were put together. During the question part,
Bob Livzey said, if you don't know how it is done you should read the
papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web
page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different
papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

Warm regards,
Tom


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html

Nature 445, 567 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445567a

Editorial

"The IPCC report has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from
under the sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous."



--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx


Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmarooned.jpg"

Original Filename: 1172063883.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Melinda Marquis <marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kristen Averyt <averyt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Copy-edited Ch. 3 files
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
I have ftp'd the updated cleaned up files from chapter 3 back onto your ftp site. The
notes accompanying these are attached and are unchanged from yesterday. There are two
references that may not be quite final. These are from Global and Planetary Change and we
have doi's for them as they are published online, but no page numbers as they do not seem
to have appeared yet in print. By the way, there was one notable error in the copy editing
which was confusion over significance and confidence levels. I removed all the references
to confidence levels when it was about significance (of trends etc). I suspect this could
affect other chapters though, so you may want to check that carefully.
The main concerns we have are with the figures, please see the comments on the figure files
and the brief comments in the attached. If you would like me to make any of these changes
(Kristen) or assemble the panels, please let me know.
Regards
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Melinda et al,
I'm happy with the chapter once all the mods - mainly to the figures
- are undertaken. I won't get a chance this weekend, nor the next two days
as I'm away. I might have some more time next week, but I too have spent about
6 hours on Sunday and another 2-3 hours on Monday. So Kevin can send
back the accepted/tracked version of the chapter, the captions and Appendix 3.B.
On the figures, will we get a chance to see the Chapter mocked-up with
figures in their final positions and sizes - as we would do with journal papers?
There are a number, which we'd like to check to make sure the colours
are OK.
I think by the way that you have caught all the spellings correctly. I noted
'fall' changing to 'autumn' and the doubling up of letters in words like
'modelling'. I hear also from Keith Briffa that Ch 6 now spells the word
palaeoclimatic, although we normally drop the extra 'a' even in English
journals.
Cheers
Phil

At 23:14 20/02/2007, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Melinda
Thanks
Phil and I have made a preliminary pass through the material. As Kristen is now
considering the figures, I have attached a preliminary list of the problems. This also
includes some material for you: acronyms. More detail is given on the full figure
file. We have left USA as is in the main text, but I note that the Appendix B was not
copy edited and we have left "United States" there. We have accepted most other changes
even though I would not do them this way! We can send the material back now but I will
wait for a last check by Phil. (I spent over 12 hours on this over the weekend).
Kevin
Melinda Marquis wrote:

Hi, Kevin,
Thank you for reviewing your copy-edited chapter files -- thoroughly and promptly. I'll
try to answer each of your questions.
About the convention for referring to the United States: As this document is published
under the auspices of the United Nations, we are required to use official country names;
the United States of America is to be abbreviated as "USA" for such publications.
Regarding the lower case "antarctica": We have capitalized "Arctic" and "Antarctic"
when they are nouns, and have used lower case "arctic" and "antarctic" when they are
adjectives. We used the AMS Word List
([1]http://www.ametsoc.org/PUBS/Authorsguide/pdf_vs/authguide.pdf) to supplement our
style guide. The AMS list cites "arctic flow" (adj.) and "Arctic Circle" (noun). We
thought it appropriate to treat "antarctic" analogously to "arctic" (the adjectival
form).
About suggested revisions that seem pedantic: If you feel that inserting "the period"
before things like 1961 to 1990 would decrease clarity or change the meaning from what
is intended, then you may of course reject such changes.
Thank you for your careful review. Kristen will be replying to you about the figures.
Please let us know if you have further concerns. We want everything to be correct.
Cheers,
Melinda
Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Melinda
There appear to be changes that I do not agree with. For instance, everywhere we had
"United States" it has been changed to USA. That is not the practice in AMS or AGU
journals. I have also found several instances of Antarctic changed to lower case which
is surely not right!!!! Some changes are very pedantic: inserting "the period" before
things like 1961 to 1990.
Kevin
Melinda Marquis wrote:

Dear CLAs,
Thank you very much for your invaluable assistance during the recent SPM plenary
meeting. As you will realise there are a few remaining steps that need to be completed
before final completion of the WG1-AR4 but these should now be straightforward. This is
to ask for your help in the next of these steps which is to check the copy-edited
version of your chapter.
A professional copy-editor has reviewed all chapters of the AR4 and made some
revisions. In most cases, her suggestions implement our style guide (see attached) for
consistency in punctuation, spelling, grammar and language style across all chapters,
points at which acronyms are spelled out, etc, etc. In a few cases, she has suggested
revised wording for the sake of clarity, improved grammar or such. All these changes
that might have some effect on the meaning of a sentence are shown in track-changes
mode.
We would be grateful if you would now go through these edited chapter files and either
accept, reject, or modify the copy-editor's tracked revisions and return "cleaned up"
files to the TSU. During this step you should also:
* make any remaining necessary and minor corrections to text or tables;
* ensure that any corrections or updates provided to the TSU since the distribution of
the final draft in October 2006, have been included;
* update references that have been published recently by inserting volume and page
numbers, etc;
* add any adjustments to your chapter that arose from the SPM approval process in Paris.
Please return a checked file to us with all tracked changes removed.
Please also remember to check your figures and figure captions
carefully including the axis labels, units used, etc. Annotated text
should already have been edited to follow the styles used in the text
where appropriate. In some cases we will be doing further improvements to
the text fonts used in figures but this is your last chance to ensure
that the wording is correct in all places. If you wish to make any small
revisions to figures, please contact Kristen Averyt
([2]averyt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) as soon as
possible.

Please remember that no substantive changes, or new references, can be made to your
chapter at this stage.
The time line for delivering the camera-ready copy to the publisher is quite tight. We
ask that you please return your final text and figures files to the TSU by Friday, March
9.
You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site.
server: [3]ftp.joss.ucar.edu
account: wg1_gnrl
password: EQ0KW0WG (Please note that these are zeros - not letters.)
directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX
The file names currently contain "_TSU." We ask that you change these characters to
"_CLA" in the files you return to us. Finally please notify us at
[4]ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx when you have uploaded the checked files.
Best regards,
Melinda Marquis
--
Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA/ESRL Phone:
xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC
R/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax:
xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA



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

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305


--
Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA/ESRL Phone:
xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC
R/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax:
xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA



--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail: [7]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis
Section,
[8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

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, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachNotesCopyEditCh32.doc"

References

1. http://www.ametsoc.org/PUBS/Authorsguide/pdf_vs/authguide.pdf
2. mailto:averyt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. ftp://ftp.joss.ucar.edu/
4. mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
7. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
9. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1172776463.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ppt
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:14:xxx xxxx xxxx(GMT)
Reply-to: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Here is the old version for you to compare with... the only noticeable
difference is for the URALS/YAMAL region, which previously had a higher
peak near 1000 AD. Although that was quite a big change, once you average
it with the other two series, the overall mean series shows very little
difference.

Cheers

Tim

On Thu, March 1, 2007 1:57 pm, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Tim
> am back and looking at this now
> thanks
> Keith
> At 12:23 01/03/2007, you wrote:
>>Hi again,
>>
>>please see the attached PDF file. I've not yet put it into powerpoint,
>>because I wanted to check whether it matches what you want, or if you
>> want
>>fewer lines on it etc.
>>
>>Each page is identical layout, for the 3 regions and then the 4th page is
>>for the average across all the data.
>>
>>On each page you have the scatter graphs (and correlation) between the
>>unfiltered and the 10-year smoothed TRW and summer temperature. Plus the
>>3 calibration lines (our normal regression in black, variance matching in
>>orange, and inverting the regression of TRW onto temperature in brown),
>>thin lines between unfiltered data and thick lines between 10-year
>>smoothed data. The solid blue scatter plot points are those used in the
>>1xxx xxxx xxxxcalibration period, the blue circles with a cross in are from
>>outside the calibration period.
>>
>>The top panels show the full 2000-yr reconstructions, with the line
>> colour
>>and thickness coordinated to match the calibration lines in the bottom
>>panels. The only exception is that I have omitted the inverse regression
>>between unfiltered data (the line is shown dotted on the bottom left
>>panels), because this resulted in such huge variance that the curves went
>>way off the vertical scale!
>>
>>In this top panel, all series, including the instrumental (blue), are
>>50-year smoothed. In the Scandinavian panel, there's also the longer
>>Tornedalen summer temperatures overlaid in green.
>>
>>So... I can put each of these into a powerpoint slide.
>>
>>Easily, I could also repeat them for a shorter period and less smoothing
>>(e.g. 1500-present with decadal smoothing, or 1800-present with no
>>smoothing).
>>
>>I could also omit some of the curves if you think 5 reconstruction
>>alternatives per panel is too many.
>>
>>With slightly more time, I could make it so that the powerpoint built up
>>with 1 alternative reconstruction at a time, until all 5 were there.
>>
>>I'll call you soon and we can talk about it.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>On Thu, March 1, 2007 10:17 am, Keith Briffa wrote:
>> > Hi Tim
>> > thanks
>> > I would be happy with only the usual regression but the plots with
>> > different timescales shown - for each and the average series would be
>> > great
>> > cheers
>> > Keith
>> >
>> >
>> > At 09:51 01/03/2007, you wrote:
>> >>Hi Keith -- I forgot to describe the contents of the PPT file I sent
>> >>yesterday. Basically it starts with a few comparisons of the modern
>> >>period between the MXD-based recons and the instrumental data.
>> >>
>> >>First 3 show data only up to 1960.
>> >>(1) Full MXD reconstruction
>> >>(2) Masked MXD reconstruction (masked by availability of instrumental
>> >> temps)
>> >>(3) Masked temperatures (masked by availability of MXD)
>> >>All with 5-year filter
>> >>
>> >>Then the same as above, except the next 3 show data up to 1995 to
>> >>illustrate the decline.
>> >>
>> >>Then a couple more repeating the above, masked MXD then masked
>> >>temperature, but this time without any time-filtering, so you can see
>> >>individual warm and cold years.
>> >>
>> >>Then finally the full MXD reconstruction back to 1400, but only up to
>> >> 1960.
>> >>
>> >>I'm working from home today. I'll redo the calibrated northern
>> Eurasian
>> >>stuff -- do you want all the options again (i.e. forward and inverse
>> >>regression, variance matching, pre-/post-calibration averaging of the
>> >>regions, low and high pass filtering?).
>> >>
>> >>Then we can make any final slides Friday morning if that's ok with
>> you!
>> >>
>> >>Cheers
>> >>
>> >>Tim
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>




Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachold_eurasian.pdf"

Original Filename: 1172871972.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Val

Original Filename: 1172963659.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AR4 Final Input Please check this mail
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 18:14:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Cc: drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Bette Otto-Bliesner" <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Fortunat Joos" <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Val

Original Filename: 1173300731.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Hugues Goosse <hgs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 7RP / Environment (incl. Climate Change)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:52:11 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Hugues,

I agree and what Damien said echoes what Keith is concerned about. We need to expand the
timescale of Millennium AND focus much more on sensitivity and predictability.

best wishes

Eystein

Den 7. mar. 2007 kl. 11.22 skrev Hugues Goosse:

Hi Eystein,
Thanks a lot for the information. I agree with you that it is very important that the
topic "Earth system dynamics: Palaeoenvironmental analysis" includes explicetly our area
of interest. By the way, I have briefly discussed with Damien Cardinal after the meeting
yesterday. He tolds me that the EU has already funded recently a very big project over
the last Millenium, so they will be reluctant to make a new call covering this subject
but we can certainly sell our science in something more general like 'natural
variability and climate predictability'.
All the best
Hugues
Le 15:00 06/03/2007, vous avez

Original Filename: 1173359793.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Richard Somerville <rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:16:33 +0100
Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi,

just a quick reply. I am in on this, and will respond to a draft letter, in the hope that
you will make the first, Richard? I agree that it can be short. It is strange to see this,
knowing that the delegations I spoke to in/after Paris clearly said that the CLAs got it
their way, and that I believe this is the strong common perception we also had as CLAs
about the outcome.

Best wishes,

Eystein

Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 03.11 skrev Richard Somerville:

Dear Fellow CLAs,

The British magazine *New Scientist* is apparently about to publish several items critical
of the IPCC AR4 WGI SPM and the process by which it was written. There is an editorial, a
column by Pearce, and a longer piece by Wasdell which is on the internet and referenced by
Pearce.

I think that this attack on us deserves a response from the CLAs. Our competence and
integrity has been called into question. Susan Solomon is mentioned by name in
unflattering terms. We ought not to get caught up in responding in detail to the many
scientific errors in the Wasdell piece, in my opinion, but I would like to see us refute
the main allegations against us and against the IPCC.

We need to make the case that this is shoddy and prejudiced journalism. Wasdell is not a
climate scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was not in Paris, and is grossly
ignorant of both the science and the IPCC process. His account of what went on is
factually incorrect in many important respects.

New Scientist inexplicably violates basic journalistic standards by publicizing and
editorially agreeing with a vicious attack by an uncredentialed source without checking
facts or hearing from the people attacked. The editorial and Pearce column, which I regard
as packed with distortions and innuendo and error, are pasted below, and the Wasdell piece
is attached.

My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as
possible, would be an appropriate response. I think we ought to say that the science was
absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of
any kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed
point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism; that process would never
converge.

Please send us all your opinions and suggestions for what we should do, using the email
list [1]wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

I am traveling and checking email occasionally, so if enough of us agree that we should
respond, I hope one or more of you (not me) will volunteer to coordinate the effort and
submit the result to New Scientist.

Best regards to all,

Richard

Richard C. J. Somerville

Distinguished Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224

La Jolla, CA 92xxx xxxx xxxx, USA

--

Here's the editorial that will appear in New Scientist on March 10.

Editorial: Carbon omissions

IT IS a case of the dog that didn't bark. The dog in this instance was the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

For several years, climate scientists have grown increasingly anxious about "positive
feedbacks" that could accelerate climate change, such as methane bubbling up as
permafrost melts. That concern found focus at an international conference organised by
the British government two years ago, and many people expected it to emerge strongly in
the latest IPCC report, whose summary for policy-makers was published in Paris last
month.

It didn't happen. The IPCC summary was notably guarded. We put that down to scientific
caution and the desire to convey as much certainty as possible (New Scientist, 9
February, p 3), but this week we hear that an earlier version of the summary contained a
number of explicit references to positive feedbacks and the dangers of accelerating
climate change. A critique of the report now argues that the references were removed in
a systematic fashion (see "Climate report 'was watered down'").

This is worrying. The version containing the warnings was the last for which scientists
alone were responsible. After that it went out to review by governments. The IPCC is a
governmental body as well as a scientific one. Both sides have to sign off on the
report.

The scientists involved adamantly deny that there was undue pressure, or that the
scientific integrity of their report was compromised. We do know there were political
agendas, and that the scientists had to fight them. As one of the report's 33 authors
put it: "A lot of us devoted a lot of time to ensuring that the changes requested by
national delegates did not affect the scientific content." Yet small changes in language
which individually may not amount to much can, cumulatively, change the tone and message
of a report. Deliberately or not, this is what seems to have happened.

Senior IPCC scientists are not willing to discuss the changes, beyond denying that there
was political interference. They regard the drafting process as private. This is an
understandable reservation, but the case raises serious doubts about the IPCC process. A
little more transparency would go a long way to removing those qualms.

--

Here's the Pearce column:

Climate report 'was watered down'

* 10 March 2007
* From New Scientist Print Edition. [2]Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* Fred Pearce

BRITISH researchers who have seen drafts of last month's report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became
involved in writing it.

David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited
reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April
2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than
expected because of "positive feedbacks" in the climate system. Most of these references
were absent from the final version.

His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists' report and the
final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of
more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: "I was astounded at the
alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The
evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific
material is overwhelming."

He has prepared a critique, "Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?", which claims:
"Political and economic interests have influenced the presented scientific material." He
plans to publish the document online this week at [3]www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm.

Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis was supported this week by two leading
UK climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the
University of Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic ice has thinned by 40 per
cent over the past 25 years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC report, told New
Scientist: "The public needs to know that the policy-makers' summary, presented as the
united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by
governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it."

"The public needs to know that the summary has been watered down in subtle but vital
ways by governmental agents"

Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government adviser on climate and a former
ambassador to the UN, says: "I think David Wasdell's analysis is very useful, and unique
of its kind. Others have made comparable points but not in such analytic detail."

Wasdell's central charge is that "reference to possible acceleration of climate change
[was] consistently removed" from the final report. This happened both in its treatment
of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion
of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.

For instance, the scientists' draft report warned that natural systems such as
rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas
emissions. It said: "This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2

Original Filename: 1173420319.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ken Denman <ken.denman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 01:05:19 +0100
Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi all,

it is in the middle of the night here, and I cannot provide much input to writing. Just
wished to say that I would be willing to sign on the draft as it is, but hope those writing
would consider the input from Susan and Kevin before submitting the final letter.

Eystein

Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 22.56 skrev Ken Denman:

Hi Piers et al,

I have taken the liberty to suggest a few changes (with change tracker turned on) - while
you Europeans (oops, and Brits) at least are sleeping. And Piers and Richard, thanks a lot
for getting this moving quickly.

Regards, Ken

ps. Piers - my salary is paid by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They are VERY uneasy when I
speak or write letters to the press, but they get really upset when I don't credit them
appropriately. C'est la vie.

[1]piers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

Hi all

This is the latest draft with Jerry's and Ken's edits. However, in addition I've

deleted the para on the Paris meeting - as it was essentially repeated within

the last paragraph, and slightly reordered the other paragraphs

Again please make further

edits. Also please could people approve the attachment of their name to such a

letter. Non highlighted names are people who appear to have already given

approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow highlighted name I think

you are likely (or very likely) to sign!

If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in the

process of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of work at the end

collecting approvals

Cheers

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

_______________________________________________

Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list

[2]Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

[3]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas

--

Ken Denman, FRSC

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis

University of Victoria

PO Box 1700 STN CSC

Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2

Phone: (2xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (2xxx xxxx xxxx

email: [4]ken.denman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Room 263

Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic

Rm xxx xxxx xxxxGordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3

Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

tel. xxx xxxx xxxx

web page: [5]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman
<NewScientist_2_Ken.doc>
_______________________________________________

Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list

[6]Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

[7]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas

_________________________________
Eystein Jansen, prof., Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
All

Original Filename: 1175952951.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: urgent help re Augusto Mangini
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Stefan - Valerie was the lead on the Holocene section, so I'll cc
her. I agree that your approach is the smart one - it's easy to show
proxy records (e.g., speleothems) from a few sites that suggest
greater warmth than present at times in the past, but our assessment
was that there wasn't a period of GLOBAL warmth comparable to
present. We used the term likely, however, since there still is a
good deal of work to do on this topic - we need a better global
network of sites.

Keith can comment on the last 1300 years, but again, I think there is
no published evidence to refute what we assessed in the chapter.
Again, one or two records does not hemispheric or global make.

I think Keith or Valerie could comment further if they're not
Eastering. Eystein, likewise might have something, but I think it is
his national responsibility to hit the glaciers over Easter.

Best, Peck


>Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors,
>
>- I know it's Easter, but I'm having to deal with Augusto Mangini, a
>German colleague who has just written an article calling the IPCC
>paleo chapter "wrong", claiming it has been warmer in the Holocene
>than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature variations
>than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer?
>
>One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy
>reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites - so
>please tell me if this is true?!! My main point will be the local
>vs hemispheric issue, saying that Mangini only provides local
>examples, while the IPCC statement is about hemispheric or global
>averages.
>
>But how about local variations - do stalagmites show much larger
>ones than tree rings? Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I
>could write? Do we have a stalagmite expert on the author team,
>other than contributing
>author Dominik Fleitmann, whom I've already identified?
>I have to submit my response to the newspaper tomorrow.
>
>Thanks, Stefan
>
>--
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org
>
>
>
>
>--
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org


--
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: 1176225793.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: urban heat island - since 1950? or since 1900
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Phil
Thanks for your reply. I have removed the
'since 1950' from the TS. That was taken from
your ES but in view of this discussion I think
the reader needs to go to the chapter.

Please note that 'Since 1950' is not (and never
was) in the SPM, so there is no interplay at all
between the issues being discussed in this series
of emails and anything that occurred in Paris or
prior to Paris.

It was, of course, for you to decide what you
wanted in your ES and how to mesh that with the
main text of your chapter. It is entirely a
'within chapter' issue.

best regards,
Susan




At 4:30 PM +0100 4/10/07, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Susan, Kevin,
> See attachment, I realise this is an important issue,
>as this wil be one of the areas the skeptics will go over
> with a fine toothcomb. I'm happy either way - either
> with the since 1950 or without. I've explained why it is
> there.
>
> I'm back in CRU tomorrow am. I'm also
> away on Sunday for the next 2 weeks, so if there is more
> to resolve, we need to do this by Friday.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>> Kevin,
>> Thanks for thinking about this. Based on the chapter referencing
>> Brohan and explicitly saying 1900 regarding the 0.006/decade figure
>> which is what is used as the bottom line, I wonder if this is a typo
>> and since 1950 should perhaps be since 1900 in your ES.
>>
>> The same thing occurs in the TS, and I am checking page proofs for
>> that which is why I got to wondering and checked back in chapter 3,
>> where I found this conundrum. If it is correct as 1950, fine, but
>> it doesn't look like that to me.
>>
>> I'll wait to hear from Phil, hopefully tomorrow.
>> bests,
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> At 5:28 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>Susan
>>>This is Phil's territory so I'll leave to him to follow up further. Are
>>>you suggesting that something should change? Seems to me that maybe
>>>removing the "(since 1950)" from ES might help? I am on travel rest of
>>>the week.
>>>Kevin
>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>
>>>> I am referring to the final distributed draft chapter, which was
>>>> before
>>>> Paris.
>>>>
>>>> Your ES pre-Paris (and post-Paris) says 1950 but this seems
>>>> inconsistent with the text of your pre-Paris chapter, where the
>>>> hemispheric and global values are given, and post-1900 is stated at
>>>> that point. The value of 0.006 is clearly associated with post-1900
>>>> in the text.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that this has anything to do with the clarifications to
>>>> what was meant regarding UHI that were made in the SPM at Paris. The
>>>> question is a lack of consistency in the pre-Paris chapter's ES and
>>>> main text.
>>>>
>>>> Please consult your final draft chapter and let me know.
>>>>
>>>> bests
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 3:18 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>Susan
>>>>>Phil is best to answer this. You may recall this was fiddled with
>>>>>after Paris and the values cited from 1900 were inserted at that
>>>>>stage based on one study. Earlier in the text you will see that
>>>>>most studies are from 1950 on: including those of Parker 2004, 2006,
>>>>>Li et al 2004, etc, and the DTR, Tmax and Tmin are given in Fig 3.2
>>>>>only after 1950; those are indicators also. So in the ES we refer
>>>>>to the several studies since 1950 but the value cited does indeed
>>>>>refer to the period since 1900. Phil would have to say whether
>>>>>this could be changed: certainly, with current wording it explicitly
>>>>>calls out the studies of the post 1950 period and would not be
>>>>>appropriate to change to 1900.
>>>>>
>>>>>My sense is that the awkwardness comes from the late edit.
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>Susan Solomon wrote:
>>>>>>Kevin and Phil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In checking over some text, I noted a statement in your ES that UHI
>>>>>>effects are negligible, where since 1950 is indicated as the
>>>>>>temporal period of application. In the text of the chapter, it
>>>>>>looks more like 1900 to me. Should this be 1950, or 1900? or
> >>>>>something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>****************
>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>NCAR
>>>>>P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>>>>>
>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>___________________
>>>Kevin Trenberth
>>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>PO Box 3000
>>>Boulder CO 80307
>>>ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>
>>
>
>Attachment converted: Junior:urbanizationESTS.doc (WDBN/

Original Filename: 1176251075.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: urban heat island - since 1950? or since 1900
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:24:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil
seems like we should do the same if we can in our galley proof.
Kevin

> Phil
> Thanks for your reply. I have removed the
> 'since 1950' from the TS. That was taken from
> your ES but in view of this discussion I think
> the reader needs to go to the chapter.
>
> Please note that 'Since 1950' is not (and never
> was) in the SPM, so there is no interplay at all
> between the issues being discussed in this series
> of emails and anything that occurred in Paris or
> prior to Paris.
>
> It was, of course, for you to decide what you
> wanted in your ES and how to mesh that with the
> main text of your chapter. It is entirely a
> 'within chapter' issue.
>
> best regards,
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> At 4:30 PM +0100 4/10/07, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>> Susan, Kevin,
>> See attachment, I realise this is an important issue,
>>as this wil be one of the areas the skeptics will go over
>> with a fine toothcomb. I'm happy either way - either
>> with the since 1950 or without. I've explained why it is
>> there.
>>
>> I'm back in CRU tomorrow am. I'm also
>> away on Sunday for the next 2 weeks, so if there is more
>> to resolve, we need to do this by Friday.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>> Thanks for thinking about this. Based on the chapter referencing
>>> Brohan and explicitly saying 1900 regarding the 0.006/decade figure
>>> which is what is used as the bottom line, I wonder if this is a typo
>>> and since 1950 should perhaps be since 1900 in your ES.
>>>
>>> The same thing occurs in the TS, and I am checking page proofs for
>>> that which is why I got to wondering and checked back in chapter 3,
>>> where I found this conundrum. If it is correct as 1950, fine, but
>>> it doesn't look like that to me.
>>>
>>> I'll wait to hear from Phil, hopefully tomorrow.
>>> bests,
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> At 5:28 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>Susan
>>>>This is Phil's territory so I'll leave to him to follow up further. Are
>>>>you suggesting that something should change? Seems to me that maybe
>>>>removing the "(since 1950)" from ES might help? I am on travel rest
>>>> of
>>>>the week.
>>>>Kevin
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am referring to the final distributed draft chapter, which was
>>>>> before
>>>>> Paris.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your ES pre-Paris (and post-Paris) says 1950 but this seems
>>>>> inconsistent with the text of your pre-Paris chapter, where the
>>>>> hemispheric and global values are given, and post-1900 is stated at
>>>>> that point. The value of 0.006 is clearly associated with
>>>>> post-1900
>>>>> in the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that this has anything to do with the clarifications
>>>>> to
>>>>> what was meant regarding UHI that were made in the SPM at Paris.
>>>>> The
>>>>> question is a lack of consistency in the pre-Paris chapter's ES and
>>>>> main text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consult your final draft chapter and let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> bests
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 3:18 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>>Phil is best to answer this. You may recall this was fiddled with
>>>>>>after Paris and the values cited from 1900 were inserted at that
>>>>>>stage based on one study. Earlier in the text you will see that
>>>>>>most studies are from 1950 on: including those of Parker 2004, 2006,
>>>>>>Li et al 2004, etc, and the DTR, Tmax and Tmin are given in Fig 3.2
>>>>>>only after 1950; those are indicators also. So in the ES we refer
>>>>>>to the several studies since 1950 but the value cited does indeed
>>>>>>refer to the period since 1900. Phil would have to say whether
>>>>>>this could be changed: certainly, with current wording it explicitly
>>>>>>calls out the studies of the post 1950 period and would not be
>>>>>>appropriate to change to 1900.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My sense is that the awkwardness comes from the late edit.
>>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Susan Solomon wrote:
>>>>>>>Kevin and Phil,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In checking over some text, I noted a statement in your ES that UHI
>>>>>>>effects are negligible, where since 1950 is indicated as the
>>>>>>>temporal period of application. In the text of the chapter, it
>>>>>>>looks more like 1900 to me. Should this be 1950, or 1900? or
>> >>>>>something else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>****************
>>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>>NCAR
>>>>>>P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>___________________
>>>>Kevin Trenberth
>>>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>>PO Box 3000
>>>>Boulder CO 80307
>>>>ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Attachment converted: Junior:urbanizationESTS.doc (WDBN/

Original Filename: 1176746137.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "C G Kilsby" <c.g.kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Outputs from WG
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:55:37 +0100 (BST)
Cc: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Colin Harpham" <c.harpham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H J Fowler" <h.j.fowler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>


Chris et al,
I'll sedn some more thoughts on Thursday when back from
the EGU. It is too hot in Vienna to sit through too many
talks !

I suspect we need a subset of indices. The program will
calculate all those recommended in various programs. One
possibility is to keep them all and let users decide.
We do need to make a series of checks though at some
stage to make sure they are OK.

I think you'll have some fruitful discussions on
some of these on April 24. I hope you can come to
closure on a few things.

Cheers
Phil



> All:
>
> Indices
>
> I had a session with UKCIP last week, and we did get on to dicsussing
> what outputs might come out of WG (as well as DDP etc.) and the issue of
> indices derived from daily data (i.e. requiring time series) came up,
> with the distinct possibility of confusion/inconsistency as David
> mentions!
>
> I would be happy to produce indices only from WG, as long as we can
> check they are sensible first of course!
> E.g. heatwave duration (various thresholds), drought duration, various
> accumulations of rainfall ?
> Less clear cut might be gale days (definition?), snow days, proportion
> of days above temp threshold etc.
>
> I think we will need to consider the list in detail, as far as what is
> included (STARDEX list?), how they are calculated/validated and also
> whether they can be calcualted from some other source and found to be
> inconsistent.
> E.g. is it planned to take the (17?) RCM runs and analyse/release these
> indices as well ?
>
>
> Rainfall stats - pdfs
>
> I think (hope?) lag1-ac and skewness will actually be quite well behaved
> (if not realistic) even when you convert/downscale. The more
> validation/analysis we do of these fields the better anyway.
>
>
> Separate topic: measures of reliability
>
> May be a can of worms, but I think we need to address it sooner rather
> than later: UKCIP02 had subjective measures of reliability attached to
> different variables/predicted changes. We must do better, and a case in
> point is the WG where we sidestep the bias issue by using change
> factors. We therefore need to provide some measure (per grid square, per
> varaible?) of reliability.
>
> For example: if control annual rainfall is more than (say) 10% biased,
> reduce reliability measure and inform the user when generating.
> Problem 1: which model runs to use for this check?
> Problem 2: how to assess more complex measures e.g. annual cycle in
> rainfall/temperature?
> Problem 3: need a common, easily understood scale of reliability
> Furthermore - WG procedure introduces more uncertinty, e.g. for wind
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>[mailto:david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>>Sent: 16 April 2007 08:07
>>To: Phil Jones
>>Cc: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham
>>Subject: RE: Outputs from WG
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>we will try for lag-1 correlation and skewness but an issue
>>for us is whether something doesn't work when we convert the
>>equilibrium pdfs to time-dependent ones or we downscale to 25km.
>>
>>As Phil has said that you can do all the derived indices
>>except gale days, if we could get a decision from the project
>>management team to cut those variables from MOHC list of
>>outputs without making any extra work for you, then that would
>>free up some time for us to investigate this further.
>>
>>Looking forward to seeing Colin's results on 24th.
>>
>>Cheers, David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 17:16 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>>> Some more thoughts - keep in on the loop in case i get a chance
>>> to respond from Vienna or next Thursday.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> At 16:32 13/04/2007, david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>> >Hi,
>>> >
>>> >On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 16:00 +0100, C G Kilsby wrote:
>>> > > Phil, David
>>> > >
>>> > > Briefly, and can respond fully next week when I have
>>some more time!
>>> > >
>>> > > Some crucial points here,
>>> > > 1. the one re 90%ile of one variable not same as for
>>other variables.
>>> > > Some simple restrictions need considering before diving off into
>>> > > full joint pdfs etc.
>>> > > Also, another dimension emerges with seasons, e.g. 90%ile winter
>>> > > rainfall, or 90%ile summer rainfall?
>>> >
>>> >Joint pdfs are just an issue for me in that I am giving you several
>>> >inputs to WG and they have to be consistent. For example, we are
>>> >finding we only get wetter summers for lower end of temperature
>>> >increases. Plus we already intend to provide sets of sampled values
>>> >for lots of variables that are consistent for any given point in
>>> >model parameter space.
>>>
>>> The joint pdfs are an issue for the WG as well. Not so much for
>>> Chris, but for us we have to reproduce the statistics for
>>> the other variables. Colin
>>> has solved the double counting issue for the means (for T etc),
>>> but we've yet to look at the variance.
>>>
>>> Colin should be able to show some of the results on the 24th
>>> as to how well the WG works. This fits the WG (with our rainfall
>>> component) to HadRM3 and then applies our modification
>>> technique to an A2 future (for comparison with the true RCM
>>> future for the 2070s). Sunshine is the only real problem.
>>>
>>> I don't think we need to repeat this with the NS rainfall,
>>> but discuss that once you've seen some preliminary results
>>> on the 24tjh.
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > > 2. Bit concerned to hear David talking of some precip
>>stats being
>>> > > secondary or optional - I would say mean, var and pdry days are
>>> > > all
>>> > > essential: from our experience autocorrelation and skewness are
>>> > > also pretty well behaved and we would rather have them
>>if at all possible!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Good. This discussion is throwing up a few discrepancies which need
>>> >clarifying. That some precip stats are of secondary
>>importance, is an
>>> >impression I was getting from Phil's earlier emails last month.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there is some misunderstanding here. What I said earlier
>>> confirms what Chris has said - if they are available then Chris
>>> would like them. Chris will need to consider is they may be
>>> fully relevant due to the scale issue (25km squares vs points).
>>> Could be an issue for skew and r1.
>>>
>>> Checking this out a la fitting directly to HadRCM3 control
>>> data might be useful here. See Colin's plots though before
>>> deciding.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I look forward to the fuller response next week. I will be mainly
>>> >away then which is why I raise these issues now. It would
>>be good to
>>> >have a good chat about them on the 24th.
>>> >
>>> >Cheers, David
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > > Chris
>>> > >
>>> > > >-----Original Message-----
>>> > > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>>> > > >Sent: 13 April 2007 15:46
>>> > > >To: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> > > >Cc: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham
>>> > > >Subject: Re: Outputs from WG
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > David,
>>> > > > More thoughts embedded.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Phil
>>> > > >
>>> > > >At 15:12 13/04/2007, david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>> > > >>Hi,
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>I think we have clarified or converged on most of my points. I
>>> > > >>have some comments on points 2 and 4.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>Cheers, David
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 14:42 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>>> > > >> > >2. WG will produce 100 versions of 30-yr sequences for
>>> > > >all (or just
>>> > > >> > >one?) WG variables for all months for a given combination
>>> > > >of 30-yr
>>> > > >> > >period, emissions scenario and location.
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >I am still not clear how to generate the 100.
>>Percentiles of
>>> > > >> > >PDFs is confusing me. I think Ag needs a clear procedure
>>> > > >outlined by us
>>> > > >> > >for 24th. I think the easiest way to make WG
>>consistent with
>>> > > >> > >MOHC pdfs is the following (assuming I am correct so far):
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > > a. User selects WG, 30-yr period, emissions
>>scenario and
>>> > > >> > > location
>>> > > >> > (up
>>> > > >> > >to 1000km^2).
>>> > > >> > > b. Work out which 25km x 25km box over UK is closest to
>>> > > >> > >this
>>> > > >> > multi-
>>> > > >> > >site location.
>>> > > >> > > c. For the 30-yr period, emissions scenario and
>>location
>>> > > >> > >in b),
>>> > > >> > DDP
>>> > > >> > >internally produces a table of changes in mean T, %
>>> > > >changes in mean
>>> > > >> > P,
>>> > > >> > >and changes in variance of P for each month for
>>100 randomly
>>> > > >> > >sampled different model variants. DDP ALREADY needs this
>>> > > >capability.
>>> > > >> > > d. So we have an internal matrix with 3*12=36
>>columns and
>>> > > >> > > 100
>>> > > >> > rows. WG
>>> > > >> > >loops through 100 rows, using each set of 36
>>numbers to drive WG.
>>> > > >> > User
>>> > > >> > >gets 100 WG's. Does what they like with it.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > Sort of. The 100 versions of the WG I was talking
>>> > > >about will all
>>> > > >> > have
>>> > > >> > the same statistics. I thought these 100 would be from
>>> > > >one point
>>> > > >> > within
>>> > > >> > the pdf (or the joint pdf) - say the 10, 50 or 90th
>>> > > >percentile. We
>>> > > >> > could make
>>> > > >> > this percentile selectable.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > The 100 (or 1 or whatever) are representative of some
>>> > > >> > future 30-year period.
>>> > > >> > Your a) and b) are fine.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > Another option is like yours. There is a pdf
>>(or joint pdf).
>>> > > >> > The 100 could be
>>> > > >> > from each of the 100 percentiles? Does this make sense?
>>> > > >Or the 100
>>> > > >> > could
>>> > > >> > come from sampling the percentile space assuming a normal
>>> > > >> > distribution?
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > Your 2) is an important aspect to sort out on the 24th.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>I agree that we need to discuss this but it would be good to
>>> > > >thrash it
>>> > > >>out a bit more before 24th. UKCIP08 needs the WG pdf to be
>>> > > >>consistent with the MOHC pdf. Your solution tries to
>>do this but
>>> > > >>a problem with selecting a percentile is that a model variant
>>> > > >>that is the 90th percentile for temperature is not
>>90th percentile for other variables.
>>> > > >>There is also a related issue about how you chose a model
>>> > > >variant near
>>> > > >>a given percentile. The solution I propose means these are
>>> > > >not issues.
>>> > > >>So we could sample M model variants and run N WGs for
>>each model
>>> > > >>variant. M has to be a good size to make sample
>>> > > >representative of MOHC
>>> > > >>pdf but N does not have to be large as internal variability
>>> > > >is already
>>> > > >>generated by using a different set of parameters and a
>>> > > >different seed for each WG.
>>> > > >>I think this solution is simpler than the percentile-based
>>> > > >solution. Do
>>> > > >>you agree?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Sounds OK. Let's see what Chris thinks.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> > >4. Phil has mentioned in the past that EARWIG produces some
>>> > > >> > diagnostics
>>> > > >> > >e.g. consecutive dry days, frost days etc. from WG. Will
>>> > > >> > >this be done for UKCIP08?
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > The plan is yes for this. Colin has the software
>>for this.
>>> > > >> > It just needs to be set
>>> > > >> > up carefully, as the base for all the diagnostics
>>(for the
>>> > > >> > future
>>> > > >> > runs) has to be
>>> > > >> > based on median run of the WG for the present (61-90).
>>> > > >We shouldn't
>>> > > >> > allow users to change the xxx xxxx xxxxbase period (or the
>>> > > >choice of the
>>> > > >> > median).
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>Good. I would like your opinion on a problem I am having with
>>> > > >>some of the variables we are providing pdfs for. Some
>>quantities
>>> > > >>are indices derived from daily model data e.g frost days but I
>>> > > >>think
>>> > > >there are two
>>> > > >>problems with this:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>1. Model bias e.g. a model that is too warm may have very few
>>> > > >>frost days and therefore the change looks small.
>>Effect will be
>>> > > >>a nonlinear function of bias based on shape of
>>distribution of daily data.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>2. WG and pdfs could provide two alternative routes to same
>>> > > >answer and
>>> > > >>they will obviously conflict for reasons we understand e.g.
>>> > > >model bias
>>> > > >>but the users won't understand.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>To avoid confusing user and potentially reducing their
>>> > > >>confidence in UKCIP products, I think it makes sense
>>for WGs to
>>> > > >>be the sole route towards a prediction of derived
>>indices. BTW,
>>> > > >>I have a handful of derived indices to do (hot days, wet days,
>>> > > >>gale days, heating and cooling degree days and frost
>>days) and I
>>> > > >>think you cover
>>> > > >some of these
>>> > > >>already. What do you think?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>Geoff wants to discuss issues connected to the three strands
>>> > > >of output
>>> > > >>(pdfs, WG, RCM) on the 24th.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Model biases will only be a problem with their data
>>used directly.
>>> > > > So this could be a problem with the larger regions
>>where the WG
>>> > > > won't work well. The WG won't have biases as it is based on
>>> > > > xxx xxxx xxxxas the base period. We will be perturbing these
>>with the
>>> > > > RCM-based pdfs.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Maybe we need to show that the following will/should/must be
>>> > > > the same
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Model-based scenario for 2070s minus model present
>>(61-90) equals
>>> > > > WG scenarios for the 2070s minus WG present (61-90).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Geoff will need to get this across as this is how the three
>>> > > >strands will
>>> > > > produce the same answers.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The WG and the extremes software will do all the temp/precip
>>> > > > indices but won't do gale days.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >>Cheers, David
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>--
>>> > > >>______________________________________________________
>>> > > >>David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist Met Office
>>> > > >Hadley Centre
>>> > > >>for Climate Prediction and Research FitzRoy
>>> > > >>Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
>>> > > >>Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> > > >>E-mail: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>http://www.metoffice.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > >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
>>> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > >-------------
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >--
>>> >______________________________________________________
>>> >David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley
>>> >Centre for Climate Prediction and Research FitzRoy
>>> >Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
>>> >Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> >E-mail: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.metoffice.com
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------
>>
>>--
>>______________________________________________________
>>David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist Met Office
>>Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research FitzRoy
>>Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
>>Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>>E-mail: david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.metoffice.com
>>
>

Original Filename: 1177158252.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | 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 | Earlier Emails | 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 | Earlier Emails | 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 | Earlier Emails | 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>

Original Filename: 1177890796.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: quick note on TAR
Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole
process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often
wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these
kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not
always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you
well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed
and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding
the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we
were basically railroaded by Susan. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next
time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this
whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the
forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful
research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you
very best wishes
Keith
Keith
At 18:14 29/04/2007, you wrote:

Keith, just a quick note to let you know I've had a chance to read over the key bits on
last millennium in the final version of the chapter, and I think you did a great job.
obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) contentious areas in the entire
report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the science accurately, but in a
way that I believe will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of
the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo!
I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. looking forward to buying you a beer
next time we have an opportunity :)
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.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
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

1. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1178107838.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Multi-model SST detection results
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Nathan Gillett <n.gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, i.harris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

Thanks very much for the quick reply. It would be nice to get hold of
CRU TS 3.0, even at the 0.5 x 0.5 degree resolution.

For the SST detection and attribution analysis that I described
yesterday, I reduced the spatial dimensionality (to get better estimates
of covariance matrices, EOFs, etc.) by regridding all model and
observational SST data to a common 10 x 10 lat/long grid. I think it
would make sense to do the detection and attribution analysis involving
the land 2m temperature changes at the same 10 x 10 resolution. So it
isn't essential for me to get the CRU TS 3.0 data at 5 x 5 resolution -
we might as well have just one regridding step (from 0.5 x 0.5 to 10 x
10) rather than two. As in the SST case, the primary focus would be on
land 2m temperature changes over 1950 to 2006. I'm hopeful that the
changing coverage/variance issues won't be that severe over this period.

Let me back up a little and outline why I want to look at CRU TS 3.0.

I've always thought that it would be fun to contrast the S/N behavior of
SST and land 2m temperature. Based purely on the amplitude of unforced
variability, one might expect S/N ratios to be more more favorable for
SST changes than for land 2m temperature changes. But it's not that
simple! Due to land/ocean differences in specific and total heat
capacity, we expect the GHG-induced surface temperature signal to be
larger over land than over oceans. And then there's the issue of the
spatial heterogeneity of the forcings. Arguably, anthropogenic forcings
over land are more spatially heterogeneous than over oceans (e.g., no
changes in land surface properties over oceans!). Such land/ocean
forcing differences must also influence the S/N behavior of temperature
changes over land and oceans.

So I suspect, based on S/N arguments, that it's better to search for an
anthropogenic surface temperature signal over the oceans rather than the
land. Actually showing this might be useful.

Cheers,

Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Ben,
> CRU doesn't have an infilled land database at the 5 by 5 degree
> resolution.
> We do at the 0.5 by 0.5 degree resolution though. It would take a
> bit of work to average these together to the coarser resolution, but it
> ought to be possible.
> We have a new version of this (CRU TS 3.0) that Ian Harris (Harry)
> is finishing off. It runs from 1900 to 2006. It doesn't take care of
> variance issues, so will have problems when in regions with poor data
> earlier in the 20th century. Should be OK though from 1950, if you
> want to start then.
> Harry is i.harris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. I think the temperature is finished, but
> Nathan could check. I'm away now till the HC meeting in Sweden
> and Spain.
> Another option is to use the infilled 5 by 5 dataset that Tom Smith
> has put together at NCDC. All infilling has the problem that when there
> is little data it tends to revert to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage of zero. All
> infilling techniques do this - alluded to countless times by Kevin
> Trenberth and this is in Ch 3 of AR4. This infilling is in the current
> monitoring version of NCDC's product. The infilling is partly the reason
> they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from the
> coastal stations. I think NCDC and the HC regard the permanent
> sea ice as 'land', as it effectively is.
> As a side issue , the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic is going
> to cause loads of problems monitoring temps there as when SST data
> have come in from the areas that have been mostly sea ice, it is always
> warm as the xxx xxxx xxxxmeans are close to -1.8C. Been talking to Nick
> Rayner about this. It isn't serious yet, but it's getting to be a problem.
> In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot
> as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the xxx xxxx xxxxaverage
> for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value.
>
> See you in Exeter in a week's time.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
> At 01:40 02/05/2007, Ben Santer wrote:
>> Dear Nathan,
>>
>> I'm now in the process of transferring SST data from the AR4
>> pre-industrial control runs. I'm hoping that the data transfer will be
>> finished by tomorrow. As described in the Supporting Text of our PNAS
>> water vapor paper, I've changed the time model of all control runs.
>> The time model is the same as in the 20c3m runs - i.e., "months since
>> 1800". This slightly complicates life if you want to subtract a
>> model's instantaneous control run drift from its 20c3m run. You then
>> have to figure out the time (in the new "months since 1800" time
>> model) at which the 20c3m run was spawned from the pre-industrial
>> control. I find, however, that the advantages of using a uniform time
>> model far outweigh the disadvantages.
>>
>> With some help from Peter, I managed to obtain some preliminary
>> results for the detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed
>> SST data. To my knowledge, most formal pattern-based D&A work that has
>> dealt with temperature changes close to Earth's surface has used
>> combined SSTs and land 2m temperatures. I'm not aware of any
>> pattern-based work (other than your work with SST changes in the
>> Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions) that has focused
>> on SST changes alone. I'm assuming that the dearth of "SST only"
>> fingerprint work arises in part from pesky masking and regridding
>> problems (the same problems we had to address in the PNAS water vapor
>> paper).
>>
>> As I mentioned several days ago, I essentially replicated all of the
>> data "pre-processing" we had done for the water vapor paper: i.e., the
>> same procedures were used for masking and regridding SST data to a
>> uniform 10 x 10 lat/long grid, calculation of the V and No-V SST
>> fingerprints, and concatenation of SST data from the V and No-V
>> control runs. I also employed the same spatial domain that we used for
>> the PW analysis (all oceans, 50N-50S).
>>
>> One of the choices I have to make in estimating detection time is the
>> selection of a "start date" for calculation of trends in the signal
>> time series Z(t) and Z*(t) (the projections of the observed data onto
>> the raw and optimized fingerprints, respectively). For the water vapor
>> paper, the start date was dictated by the start date of the SSM/I PW
>> data (1988). Here, however, we are using NOAA ERSST data, which are
>> available from 1880 onwards. I chose a start date in 1950. I think
>> this is a defensible choice, partly because the spatial coverage of
>> SST data is more stable over time in the second half of the 20th
>> century than in the first. Furthermore, a 1950 start date is a
>> somewhat conservative choice in view of the "flattening" of the
>> observed global-scale SST increase in the 1960s and 1970s. A start
>> date in the mid-1970s would probably yield shorter detection times.
>>
>> The detection time results are encouraging. In the "spatial mean
>> included" case, we invariably obtain robust detection of the V and
>> No-V model fingerprints in the NOAA ERSST data. As you pointed out
>> previously, Nathan, the fingerprint estimated from the No-V 20c3m runs
>> is basically an "ANTHRO-ONLY" fingerprint. For a 1950 start date, the
>> detection times are all with +/- 5 years of 1980, irrespective of
>> whether the V or No-V models are used to estimate fingerprints,
>> optimize fingerprints, or assess statistical significance. This means
>> that, if we had begun monitoring observed SST changes in 1950, we
>> would have been able to identify an anthropogenic fingerprint roughly
>> 30 years later. I should point out that (as in the vapor paper), we've
>> tried to be conservative in our significance testing procedure, and
>> have intentionally retained residual control run drift.
>>
>> Results are more ambiguous in the "spatial mean removed" case. In that
>> setting, whether we can or cannot detect an anthropogenic fingerprint
>> is much more sensitive to V/No-V dataset choices. Why might that be? A
>> preliminary hypothesis is that in the "mean removed" case, greater
>> attention is focused on differential SST changes in the western and
>> eastern Pacific. The recent GRL paper by Soden and Vecchia provides
>> some model-based evidence that such differential SST changes may be
>> forced, and are accompanied by changes in the Walker circulation. I
>> suspect that these differential west/east SST changes may evolve in a
>> complex way over time, and that in the "mean removed" case, we might
>> have more luck detecting an "ANTHRO" fingerprint if go to full
>> space-time optimal detection. But that's only a guess on my part, and
>> my intuition has often been wrong!
>>
>> In the next few days, I'll fool around with several different "start
>> dates", and will also start looking at the spatial patterns of the raw
>> and optimized fingerprints, the dominant noise modes, etc. As I
>> mentioned previously, it would be nice to contrast the "SST-only" D&A
>> results with "land-only" D&A results. Does CRU have "land-only"
>> temperature data in which missing land 2m temperatures have been
>> statistically infilled? In other words, is there a land 2m temperature
>> counterpart to the HadISST product? (I've copied this email to Phil,
>> who I'm sure will be able to answer my last question.)
>>
>> Anyway, looks like this work is worth pursuing. It will be very
>> interesting to compare your space-time results with the results we've
>> obtained thus far.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1179416790.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: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
yep, I'm watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!

New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!

Heard anything back from IUGG yet? I thought Mike's email was helpful,
if that doesn't do the trick I don't know what will,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Apparently there is a lot in New Scientist this week. As usual
> our copy has gone walkabout!
>
> Blair is out on June 27 - Gordon Brown then !
>
> Phil
>
>
> At 16:33 17/05/2007, you wrote:
>> as I was looking at this, I had CNN on in the background. Live
>> conference, with Bush and Blair both agreeing about the importance of
>> significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
>>
>> jokes like Carter have become completely irrelevant. they are a sad
>> anachronism...
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just in case you've not seen it. Another piece of bad science.
>>>
>>> It is the same old stuff, so not worth doing anything at Real
>>> Climate,
>>> but might be worth doing something on Figure 5.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> 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: 1179765915.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "IPCCWG2" <ipccwg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Vincent Kotwicki" <v@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aalage@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <albergel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <asanuma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <migelauge@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <balint@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <spyros.beltaos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <becker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Sten.bergstrom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mboko47@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mboko47@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <boroneant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d.bossio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <axelbron@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jpbruce@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jbudhooram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dhburn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <busuioc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <sandy.cairncross@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <crrhcr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <maxcampos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dwr-wec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <liucz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d.conway@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rdeloe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bdenney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dforbes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fgallart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cgay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <anton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <lars.gottschalk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wgrabs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <phil.graham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Uwe.Gruenewald@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dieter.gutknecht+e222@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dieter.gutknecht@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rhalliday@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hatfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mhayes2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aghenriques@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hillh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <charles.howe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <issar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <karsten.jasper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hrecjaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.j.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <pavel.kabat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kaczmar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <karim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mlkavvas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <c.g.kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bkimball@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cknutson1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ishiklom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <pirkko.kortelainen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <v@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Herbert.lang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hlins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fgallart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <yvonild@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Madramootoo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <profmagadza@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <marica@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jrm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <g.meon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kathleen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <brian.mills@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gmo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <phlip@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <John.mwansa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bjmwansa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hans_peter.nachtnebel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mnearing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Mark.new@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <E.Penning-Rowsell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <C.Prudhomme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ramirez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nsr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <schulzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <andreas.schumann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ishiklom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <simonovic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <soroosh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <eugene.z.stakhiv@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <strzepek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tsuzuki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <msvoboda2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <szolgay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ttadesse2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <takara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <renoj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bradu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <eusunoff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jvaldes@u.arizona.edu>, <n.c.vandegiesen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <vdploeg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <h.vanschaik@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d.e.walling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dwilhite2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aceituno@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <myles.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Lisa.Alexander@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <teaoki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <christof.appenzeller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rwarritt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Betts, Richard" <richard.betts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bidegain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <george.boer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bojariu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mboko47@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bony@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <boroneant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <boroneant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <harold.brooks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <henry.f.diaz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <robted@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <David.easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <emori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <n.gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <grassl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Pasha.Groisman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gutowski@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dennis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ISAAC.HELD@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tony.hirst@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <per.holmlund@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ingram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <george.isaac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jacob@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <krkim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kimoto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Tom.Knutson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <shige@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <RKolli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.e.kristjansson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <michael.manton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <marengo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <CONSTANTIN_MARES_RO@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ILEANA_MARES@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <meleshko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cmilly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <philip@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Murphy, James" <james.murphy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <neelin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <noda@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jnorris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fwnd8487@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <oneill@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Parker, David" <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <thomas.c.peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <apitman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <serge.planton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rayner, Nick" <nick.rayner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Leon.Rotstayn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <J.C.Rougier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rowell, Dave" <dave.rowell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <e.rozanov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Markku.Rummukainen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hsasaki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ysato@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <schaer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Senior, Cath" <cath.senior@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <anji.seth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Sexton, David" <david.sexton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <shinoda@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <simmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <adrian.simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <b.soden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d.b.stephenson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <msugi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tsussi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <yamanou@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Xuebin.Zhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zhaozc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <olga.zolina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <noajavon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Vesselin.Alexandrov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <barbara.amon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jimangel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mapps@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hbal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mzbao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jason.beringer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bidegain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <miguelcata@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Ralph.chapman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <chiro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <amnat_c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Harry.Clark@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jonathan.cobb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <chris.cocklin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <crookshanks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <henk.debruin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cecile.deklein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cdlamaza@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dyj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <adouaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <andreas.fischlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jgallard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <savitri_g@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <germon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Roger.Gifford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hdginzo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <glauner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <guensab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hashimoto.seiji@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <donia4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mariahauengue@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Bert.Holtslag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <iehara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <moriyo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mike.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jonesr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Martina.jung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gagik_karam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <akawashi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Haroon.s.kheshgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <g.kiely@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kiono@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <asdaporn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <meteorologie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kuzyakov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hlabohm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.lassey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <GREGORY.LAUGHLIN@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aleon-a@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mj.lexer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <magda@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <liusr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jllanes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ipnrue@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <piersmac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dmartens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <matu@globalenv.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, <giorgio.matteucci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <f.mcgovern@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fmeza@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <a-michaelowa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <adele.morris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rneilson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dennis.nrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <frank.omara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ypan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.quiggin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <klaus.radunsky@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ravelo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cwrice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <michael.scott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <silva@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jmsong@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <masamiti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tano@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Nigel.Tapper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Thomassin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <thornton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ctrettin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dennis.trewin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trotterc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Vvallejo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <david.victor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fecovww@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kyagi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Shinya-yokoyama@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gcisc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ahsan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jamador@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <randss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jimangel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <pmisba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aramaki@env.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, <n.w.arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jayanta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Bryson.bates@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <noureddine.ben-aissalachheb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <m.bierkens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mboko47@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bganta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <axelbron@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jpbruce@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <h.buiteveld@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Ian.Burton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jayac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jonathan.cobb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <chris.cocklin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <crabbe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <crookshanks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rexcruz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rexcruz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <henk.debruin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <m.dwit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mdemuth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cdmdpa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dyj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.doell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dragoni@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dyurg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jfamigli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <john.firth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jfobil@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fukusima@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ngamboa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <atgaye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dgg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Dieter.Gerten@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jcgsal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mukiri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gosain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Glenn_guntenspergen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <joyeeta.gupta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mpatriciah@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mariahauengue@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hijioka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hornberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hflorent2003@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <thungting@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <janetos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bjimenezc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bjimenezc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <roger.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Pavel.Kabat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kadaja@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jk_kanyanga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gagik_karam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <georg.kaser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jukka.kayhko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <g.kiely@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cwkim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jinhkim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <paul.kirshen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cgk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <michelkoo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <esko.kuusisto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jaap.kwadijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Lal321@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fpl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <lapin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dklee@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jllanes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <lovejoy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <drm7@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <dft@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <marengo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <annarita.mariotti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <l.mata@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <w.mauser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <f.mcgovern@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <JEMcMahon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hemeena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jrm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <lmendez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fmeza@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <kathleen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nlmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <monirul.mirza@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mokssit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Linda.Mortsch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gcisc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <sanigmi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <joel.noilhan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nyongao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <leocadieo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wogana@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <taikan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <onuma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ouldbba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jpizarro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mati@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mcco@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.quinn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <meteo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aramire@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <paolo.reggiani@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nsr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Kim.ritman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rolp7543@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rolp7543@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jroy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <roy.rene@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <layesarr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <MSavard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <antje.schwalb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <michael.scott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <qc2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gcisc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ishiklom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <anond@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <southgate.1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <csu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <joesylla2002@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jan.szolgay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tabet2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ktakaha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <takara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Eelco.vanBeek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <exlaure@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wangsr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <julian.wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <watts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jandh.Waugh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Robert.S.Webb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <r.woods@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Sabine.wurzler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zxie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <yafid2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <yongyuan.yin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <slzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jyzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zhaoyong@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zxc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <unnayan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jamador@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <andressen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <pmd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mboko50@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bbkganta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rexcruz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <cristobal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jn_fobil@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jcgsal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mukirigithendu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hosflorent@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zmd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jinhkim1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <michelkoo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fplansigan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jllanesreg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Ja_marengo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ceest@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <nlmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <monirul.mirza@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mmudasser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <uzhymet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tonynyong@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <abdelaziz_ouldbba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p_batima@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ilhom_rajabov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <paolo_reggiani@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <patyromerolankao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <patyromerolankao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <srosenb435@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <roy.rene@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <aasarr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <munir2k1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <joesylla2002@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <exlaure@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zxie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <fidele.yabi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hwyang66@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <zheng-xingcan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Invitation to review IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:45:15 +0100

Dear colleague,



Please find attached the spreadsheet needed for submitting your review comments on the IPCC
Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water. This was accidentally omitted from the email
below.



The Technical Paper and supporting review documents are also available online at:



[1]www.ipcc-wg2.org/review/index.html

username: GEreview

password: water08



Regards,



Paul



Paul van der Linden, Deputy Head (IT)
IPCC WGII TSU, Met Office, Fitzroy Road
Exeter EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx(0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Mobile: xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
paul.vdl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx www.ipcc-wg2.org/

At 12:xxx xxxx xxxx.05.21, you wrote:

Dear colleague,
The First-Order Draft of the IPCC Technical Paper on Water
The IPCC requested the preparation of a Technical Paper on Water, to be based primarily
on the results of the Fourth Assessment (AR4), and to involve all three Working Groups.
Organization of the process is in the charge of Working Group II.
The Expert Review for the First-Order Draft of the Technical Paper on Water will begin
on May 21^st, and will run for four weeks until June 17^th. It is essential for the
success of the process that we involve the widest community of
internationally-recognized researchers in the review. We have identified you as someone
whose reputation and contribution to the science is such that your participation is
important. Therefore, we are sending you a First-Order Draft, with a request to review
the Technical Paper. We would be most grateful if you can find time from your busy
schedule to review the Technical Paper. If you can only find time to review those
sections that are most close to your professional interests, we would still be pleased
to receive your comments, although of course we also need reviews which take a broader
view of the coherence and completeness of the document as a whole.
We attach the following:
1. The draft Technical Paper on Water. This is in PDF format, because it is important
to preserve the page and line numbers.
2. Background information on the Technical Paper, in the form of a Scoping Note.
3. A spreadsheet for you to use to make your comments. Instructions on how to use this
spreadsheet are provided at the beginning.
The deadline for the submission of review comments is June 17th. Comments should be
submitted, using the spreadsheet, to [2]ipcc-wg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx .
Please note that, if you have been nominated by your government for any role in the
Fourth Assessment other than Review Editor, you may receive a separate invitation from
us inviting you to be an Expert Reviewer in that capacity.
We do hope that you will be able to find time to comment on this draft. In advance, we
would like to express our deep gratitude for any contribution you can make. In
recognition of the importance of the reviewing process, reviewers' names will be listed
in the final published Technical Paper.
Yours sincerely,
Osvaldo Canziani
Co-Chair, Working Group II
Martin Parry
Co-Chair, Working Group II
Jean Palutikof
Head, WGII TSU
<<Useful Information for Review.pdf>> <<IPCC_TP_Water.pdf>> <<Invitation letter for
expert reviewers.pdf>>

Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy
documentseudoraattachrev.xls"

References

1. http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/review/index.html
2. mailto:ipccwg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1180342271.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Wengen section
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 04:51:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Reply-to: gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

Hi Phil, sorry for the long delay. But here is a first draft of the
forcings and models section I was supposed to take the lead on. Hopefully,
we can merge that with whatever Caspar has.

Thanks

Gavin

================

4 Forcing (GS/CA/EZxxx xxxx xxxxpp

Histories (CA)
How models see the forcings, especially wrt aerosols/ozone and
increasing model complexities (GS)

An important reason for improving climate reconstructions of the past few
millenia is that these reconstructions can help us both evaluate
climate model responses and sharpen our understanding of important
mechanisms and feedbacks. Therefore, a parallel task to improving
climate reconstructions is to assess and independently constrain
forcings on the climate system over that period.

Forcings can generically be described as external effects on a
specific system. Responses within that system that also themselves
have an impact on its internal state are described as feeebacks. For
the atmosphere, sea surface temperature changes could
therefore be considered a forcing, but in a coupled ocean-atmosphere
model they could be a feedback to another external factor or be
intrinsic to the coupled system. Thus the distinction between forcings and
feedbacks is not defined a priori, but is a function of the scope of
the modelled system. This becomes especially important when dealing
with the bio-geo-chemical processes in climate that effect the
trace gas concentrations (CO2 and CH4) or aerosols. For example, if a
model
contains a carbon cycle, than the CO2 variations as a function of
climate will be a feedback, but for a simpler physical model, CO2 is
often imposed directly as a forcing from observations, regardless of
whether in the real world it was a feedback to another change, or a
result of human industrial activity.

It is useful to consider the pre-industrial period (pre-1850 or so)
seperately from the more recent past, since the human influence on
many aspects of atmospheric composition has increased dramatically in
the 20th Century. In particular, aerosol and land use changes are
poorly constrained prior to the late 20th Century and have large
uncertainties. Note however, there may conceivably be a role for human
activities even prior to the 19th Century due to early argiculatural
activity (Ruddiman, 2003; Goosse et al, 2005).

In pre-industrial periods, forcings can be usefully separated into
purely external changes (variations of solar activity, volcanic
eruptions, orbital variation), and those which are intrinsic to the
Earth system (greenhouse gases, aerosols, vegetation etc.). Those
changes in Earth system elements will occur predominantly as feedbacks
to other changes (whether externally forced or simply as a function of
internal climate 'noise'). In the more recent past, the human role in
affecting atmospheric composition (trace gases and aerosols) and land
use have dominated over natural processes and so these changes can, to
large extent, be considered external forcings as well.

Traditionally, the 'system' that is most usually implied when talking
about forcings and feedbacks are the 'fast' components atmosphere-land
surface-upper ocean system that, not coincidentally, corresponds to
the physics contained within atmospheric general circulation models
(AGCMs)
coupled to a slab ocean. What is not included (and therefore considered as
a
forcing according to our previous definition) are 'slow' changes in
vegetation, ice sheets or the carbon cycle. In the real world these
features will change as a function of other climate changes, and in
fact may do so on relatively 'fast' (i..e multi-decadal)
timescales. Our choice then of the appropriate 'climate system' is
thus slightly arbitrary and does not give a complete picture of the
long term sensitivity of the real climate.

These distinctions become important because the records available for
atmospheric composition do not record the distinction between feedback
or forcing, they simply give, for instance, the history of CO2 and
CH4. Depending on the modelled system, those records will either be a
modelling input, or a modelling target.

While there are good records for some factors (particularly the well
mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4), records for others are
either hopelessly incomplete (dust, vegetation) due to poor spatial or
temporal resolution or non-existant (e.g. ozone). Thus estimates of
the magnitude of these forcings can only be made using a model-based
approach. This can be done using GCMs that include more Earth system
components (interactive aerosols, chemistry, dynamic vegetation,
carbon cycles etc.), but these models are still very much a work in
progress and have not been used extensively for paleo-climatic
purposes. Some initial attempts have been made for select feedbacks
and forcings (Gerber et al, 2003; Goosse et al 2006) but a
comprehensive assessment over the millennia prior to the
pre-industrial does not yet exist.

Even for those forcings for which good records exist, there is a
question of they are represented within the models. This is not so
much of an issue for the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4)
since there is a sophisticated literature and history of including
them within models (IPCC, 2001) though some aspects, such as minor
short-wave absorption effects for CH4 and N2O are still not universally
included
(Collins et al, 2006). However, solar effects have been treated in
quite varied ways.

The most straightforward way of including solar irradiance effects on
climate is to change the solar 'constant' (preferably described as
total solar irradiance - TSI). However, observations show that solar
variability is highly dependent on wavelength with UV bands having
about 10 times as much amplitude of change than TSI over a solar cycle
(Lean, 2000). Thus including this spectral variation for all solar
changes allows for a slightly different behaviour (larger
solar-induced changes in the stratosphere where the UV is mostly
absorbed for instance). Additionally, the changes in UV affect ozone
production in both the stratosphere and troposphere, and this
mechanism has been shown to affect both the total radiative forcing
and dynamical responses (Haigh 1996, Shindell et al 2001;
2006). Within a chemistry climate model this effect would potentially
modify the radiative impact of the original solar forcing, but could also
be included as an additional (parameterised) forcing in standard GCMs.

There is also a potential effect from the indirect effect of solar
magnetic variability on the sheilding of cosmic rays, which have been
theorised to affect the production of cloud condensation nuclei
(Dickinson, 1975). However, there have been no quantitative
calculations of the magnitude of this effect (which would require a
full study of the relevant aerosol and cloud microphysics), and so its
impact on climate is not (yet) been included.

Large volcanic eruptions produce significant amounts of sulpher
dioxide (SO2). If this is injected into the tropical stratosphere
during a particularly explosive eruption, the resulting sulphate can
persist in the atmosphere for a number of years (e.g. Pinatubo in
1991). Less explosive, but more persistent eruptions (e.g. Laki in
1789??) can still affect climate though in a more regional way and for
a shorter term (Oman et al, 2005). These aerosols have both a
shortwave (reflective) and longwave (absorbing) impact on the
radiation and their local impact on stratospheric heating can have
important dynamical effects. It is therefore better to include the
aerosol absorber directly in the radiative transfer code. However, in
less sophisticated models, the impact of the aerosols has been
parameterised as the equivalent decrease in TSI. For extreme eruptions
it has been hypothesised that sulphate production might saturate the
oxidative capacity of the stratosphere leaving significant amounts of
residual SO2. This gas is a greenhouse gas and would have an opposite
effect to the cooling aerosols. This effect however has not yet been
quantified.

Land cover changes have occured both due to deliberate modification by
humans (deforestation, imposed fire regimes, arguculture) as well as a
feedback to climate change (the desertification of the Sahara ca. 5500
yrs ago). Changing vegetation in a standard model affects the seasonal
cycle of albedo, the surface roughness, the impact of snow,
evapotranspiration (through different rooting depths) etc. However,
modelling of the yearly cycle of crops, or incorporating the effects
of large scale irrigation are still very much a work in
progress.

Aerosol changes over the last few milllenia are very poorly constrained
(if at all). These might have arisen from climatically or human driven
changes in dust emissions, ocean biology feedbacks on circulation change,
or climate impacts on the emission volatile organics from plants (which
also have an impact on ozone chemistry). Some work on modelling a subset
of those effects has been done for the last glacial maximum or the 8.2 kyr
event (LeGrande et al, 2006), but there have been no quantitative
estimates for the late Holocene (prior to the industrial period).

Due to the relative expense of doing millennial simulations with
state-of-the-art GCMs, exisiting simulations have generally done the
minimum required to include relevant solar, GHG and volcanic forcings.
Progress can be expected relatively soon on more sophisticated treatments
of those forcings and the first quantitative estimates of additional
effects.

=============


*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies |
| 2880 Broadway |
| Tel: (2xxx xxxx xxxx New York, NY 10xxx xxxx xxxx |
| |
| gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1180536574.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: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Phil,
Off travelling again, will check in when I return next week on status of Perugia (arggh!).
Papers is looking good. I've attached draft of Mann et al (2007) which should have the
references you're looking for. Please don't distribute, we'd like to wait until galleys are
available to begin distributing the paper.
One small thing, this statement at end of 1st paragraph on page 18 in the draft didn't seem
appropriate:
The question of whether the proxies used by MBH98 were themselves subject to amplitude
limitations is not the focus of this section, and is examined in Section 2 above.
These issues are implicit in section 2, but have nothing to do w/ MBH98 specificially. As
written this is misleading/confusing, and I don't think it adds anything.
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
There has been some progress. I have contributions from Gene and Gavin.
Keith (2.3) and Tim (3) here in CRU tell me they are working on their parts. Francis
(5) also tells me he has also started. Tas told me about 6 weeks ago he would
finish the ice core part (section 2.3) shortly.
So we are getting there. I still need input from Caspar (section 4), Nick
(section 2.6), Peck (section 2.5). I have added in the section names of the
missing sections to help you all along.
Also need people to begin reading through the whole paper, but
this is premature yet.
I saw Thorsten at the EGU and he emailed recently saying that Larry (EPRI)
is keen to see this submitted soon. Remember it was through PAGES and EPRI
support that we had such a great few days in Wengen almost a year ago!
If we all put some effort in over June we could be there.
Can Gene and Gavin send me their references when they have a few minutes. I
suspect most will be in Mann et al. (2007), so if I can get that I can add them
in. I won't pass this on to any others.
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 [1]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: [2]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

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


Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMRWAJGR06-revisedfinal.doc"

References

1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1180539376.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: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

thanks Phil,
yeah, I figured we mights as well wait until all contributions have been received before
going over the full text and making necessary revisions...
off to Oregon now. talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Thanks for the paper. Gene wrote that bit. I'll flag it for modifying
at my next draft - when I get a chance to add the refs in. Likely
the weekend. May have got some other responses by then.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:49 30/05/2007, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
Off travelling again, will check in when I return next week on status of Perugia
(arggh!).
Papers is looking good. I've attached draft of Mann et al (2007) which should have the
references you're looking for. Please don't distribute, we'd like to wait until galleys
are available to begin distributing the paper.
One small thing, this statement at end of 1st paragraph on page 18 in the draft didn't
seem appropriate:
The question of whether the proxies used by MBH98 were themselves subject to amplitude
limitations is not the focus of this section, and is examined in Section 2 above.
These issues are implicit in section 2, but have nothing to do w/ MBH98 specificially.
As written this is misleading/confusing, and I don't think it adds anything.
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
There has been some progress. I have contributions from Gene and Gavin.
Keith (2.3) and Tim (3) here in CRU tell me they are working on their parts. Francis
(5) also tells me he has also started. Tas told me about 6 weeks ago he would
finish the ice core part (section 2.3) shortly.
So we are getting there. I still need input from Caspar (section 4), Nick
(section 2.6), Peck (section 2.5). I have added in the section names of the
missing sections to help you all along.
Also need people to begin reading through the whole paper, but
this is premature yet.
I saw Thorsten at the EGU and he emailed recently saying that Larry (EPRI)
is keen to see this submitted soon. Remember it was through PAGES and EPRI
support that we had such a great few days in Wengen almost a year ago!
If we all put some effort in over June we could be there.
Can Gene and Gavin send me their references when they have a few minutes. I
suspect most will be in Mann et al. (2007), so if I can get that I can add them
in. I won't pass this on to any others.
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 [1]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: [2]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[3]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [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.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

References

1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm