Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1200112408.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: IJoC and Figure 4
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:33:28 +0100
Cc: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <melissa.free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Susan Solomon' <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear folks,

I believe Ben's suggestion is very good compromise and we should
prepare a Fig. 4 with three RAOBCORE versions, RICH, HadAT and RATPAC.
As I have understood Ben in his first description of Fig. 4, also the
range of model trend profiles should be included.

Who will actually draw the figure? I can do this but I do not have the
model data and I do not have the RATPAC profiles so far. It would be
easiest to remove the Titchner et al. profiles and Steves profiles from
Peter's plot. Or should we send our profile data to you, Ben? What do
you think?

Concerning the possible reaction of Douglass et al.: RAOBCORE v1.2 and
v1.3 are both published in the Haimberger(2007) RAOBCORE paper (where
they were labeled differently). Thus they have at least omitted v1.3.
RAOBCORE v1.4 time series have published in the May 2007 BAMS climate
state of 2006 supplement.

Peter, myself, Dian and probably a few others will meet in Japan by the
End of January and a few weeks later in Germany, where we can discuss
the latest developments and plan the publishing strategy.

Thanks a lot Ben for moderating this Fig. 4 issue.

Regards,

Leo

Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear folks,
>
> Just a quick update. With the assistance of Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and
> Dian, I've now come to a decision about the disposition of our response
> to Douglass et al. I've decided to submit to IJoC. I think this is a
> fair and reasonable course of action. The IJoC editor (and various IJoC
> editorial board members and Royal Meteorological Society members) now
> recognize that the Douglass et al. paper contains serious statistical
> flaws, and that its publication in IJoC reflects poorly on the IJoC and
> Royal Meteorological Society. From my perspective, IJoC should be given
> the opportunity to set the record straight.
>
> The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an
> independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This
> avoids the situation that I was afraid of - that our paper would be
> viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the "last word" in
> this exchange. In my opinion (based on many years of interaction with
> these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer are capable of
> admitting that their paper contained serious scientific errors. Their
> "last word" would have been an attempt to obfuscate rather than
> illuminate. That would have been very unfortunate.
>
> If our contribution is published in IJoC, Douglass et al. will have the
> opportunity to comment on it, and we will have the right to reply.
> Ideally, any comment and reply should be published side-by-side in the
> same issue of IJoC.
>
> The other good news is that IJoC is prepared to handle our submission
> expeditiously. My target, therefore, is to finalize our submission by
> the end of next week. I hope to have a first draft to send you by no
> later than next Tuesday.
>
> Now on to the "Figure 4" issue. Thanks to many of you for very helpful
> discussions and advice. Here are some comments:
>
> 1) I think it is important to have a Figure 4. We need to provide
> information on structural uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of
> profiles of atmospheric temperature change. Douglass et al. did not
> accurately portray the full range of structural uncertainties.
>
> 2) I do not want our submission to detract from other publications
> dealing with recent progress in the development of sonde-based
> atmospheric temperature datasets. I am aware of at least four such
> publications which are "in the pipeline".
>
> 3) So here is my suggestion for a compromise.
>
> o If Leo is agreeable, I would like to show results from his three
> RAOBCORE versions (v1.2, v1.3, and v1.4) in Figure 4. I'd also like to
> include results from the RATPAC and HadAT datasets used by Douglass et
> al. This allows us to illustrate that Douglass et al. were highly
> selective in their choice of radiosonde data. They had access to results
> from all three versions of RAOBCORE, but chose to show results from v1.2
> only - the version that provided the best support for their "models are
> inconsistent with observations" argument.
>
> o I suggest that we do NOT show the most recent radiosonde results
> from the Hadley Centre (described in the Titchner et al. paper) or from
> Steve Sherwood's group. This leaves more scope for a subsequent paper
> along the lines suggested by Leo, which would synthesize the results
> from the very latest sonde- and satellite-based temperature datasets,
> and compare these results with model-based estimates of atmospheric
> temperature change. I think that someone from the sonde community should
> take the lead on such a paper.
>
> 4) As Melissa has pointed out, Douglass et al. may argue that v1.2 was
> published at the time they wrote their paper, while v1.3 and v1.4 were
> unpublished (but submitted). I'm sure this is how Douglass et al. will
> actually respond. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Douglass et al.
> should have at least mentioned the existence of the v1.3 and v1.4 results.
>
> Do these suggested courses of action (submission to IJoC and inclusion
> of a Figure 4 with RAOBCOREv1.2,v1.3,v1.4/RATPAC/HadAT data) sound
> reasonable to you?
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
Ao. Univ. Prof. Dr. Leopold Haimberger
Institut f

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

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

Dear Ben and All,

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

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

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

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

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

2) Show results from significance testing done properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

_____John

Original Filename: 1200319411.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Reinhard Boehm <Reinhard.Boehm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Adrian Simmons <adrian.simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Phil
I'll read it more thoroughly later. My quick impression, more from the abstract than the
main text, is that you are defensive and it almost seems that there is a denial of the UHI
in part. Yet later in the abstract and nicely in the first two sentences of the
conclusions, you recognize that the UHI is real and the climate is different in cities.
The point is that the homogenization takes care of this wrt the larger scale record and
that UHI is essentially constant at many sites so that it does not alter trends. So I urge
you to redo the abstract and be especially careful of the wording.
You might even start with:
The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is a real phenomenon in urban settings that generally makes
cities warmer than surrounding rural areas. However, UHIs are evident at both London and
Vienna, but do not contribute to the warming trends over the 20th century because the city
influences have not changed much over that time. Similarly, ...
Regards
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,

I have mentioned to you all that I've been working on a paper on
Chinese temperature trends. This partly started because of allegations
about Jones et al. (1990). This shows, as expected, that these claims
were groundless.
Anyway - I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this draft. I have
spelt things out in some detail at times, but I'm expecting if it is published
that it will get widely read and all the words dissected. I know you're all
very busy and I could have been doing something more useful, but it hasn't
taken too long.
The European examples are just a simple way to illustrate the difference
between UHIs and urban-related warming trends, and an excuse to
reference Luke Howard.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [2]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [3]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

References

1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1200421039.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Differences in our series (GISS/HadCRUT3)
Date: Tue Jan 15 13:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Jim, Gavin,
Thanks for the summary about 2007. We're saying much the same things
about recent temps, and probably when it comes to those idiots
saying global warming is stopping - in some recent RC and CA threads. Gavin
has gone to town on this with 6,7, 8 year trends etc.
What I wanted to touch base on is the issue in this figure I
got yesterday. This is more of the same. You both attribute the differences to
your extrapolation over the Arctic (as does Stefan). I've gone along with
this, but have you produced an NH series excluding the Arctic ? Do these
agree better?
I reviewed a paper from NCDC (Tom Smith et al) about issues with
recent SSTs and the greater number of buoy type data since the late-90s
(now about 70%) cf ships. The paper shows ships are very slightly warmer
cf buoys (~0.1-0.2 for all SST). I don't think they have implemented an
adjustment for this yet, but if done it would raise global T by about 0.1
for the recent few years. The paper should be out in J. Climate soon.
The HC folks are not including SST data appearing in the Arctic for regions
where their climatology (61-90) includes years which had some sea ice. I
take it you and NCDC are not including Arctic SST data where the
climatology isn't correct? You get big positive anomalies if you do.
Some day we will have to solve both these issues. Both are difficult,
especially the latter!
Cheers
Phil

At 21:39 14/01/2008, you wrote:

To be removed from Jim Hansen's e-mail list respond with REMOVE as subject
Discussion of 2007 GISS global temperature analysis is posted at Solar and Southern
Oscillations
[1]http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf
Jim

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

References

1. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf

Original Filename: 1200425298.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends
Date: Tue Jan 15 14:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thomas.c.peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Reinhard Boehm" <reinhard.boehm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Susan Solomon" <susan.solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Adrian Simmons" <adrian.simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Kevin,
Homogeneity only done on mean T. Lots of sites just measure this.
A lot will measure max and min, but I haven't got the data. I also
didn't want to get into max/min as what is relevant to urban-related
warming in the global land series (or China) is the effects on mean T.
I can't then look at max or min against a rural series.
I would expect max to have changed less than min, but I can't
really look at that.
Also I don't want to confuse readers by saying there is an urban-related
temp influence, but it is to a lower DTR. I guess I could refer to Vose et al
(our Fig 3.11) which does show a decrease in DTR for xxx xxxx xxxxover China
(mostly blues).
I'll work on the text.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:50 15/01/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Phil
I looked at the paper in more detail. It obviously needs a bit of
polishing throughout.
I have a couple of fairly major comments. The first is that you only deal
with the mean temperature and nothing on the max and min temperatures.
Are those available? It would be much more powerful if those could be
included. The second is the special situation in China associated with
urbanization and that is air pollution. You do not mention aerosols and
their effects. We have some on that in AR4 that may be of value: refer to
our chapter.
In China, there has been so much increase in coal fired power and
pollution (11 out of the top worst ten polluted cities in the world are in
China, or something like that). So you do not see the sun for long
periods of time. Presumably that greatly cuts down on the max temp but
may also increase the min through a sort of greenhouse effect? Effects of
urban runoff tend to warm and space heating also warms but should mainly
affect the min. Pollution may not be in the inner city but concentrated
more near the sites of industry and power stations; but also may not be
that local owing to winds? Pollution may also change fog or smog
conditions, and may also change drizzle and precip. Looking at other
variables could help with whether the changes are local or linked to
atmospheric circulation.
The unique aspect of urbanization related to air pollution should make
China different, but may not be easily untangled without max and min temps
(and DTR).
Anyway, given these aspects, you may want to at least assemble the
expectations somewhere altogether and discuss max (day) vs night (min)
effects?
Hope this helps
Kevin
>
>> Dear All,
> I have mentioned to you all that I've been working on a paper on
> Chinese temperature trends. This partly started because of allegations
> about Jones et al. (1990). This shows, as expected, that these claims
> were groundless.
> Anyway - I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this draft. I
> have
> spelt things out in some detail at times, but I'm expecting if it
> is published
> that it will get widely read and all the words dissected. I know you're
> all
> very busy and I could have been doing something more useful, but it
> hasn't
> taken too long.
> The European examples are just a simple way to illustrate the
> difference
> between UHIs and urban-related warming trends, and an excuse to
> reference Luke Howard.
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

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

References

1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1200426564.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Edouard Bard
Date: Tue Jan 15 14:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike,
Good triumphs over bad - eventually!
It does take a long time though!
Maybe Ray P. wants to do something. He is more up to speed
on all this - and reads French!
Cheers
Phil
At 14:33 15/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:

Phil,
thanks for sending on, I've sent to Ray P. The Passoti piece is remarkably bad for a
Science "news" piece, it would be worth discussing this w/ the editor, Donald Kennedy
who is quite reasonable, and probably a bit embarrassed by this.
My french isn't great, but I could see there was something also about the Moberg
reconstructions, Courtilot obviously trying to use that to arge that the recent warming
isn't anomalous (even though the Moberg recon actually supports that it is).
I'll need to read over all of this and try to digest when I have a chance later today.
Keep up the good fight, the attacks are getting more and more desparate as the
contrarians are increasingly losing the battle (both scientifically, and in the public
sphere). one thing I've learned is that the best way to deal w/ these attacks is just to
go on doing good science, something I learned from Ben...
talk to you later,
mike
Well, the Phil Jones wrote:

Gavin, Mike,

Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert.
Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad.
One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science.
I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This
isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is
poor
at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard.
See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well !
I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if
this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
who and why it appoints its fellows!
In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal
rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were
awfiul.
Cheers
Phil
From: Jean Jouzel [1]<jean.jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr
[134.157.0.166]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:xxx xxxx xxxxon shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (
[2]http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Phil,
Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for
your help in getting some support to Edouard, which is really needed. Certainly one
thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the
fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20

Original Filename: 1200493432.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Raymond P. <rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]]
Date: Wed Jan 16 09:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Ray,
Glad to see you're onto this. Obviously anything shouldn't make it even worse
for Edouard, but you're in contact with him.
I'd be happy to sign onto any letter from Science, but this isn't essential. I know
the series Courtillot has used (and Pasotti re-uses) came from here, but it isn't
what he and the authors says it was. I also know it doesn't make much difference
if the correct one was used - given the smoothing. It is just sloppy and a
principle thing. The correct data are sitting on our web site and have been since
Brohan et al (2006) appeared in JGR. Even the earlier version (HadCRUT2v) would
have been OK, but not a specially produced series for a tree-ring reconstruction
paper back in 2001/2 and not on our web site.
Then there are all the science issues you and Edouard have raised in RC and the EPSL
comment.
I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from
March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of
grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can
change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at
NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data,
mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of
the French Academy in early March.
What he understands below is my refusal to write a paper for the proceedings of
the French Academy for the meeting in early March. He only mentioned this requirement
afterwards and I said I didn't have the time to rewrite was already in the literature.
It took me several more months of emails to get my expenses for going to Paris!
Cheers
Phil
From Courtillot 26 March 2007
Dear Phil,
Sure I understand. Now research wise I would like us to remain in contact. Unfortunately, I
have too little time to devote to what is in principle not in my main stream of research
and has no special funding. But still I intend to try and persist. I find these temperature
and pressure series fascinating. I have two queries:
1) how easy is it for me (not a very agile person computer wise) to obtain the files of
data you use in the various global or non global averages of T (I mean the actual montly
data in each 5

Original Filename: 1200651426.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "James Hansen" <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Dueling climates]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Karl, Tom" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Reto Ruedy" <rruedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thanks, Phil. Here is a way that Reto likes to list the rankings that come out of our
version of land-ocean index.
rank LOTI
xxx xxxx xxxx.62C
xxx xxxx xxxx.57C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.57C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.56C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.55C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.54C
xxx xxxx xxxx.49C
i.e., the second through sixth are in a statistical tie for second in our analysis. This
seems useful, and most reporters are sort of willing to accept it. Given differences in
treating the Arctic etc., there will be substantial differences in rankings. I would be a
bit surprised is #7 (2004) jumpred ahead to be #2 in someone else's analysis, but perhaps
even that is possible, given the magnitude of these differences.
Jim

On Jan 18, 2008 5:03 AM, Phil Jones <[1]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

Kevin,
When asked I always say the differences are due to the cross-Arctic extrapolation.
Also
as you say there is an issue of SST/MAT coming in from ships/buoys in the Arctic. HadCRUT3
(really HadSST2) doesn't use these where there isn't a xxx xxxx xxxxclimatology - a lot of areas
with sea ice in most/some years in the base period. Using fixed SST values of -1.8C is
possible for months with sea ice, but is likely to be wrong. MAT would be impossible to
develop xxx xxxx xxxxclimatologies for when sea ice was there. This is an issue that will have to
addressed at some point as the sea ice disappears. Maybe we could develop possible
approaches using some AMIP type Arctic RCM simulations?
Agreeing on the ranks is the hardest of all measures. Uncertainties in global averages
are of the order of +/- 0.05 for one sigma, so any difference between years of less than
0.1
isn't significant. We (MOHC/CRU) put annual values in press releases, but we also put
errors. UK newspapers quote these, and the journalists realise about uncertainties, but
prefer
to use the word accuracy.
We only make the press releases to get the numbers out at one time, and focus
all the calls. We do this through WMO, who want the release in mid-Dec.
There is absolutely no sense of duelling in this. We would be criticised if there
were just
one analysis. The science is pushing for multiple analyses of the same measure - partly
to make sure people remember RSS and not just believe UAH. As we all know, NOAA/NASA
and HadCRUT3 are all much closer than RSS and UAH!
I know we all know all the above. I try to address this when talking to journalists, but
they generally ignore this level of detail.
I'll be in Boulder the week after next at the IDAG meeting (Jan 28-30) and another
meeting Jan30/Feb 1. Tom will be also.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:12 18/01/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

FYI
See the discussion below.

Original Filename: 1201561936.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jean Jouzel <jean.jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: EGU 2008]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Jean,
no problem, I think Phil and I have it all sorted out. Sorry I won't be there to see you
this time,
mike
Jean Jouzel wrote:

Dear Phil, Dear Mike,

I feel that I come too late in the discussion, but it's really fine for me.

Thanks a lot Jean

At 14:24 +0000 18/01/08, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I didn't read it properly! I see the Jan 25 deadline. I was looking
at a Feb date which is for room and scheduling options.
So I will let you enter the session on Monday. I'll send
something over the weekend or first thing Monday, once I've
been through them. There a number of issues which relate to
last year and who got orals/posters then.
The other thing is for a room for 250+ people. If we have a medallist
we want more. We had 500 last year (due to Ray) but we did keep
most for the next few talks. We still had about ~200 for the session after
Ray's.
Cheers
Phil

At 14:01 18/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Phil,
thanks--sounds fine, I'll let you enter the session then.
I thought they wanted it sooner though (before Jan 25). I'm forwarding that email, maybe
I misunderstood it,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Have printed out the abstracts. Looks like many reasonable ones.
Pity we only have the limited numbers. I can put the session in
once we're agreed. It seems as though we can't do that till mod-Feb.
I've contacted Gerrit and Gerard to see if we have to accommodate
a medalist talk for the Hans Oeschger prize.
Cheers
Phil

At 13:15 18/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Phil,
thanks, that sounds fine to me. I'll await further word from you after you look this
over again, and I'll await feedback from Jean. No rush, I'm hoping to finalize the
session on Monday.
The Vinther et al stuff sounds very interesting--I'm looking forward to hearing more,
sorry I won't actually be at EGU.
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, Jean
Thanks. I'll probably go with Vinther et al for the third invited. Not just
as I'm on the author list, but because he'll show (will submit soon) that
the Greenland borehole records (Dorthe Dahl Jensen) are winter proxies.
Has implications for the Norse Vikings - as the summer isotopes (which
unfortunately respond much to Icelandic than SW Greenland temps) don't
show any Medieval warming.
Jean probably knew all this. The bottom line is that annual isotopes are
essentially winter isotopes as they vary 2-3 times as much as summer ones.
If the squeezing of the layers doesn't distort anything this implies longer series
are very winter half year dominant.

I mostly agree with the other orals, but I have to look at a few. There is one
on the Millennium project (EU funded) which Jean knows about. Might have to give
this an oral slot.
Jean - any thoughts? I assume you're happy to chair a session.
I also need to check whether we will have to talk a medallist talk? No
idea who?
Cheers
Phil
At 17:05 17/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by f05n05.cac.psu.edu id
m0HH5gQ6025372
Dear Phil and Jean,
We got an impressive turnout this year for our session, 37 total submitted abstracts.
Please see attached word document. Based on the rules described by EGU below, I suggest
we have 2 oral sessions (consisting of morning and afternoon), with a total of 10 oral
presentations w/ 7 of those being regular 15 minutes slots and 3 of those invited 25
minute slots. The other 27 abstracts will be posters, conforming w/ the fairly harsh
limits imposed by EGU on oral presentations.
My suggestions would be as follow:
Invited Presentations (25 minutes):
1 Ammann et al
2 Hughes et al
3 either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al (preferences?)
Other Oral (15 minutes):
4. 3 other of either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al
5. 3 other of either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al
6. Riedwyl et al
7. Graham et al
8. Smerdon et al
9. Kleinen et al
10. Jungklaus et al
Posters:
All others

Please let me know what you think. If these sound good to you, I'll go ahead and arrange
the session online,
Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: EGU 2008
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:03:43 +0100
From: Andrea Bleyer [1]<Andrea.Bleyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: [2]Denis.Rousseau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [3]thomas.wagner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[4]f.doblas-reyes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [5]tilmes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [6]p.wadhams@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[7]jbstuut@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [8]harz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [9]w.hoek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Johann Jungclaus
[10]<johann.jungclaus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heiko Paeth [11]<heiko.paeth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
[12]piero.lionello@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [13]boc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [14]helge.drange@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[15]chris.d.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [16]martin.claussen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[17]gottfried.kirchengast@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [18]matthew.collins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[19]martin.beniston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [20]d.stainforth1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[21]rwarritt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Seneviratne Sonia Isabelle
[22]<sonia.seneviratne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wild Martin [23]<martin.wild@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nanne
Weber [24]<weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [25]Hubertus.Fischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [26]rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[27]azakey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [28]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [29]steig@u.washington.edu,
[30]nalan.koc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [31]florindo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [32]ggd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [33]oromero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[34]v.rath@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [35]awinguth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[36]l.haass@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , [37]Gilles.Ramstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Andre Paul
[38]<apau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [39]lucarini@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin Trauth
[40]<trauth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [41]nathalie.fagel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[42]hans.renssen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [43]Xiaolan.Wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[44]Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, alessandra negri [45]<a.negri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
[46]ferretti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [47]Mark.Liniger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , Geert Jan van Oldenborgh
[48]<oldenborgh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [49]pjr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [50]keith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[51]piacsek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [52]kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [53]hatte@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[54]peter.kershaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [55]icacho@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [56]kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Thomas Felis [57]<tfelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [58]olander@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[59]karenluise.knudsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [60]aku@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[61]Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [62]reichart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[63]M.N.Tsimplis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [64]c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [65]r.sutton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[66]valexeev@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [67]victor.brovkin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [68]zeng@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[69]terray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [70]dufresne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [71]Burkhardt.Rockel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[72]hurkvd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [73]philippe.ciais@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [74]rolf.philipona@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[75]Masa.Kageyama@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , [76]jules@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [77]ewwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[78]raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [79]omarchal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[80]claire.waelbroeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Phil Jones [81]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
[82]jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [83]Jeff.Blackford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[84]gerardv@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [85]dharwood1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [86]lang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Irka Hajdas
[87]<hajdas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [88]x.crosta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[89]pascal.claquin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gonzalez-Rouco [90]<fidelgr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
[91]jsa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [92]dankd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [93]kbice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Brinkhuis, dr. H.
(Henk)" [94]<H.Brinkhuis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [95]andy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [96]kbillups@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[97]anita.roth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gerrit Lohmann [98]<Gerrit.Lohmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
[99]P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [100]strecker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[101]mmaslin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [102]marie-france.loutre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[103]aurelia.ferrari@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [104]j.bamber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Torsten Bickert
[105]<bickert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> , [106]chris.d.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[107]elsa.cortijo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [108]gerald.ganssen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[109]arne.richter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Andrea Bleyer [110]<Andrea.Bleyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Amelung B
(ICIS)" [111]<B.Amelung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, [112]spn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [113]bgomez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[114]wmson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [115]d.vance@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear convener and co-convener,
Thanks a lot for your effort for sucessful sessions at the EGU 2008.
>From our experience of the last years, there will be an
oral-to-poster ratio of about 1:2 (e.g. ~33% of the contributions can
get
a talk). This means that for a complete session, you need 18
contributions. 18:3 * 15min = 1.5h = 1 block
For those of you who are under the number of 18, there are several
options:
1) a pure poster session
2) merging with a related session
3) the contributions will go to the open session (CL0)
4) if you are just below 18, you may manage to get late contributions
within the next days (please no dummy posters)
Please tell me which option do you like most (email to
[116]andrea.bleyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx).
In case 2), please contact the respective conveners in advance.
The session could be also from other divisions (BG, OS, AS, IS, ..).
In case of merging, you may speak with the persons whether it would be
appropiate to modify the title of the new session or to have a combined
name with both titles.
I think the general rule is that the convener of the merged session is
the person with the bigger session.
Kind regards
Gerrit
---
Prof. Dr. Gerrit Lohmann
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Bussestr. 24
D-27570 Bremerhaven
Germany
Email: [117]Gerrit.Lohmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Telephone: +49(471)4xxx xxxx xxxx/ 1760
Fax: +49(471)4xxx xxxx xxxx
[118]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/CurriculumVitae/glohmann.html
[119]http://www.awi.de/en/go/paleo



--
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: [120]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[121]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 [122]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: [123]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[124]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 [125]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: [126]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[127]
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 [128]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--

Attention new mail address : [129]jean.jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Universit

Original Filename: 1201724331.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: pdf
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:18:xxx xxxx xxxx

Phil,

will do. And regarding TSI, it looks like that 1361 or 1362 (+/-) are going to be the new
consensus. All I hear is that this seems to be quite robust. Fodder for the critics: all
these modelers, they always put in too much energy - no wonder it was warming - and now
they want to reduce the natural component? The SORCE meeting is going to be on that
satellite stuff but also about climate connections : Sun-Earth. Tom Crowley is going to be
there, Gavin Schmidt, David Rind, and a few others; of course Judith.

Thanks for Bo Vinther's manuscript!

Caspar



On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:12 PM, [1]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

Caspar,

OK. Keep me informed. Also I'd like to know more the conclusions

of the meeting you're going to on the solar constant.

Just that it can change from 1366.5 to 1361!!

Cheers

Phil

Phil,

we should hook together on this 1257 event (I call it 1257 because of

the timings but its just a bit better than an informed guess). We now

have these simulations of contemporary high-lat eruptions and can

compare them with low-lat ones.

Just a couple thoughts

pro high-lat:

- climate signal looks better in short and longer term

- potential for in-ice-core migration of some sulfur species ... some

new work that has been done ...

con:

- deposition duration

- old fingerprints

- no high-lat calderas/flows of appropriate size : compare it to

Eldgja or Laki, this thing is bigger!

- no large ash layers

What we need is fingerprinting. I'm participating in a project

Icelandic volcanism and climate in the last 2000 years. There we have

money to do some chemical fingerprinting. I'm pursuing to get

somebody to run these samples. That will be the deciding thing.

Remember, instrumentation has dramatically increased in sensitivity,

so I think it should be possible. its not that one would have to go

dig around too much in the ice cores as the depth/location of that

monster sulfate spikes are well known.

Should be interesting.

Caspar

On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:57 PM, [2]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

Caspar,

The meeting I'm at is less interesting than IDAG.

I'll send the Greenland isotope data when I get back.

536 is a good story. 1258/9 needs to be good story too...

I think it isn't at the moment.

Cheers

Phil

Thanks Phil,

will have a look. I certainly like it, and I only was a bit picky on

the "largest eruption" versus "largest volcanic signal in trees". I

like the isotope work very much and will now look if I can pick on

something more substantial ;-)

Caspar

On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:24 PM, [3]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

<2007GL032450.pdf>

Caspar M. Ammann

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology

1850 Table Mesa Drive

Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx

email: [4]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx

Caspar M. Ammann

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology

1850 Table Mesa Drive

Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx

email: [5]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx

Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
email: [6]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx

References

1. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1202939193.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: J Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: IPCC-Sec <IPCC-Sec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Future of the IPCC:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ian.allison@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, neville.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fichefet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mati@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, randall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, philip@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, arinke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.lemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bojariu@b.astral.ro, martin.heimann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, r.colman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, xiaoye_02@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, yukihiro.nojiri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, artale@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sumi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hauglustaine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pasb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pierre.friedlingstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.k.berntsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, menendez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pmzhai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, qdh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, zhaozc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, marengo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ian.Watterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penny.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, unni@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robted@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, anny.cazenave@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Greg.Flato@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john.fyfe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ken.denman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ulrike.lohmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, piers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, P.M.Cox@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djacob@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gunnar.myhre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, heinze@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jouni.raisanen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thomas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, yluo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, zongci_zhao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gaoxj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, artaxo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jwillebrand@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, matsuno@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, amnat_c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Albert.Klein.Tank@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dorlandv@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, letreut@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Sandrine.Bony@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jean-Claude.Duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ciais@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kattsov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jayes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, c.mauritzen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jknganga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jorge.carrasco@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.m.gregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, james.murphy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jim.haywood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.betts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.wood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wontk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rprinn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pldsdias@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kitoh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, noda@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mokssit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, layesarr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fujii@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.lowe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.wratt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.w.fahey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Isaac.Held@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, martin.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ronald.Stouffer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Sydney.Levitus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thomas.c.peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, v.ramaswamy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckshum@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, apitman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hanawa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ralley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dingyh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jwren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bsoden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, raga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, victormr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, atgaye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brasseur@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, eholland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knutti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wcollins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ltalley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mjmolina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, c.lequere@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, georg.kaser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, laprise.rene@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.bindoff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, anthony.chen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rupa Kumar Kolli <RKolli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, r.ramesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ambenje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, busuioc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jorcar59@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahim_f@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear All,


I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).

"There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action".

1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?

I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for "action"
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.

For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast - using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.

We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.

It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.

It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
"greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance".

2. Is "model democracy" a valid scientific method? The "I" in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.

3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?

Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.


Regards,
Shukla


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPCC-Sec wrote:
> Dear LAs & CLAs,
>
> Please find attached a letter and issues related to the future of the
> IPCC.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Annie
>
> IPCC Secretariat
> WMO
> 7bis, Avenue de la Paix
> P.O. Box 2300
> 1211 Geneva 2
> SWITZERLAND
> Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx/8254/8284
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/8013
> Email: IPCC-Sec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Website: http://www.ipcc.ch
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1203620834.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: David Thompson <davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Your ENSO series
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:07:14 +0000

Phil,

If it works, let's plan on me visiting for the day April 30 (I'll come out April 29; leave
May 1). I'll put the date on my calendar and assume it works unless I hear otherwise. If
there is a better day that week, please let me know.

Thanks,

Dave

Dave,
Will send on your details to the seminar organizer here. The week
of April 28 - May 2 is OK for me. I hope this is what you meant by
last week.
A few thoughts on the plots.
1. There isn't a drop off in land data around 1945 - nor during WW2.
So this is different from the ocean data. Most series are complete
or have been slightly infilled during the period in Europe. Berlin
for example only missed one day's T obs in April 45.
2. Fuego could be underestimated.
3. It could also be that sulphate emissions were very high at this time
- late 60s, early 70s.
I'll await the text !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:18 19/02/2008, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
I'd enjoy visiting.... how does the first or last week of April look
to you?
As for some new results:
I've attached two figures. Both focus on the land data.
The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the
global-mean land data (CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the
residual global-mean time series. There is nothing here you haven't
seen before - the residual land time series is identical to the one
in the Nature paper.
As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the
signature of the volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability
goes: the residual land time series supports the IPCC contention that
the global warmed from ~1xxx xxxx xxxx; did not warm from ~1xxx xxxx xxxx; and
warmed substantially from 1980 to present.
OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal.
There are a lot of ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best
method. For now, I am driving the simple climate model I've been
using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing time series. I
get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate.
The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic
signal. From top to bottom: the the global-mean residual land time
series (repeated from the previous figure); the volcanic fit; the
'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series.
Some key points:
1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic
signal.
2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you
look closely, it suggests the globe has warmed continuously since
1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in the 1970s, and a downwards
'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in
the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding
change in variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage).
3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in
the middle part of the century comes from only two features: the step
in 45 and Agung. When Agung is removed, land temperatures march
upwards from 1xxx xxxx xxxx(Fig 2 bottom).
4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the
impact of Fuego (the bite is also evident in the SST data).
What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in
the SST data. But it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO
residual time series (top of Fig 2): removing Agung simply clarifies
that without the step temperatures marched steadily upwards from
1xxx xxxx xxxx.
-Dave
?
On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote:

Dave,
Thanks.
Before seeing what you send, I think I'll find it harder to believe
something is wrong with the land data. I can be convinced though....
So you're in Reading now. Do you still want to come up to
distant Norwich
at some point and also give a talk?
Cheers
Phil
At 16:55 18/02/2008, you wrote:

Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit
from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to
get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan
1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig
figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean
(as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think
you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or
so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have
some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to
come....
-Dave

On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:

David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the
paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your
ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:

So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is
that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with
Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing
a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:

From: [1]j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [2]davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Nature 2xxx xxxx xxxxout to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A
discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface
temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are
sending your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments
from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group -- [3]http://www.nature.com/nature
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [4]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [5]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website
( [6]www.nature.com/ authors) for information about and links to
policies, services
and author benefits. See also [7]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus,
our blog for authors, and [8]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer,
our blog about peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking
System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

------------------------------------------------------------------- -
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
David W. J. Thompson
[9]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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 [10]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[11]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in
transit from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit
for us to get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is
Jan 1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number
of sig figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean
(as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think
you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day
or so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also
have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More
to come....
-Dave
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:

David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the
paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare
your ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:

So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is
that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with
Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our
providing a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:

From: [12]j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [13]davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Nature 2xxx xxxx xxxxout to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A
discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface
temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are
sending your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments
from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group -- [14]http://www.nature.com/nature
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [15]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [16]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website
( [17]www.nature.com/authors) for information about and links to
policies, services and author benefits. See also [18]http:// blogs.nature.com/nautilus,
our blog for authors, and [19]http:// blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer, our blog about
peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking
System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

------------------------------------------------------------------- -
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
David W. J. Thompson
[20]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[22]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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 [23]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[24]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Phil,
I'd enjoy visiting.... how does the first or last week of April look to you?
As for some new results:
I've attached two figures. Both focus on the land data.
The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the global-mean land data
(CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the residual global-mean time series. There is
nothing here you haven't seen before - the residual land time series is identical to the
one in the Nature paper.
As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the
volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series
supports the IPCC contention that the global warmed from ~1xxx xxxx xxxx; did not warm from
~1xxx xxxx xxxx; and warmed substantially from 1980 to present.
OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of
ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best method. For now, I am driving the
simple climate model I've been using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing
time series. I get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate.
The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to
bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous
figure); the volcanic fit; the 'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series.
Some key points:
1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal.
2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it
suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in
the 1970s, and a downwards 'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the
step in the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding change in
variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage).
3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of
the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is
removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1xxx xxxx xxxx(Fig 2 bottom).
4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the
bite is also evident in the SST data).
What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the SST data. But
it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2):
removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily
upwards from 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
-Dave

On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote:

Dave,
Thanks.
Before seeing what you send, I think I'll find it harder to believe
something is wrong with the land data. I can be convinced though....
So you're in Reading now. Do you still want to come up to distant Norwich
at some point and also give a talk?
Cheers
Phil
At 16:55 18/02/2008, you wrote:

Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit
from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to
get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan
1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig
figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean
(as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think
you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or
so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have
some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to
come....
-Dave
?
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:

David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the
paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your
ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:

So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is
that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with
Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing
a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:

From: [25]j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [26]davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Nature 2xxx xxxx xxxxout to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A
discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface
temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are
sending your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments
from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group -- [27]http://www.nature.com/nature
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [28]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [29]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [30]www.nature.com/ authors) for
information about and links to policies, services
and author benefits. See also [31]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus,
our blog for authors, and [32]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer,
our blog about peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking
System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[33]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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 [34]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[35]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit from the US to the
UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan 1850; the last is
Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig figures - that's just how Matlab
wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean (as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think you'll find them
interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or so... the main point is that I
suspect the land data might also have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the
century. More to come....
-Dave
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:

David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil

At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:

So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is that the paper will fare
OK in review, but you never know with Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist
on our providing a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:

From: [36]j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [37]davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Nature 2xxx xxxx xxxxout to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A discontinuity in the time series of
global-mean surface temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are sending
your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group -- [38]http://www.nature.com/nature
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [39]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax xxx xxxx xxxx; [40]nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [41]www.nature.com/authors) for
information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also
[42]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and
[43]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer, our blog about peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[44]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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 [45]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[46]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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 [47]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[48]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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 [49]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

References

1. mailto:j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.nature.com/nature
4. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.nature.com/
7. http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus
8. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer
9. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
10. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
12. mailto:j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. http://www.nature.com/nature
15. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.nature.com/authors
18. http:///
19. http:///
20. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
21. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
23. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
24. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
25. mailto:j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
26. mailto:davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
27. http://www.nature.com/nature
28. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
29. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
30. http://www.nature.com/
31. http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus
32. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer
33. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
34. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
35. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
36. mailto:j.thorpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
37. mailto:davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
38. http://www.nature.com/nature
39. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
40. mailto:nature@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
41. http://www.nature.com/authors
42. http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus
43. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer
44. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
45. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
46. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
47. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
48. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
49. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1203631942.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: Coverage
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

A quick question: Do you happen to have a "percentage land coverage
mask" for the HadCRUT3v data? And if so, does this exist as a netCDF file?

With best regards,

Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Ben,
> Email to Dick reminded me ! Had another phone call and I'd forgotten.
> First file is the coverage.
>
> Second is a program that reads this file - Channel 1.
>
> File is 36 by 72. 5 by 5 degs.
>
> It will start at 85-90N for the 36 subscript.
>
> for 72 it is either dateline or Greenwich.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 16:53 15/02/2008, you wrote:
>> Dear Dick,
>>
>> I'm forwarding an email that I sent out several days ago. For the last
>> month, I've been working hard to respond to a recent paper by David
>> Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer. The paper
>> claims that the conclusions of our CCSP Report were incorrect, and
>> that there is a fundamental discrepancy between simulated and observed
>> temperature changes in the tropical troposphere. Douglass et al. also
>> assert that models cannot represent the "observed" differential
>> warming of the surface and troposphere. To address these claims, I've
>> been updating some of the comparisons of models and observations that
>> we did for the CCSP Report, now using newer observational datasets
>> (among them NOAA ERSST-v2 and v3). As you can see from the forwarded
>> email, the warming rates of tropical SSTs are somewhat different for
>> ERSST-v2 and v3 - ERSST-v3 warms by less than v2. Do you understand
>> why this is?
>>
>> With best regards, and hope you are well!
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> X-Account-Key: account1
>> Return-Path: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
>> by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
>> Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83])
>> by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.6 $) with
>> ESMTP id m1E2YMTv008791;
>> Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> X-Attachments: LAST_IJC_figure04.pdf
>> X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5229"; a="26979778"
>> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,349,1199692800";
>> d="pdf'?scan'208";a="26979778"
>> Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29])
>> by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2008 18:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Message-ID: <47B3A8CB.90605@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Reply-To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Organization: LLNL
>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529)
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Stephen Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Melissa Free <melissa.free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley
>> <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears
>> <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler
>> <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: Additional calculations
>> References: <200801121320.26705.John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> <478C528C.8010606@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <p06230904c3b2e6b2c92f@[172.17.135.52]>
>> <478EC287.8030008@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> <1200567390.8038.35.camel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> <7.0.1.0.2.20080117140720.022259c0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> <1200995209.23799.95.camel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> <47962FD1.1020303@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> In-Reply-To: <47962FD1.1020303@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>> boundary="------------060600010907080200090109"
>>
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in sending you the next version of our
>> manuscript. I decided that I needed to perform some additional
>> calculations. I was concerned that we had not addressed the issue of
>> "differential warming" of the surface and troposphere - an issue which
>> Douglass et al. HAD considered.
>>
>> Our work thus far shows that there are no fundamental inconsistencies
>> between simulated and observed temperature trends in individual
>> tropospheric layers (T2 and T2LT). But we had not performed our
>> "paired trends" test for trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference
>> time series. This is a much tougher test to pass: differencing
>> strongly damps the correlated variability in each "pair" of surface
>> and T2LT time series. Because of this noise reduction, the standard
>> error of the linear trend in the difference series is typically
>> substantially smaller than the size of the standard error in an
>> individual surface or T2LT time series. This makes it easier to reject
>> the null hypothesis of "no significant difference between simulated
>> and observed trends".
>>
>> In the CCSP Report, the behavior of the trends in the
>> surface-minus-T2LT difference series led us to note that:
>>
>> "Comparing trend differences between the surface and the troposphere
>> exposes potential discrepancies between models and observations in the
>> tropics".
>>
>> So it seemed wise to re-examine this "differential warming" issue. I
>> felt that if we ignored it, Douglass et al. would have grounds for
>> criticizing our response.
>>
>> I've now done the "paired trends" test with the trends in the
>> surface-minus-T2LT difference series. The results are quite
>> interesting. They are at variance with the above-quoted finding of the
>> CCSP Report. The new results I will describe show that the "potential
>> discrepancies" in the tropics have largely been resolved.
>>
>> Here's what I did. I used three different observational estimates of
>> tropical SST changes. These were from NOAA-ERSST-v2, NOAA-ERSST-v3,
>> and HadISST1. It's my understanding that NOAA-ERSST-v3 and HadISST1
>> are the most recent SST products of NCDC and the Hadley Centre. I'm
>> also using T2LT data from RSS v3.0 and UAH v5.2. Here are the tropical
>> (20N-20S) trends in these five datasets over the 252-month period from
>> January 1979 to December 1999, together with their 1-sigma adjusted
>> standard errors (in brackets):
>>
>> UAH v5.xxx xxxx xxxx.060 (+/-0.137)
>> RSS v3.xxx xxxx xxxx.166 (+/-0.130)
>> HADISSTxxx xxxx xxxx.108 (+/-0.133)
>> NOAA-ERSST-vxxx xxxx xxxx.100 (+/-0.131)
>> NOAA-ERSST-vxxx xxxx xxxx.077 (+/-0.121)
>>
>> (all trends in degrees C/decade).
>>
>> The trends in the three SST datasets are (by definition) calculated
>> from anomaly data that have been spatially-averaged over tropical
>> oceans. The trends in T2LT are calculated from anomaly data that have
>> been spatially averaged over land and ocean. It is physically
>> reasonable to do the differencing over different domains, since the
>> temperature field throughout the tropical troposphere is more or less
>> on the moist adiabatic lapse rate set by convection over the warmest
>> waters.
>>
>> These observational trend estimates are somewhat different from those
>> available to us at the time of the CCSP Report. This holds for both
>> T2LT and SST. For T2LT, the RSS trend used in the CCSP Report and in
>> the Santer et al. (2005) Science paper was roughly 0.13 degrees
>> C/decade. As you can see from the Table given above, it is now ca.
>> 0.17 degrees C/decade. Carl tells me that this change is largely due
>> to a change in how he and Frank adjust for inter-satellite biases.
>> This adjustment now has a latitudinal dependence, which it did not
>> have previously.
>>
>> The tropical SST trends used in the CCSP Report were estimated from
>> earlier versions of the Hadley Centre and NOAA SST data, and were of
>> order 0.12 degrees C/decade. The values estimated from more recent
>> datasets are lower - and markedly lower in the case of NOAA-ERSST-v3
>> (0.077 degrees C/decade). The reasons for this downward shift in the
>> estimated warming of tropical SSTs are unclear. As Carl pointed out in
>> an email that he sent me earlier today:
>>
>> "One important difference is that post 1985, NOAA-ERSST-v3 directly
>> ingests "bias adjusted" SST data from AVHRR, a big change from v2,
>> which didn't use any satellite data (directly). AVHRR is strongly
>> affected in the tropics by the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. If the
>> "bias adjustment" doesn't completely account for this, the trends
>> could be changed".
>>
>> Another possibility is treatment of biases in the buoy data. It would
>> be nice if Dick Reynolds could advise us as to the most likely
>> explanation for the different warming rates inferred from
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2 and v3.
>>
>> Bottom line: The most recent estimates of tropical SST changes over
>> 1979 to 1999 are smaller than we reported in the CCSP Report, while
>> the T2LT trend (at least in RSS) is larger. The trend in the observed
>> difference series, NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT, is now -0.089
>> degrees C/decade, which is very good agreement with the multi-model
>> ensemble trend in the Ts minus T2LT difference series (-0.085 degrees
>> C/decade). Ironically, if Douglass et al. had applied their flawed
>> "consistency test" to the multi-model ensemble mean trend and the
>> trend in the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT difference series, they
>> would not have been able to conclude that models and observations are
>> inconsistent!
>>
>> Here are the observed trends in the tropical Ts minus T2LT difference
>> series in the six different pairs of Ts and T2LT datasets, together
>> with the number of "Hits" (rejections of the null hypothesis of no
>> significant difference in trends) and the percentage rejection rate
>> (based on 49 tests in each case)
>>
>> "Pair" Trend 1-sigma C.I. Hits Rej.Rate
>> HadISST1 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0577 (+/-0.03xxx xxxx xxxx(2.04%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0660 (+/-0.03xxx xxxx xxxx(2.04%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0890 (+/-0.03xxx xxxx xxxx(0.00%)
>> HadISST1 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0488 (+/-0.03xxx xxxx xxxx(57.14%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0405 (+/-0.04xxx xxxx xxxx(51.02%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0175 (+/-0.03xxx xxxx xxxx(30.60%)
>> Multi-model ensemble mean -0.0846
>>
>> Things to note:
>>
>> 1) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, the multi-model ensemble
>> mean trend is well within even the 1-sigma statistical uncertainty of
>> the observed trend.
>>
>> 2) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, there are very few
>> statistically-significant differences between the observed and
>> model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and
>> lower troposphere.
>>
>> 3) For all "pairs" involving UAH T2LT data, there are
>> statistically-significant differences between the observed and
>> model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and
>> lower troposphere. Even in these cases, however, rejection of the null
>> hypothesis is not universal: rejection rates range from 30% to 57%.
>> Clearly, not all models are inconsistent with the observational
>> estimate of "differential warming" inferred from UAH data.
>>
>> These results contradict the "model inconsistent with data" claims of
>> Douglass et al.
>>
>> The attached Figure is analogous to the Figure we currently show in
>> the paper for T2LT trends. Now, however, results are for trends in the
>> surface-minus-T2LT difference series. Rather than showing all six
>> "pairs" of observational results in the top panel, I've chosen to show
>> two pairs only in order to avoid unnecessarily complicating the
>> Figure. I propose, however, that we provide results from all six pairs
>> in a Table.
>>
>> As is visually obvious from the Figure, trends in 46 of the 49
>> simulated surface-minus-T2LT difference series pairs are within the
>> 2-sigma confidence intervals of the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT
>> trend (the light grey bar). And as is obvious from Panel B, even the
>> Douglass et al. "sigma{SE}" encompasses the difference series trend
>> from the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts/RSS T2LT pair.
>>
>> I think we should show these results in our paper.
>>
>> The bottom line: Use of newer T2LT datasets (RSS) and Ts datasets
>> (NOAA-ERSST-v3, HADISST1) largely removes the discrepancy between
>> tropical surface and tropospheric warming rates. We need to explain
>> why the observational estimates of tropical SST changes are now
>> smaller than they were at the time of the CCSP Report. We will need
>> some help from Dick Reynolds with this.
>>
>> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> program growlandmergeetc
> dimension lnd(72,36),nlnd(72,36),ivsst(72,36),jcov(72,36)
> dimension icmb(72,36),alcov(72,36),ascov(72,36),iysst(72,36)
> dimension isdvar(72,36,12),neigsd(72,36,12)
> dimension iorigt(72,36),icount(72,36)
> dimension ash(12),anh(12),ashp(12),anhp(12)
> dimension np(12),npch(12),npinf(12),npchan(12),npsst(12)
> rad=57.2958
> ir=13
> c calculate maximum % coverage of hemisphere in cos units
> xnh=0.0
> do 20 j=1,18
> w=cos((92.5-j*5)/rad)
> do 19 i=1,72
> 19 xnh=xnh+w
> 20 continue
> c read in land fraction in %
> read(1,21)i1,i2
> 21 format(2i6)
> do 22 j=1,36
> 22 read(1,23)(jcov(i,j),i=1,72)
> 23 format(72i6)
> c set coverage of land to % of at least 25% and less than 75%
> c ocean percent is then simply the rest
> do 24 j=1,36
> do 24 i=1,72
> alcov(i,j)=0.01*jcov(i,j)
> if(alcov(i,j).le.24.9)alcov(i,j)=25.0
> if(alcov(i,j).ge.75.1)alcov(i,j)=75.0
> ascov(i,j)=100.0 - alcov(i,j)
> 24 continue
> c read in the sd of the land only datset (var corected) to assess
> c whether the neighbour check can legitimately correct values
> do 901 k=1,12
> read(4,27)ii
> do 902 j=1,36
> 902 read(4,29)(isdvar(i,j,k),i=37,72),(isdvar(ii,j,k),ii=1,36)
> 901 continue
> c read in neighbouring sd calculated from at least 4 of the
> c neigbouring 8 5 degree squares around each grid box
> do 903 k=1,12
> read(18,27)ii
> do 904 j=1,36
> 904 read(18,29)(neigsd(i,j,k),i=37,72),(neigsd(ii,j,k),ii=1,36)
> 903 continue
> c skip the first 19 years of the variance corrected land data
> c as the variance corrected SST data only starts in
> c also skip the first 19 years of the original gridded temps
> c so later can check the number of stations available per gridbox
> c per month
> do 25 k=1851,1869
> do 26 kk=1,12
> read(2,27)i1,i2
> 27 format(2i5)
> read(ir,27)i1,i2
> do 28 j=1,36
> 28 read(2,29)(lnd(i,j),i=37,72),(lnd(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> 29 format(12i5)
> do 128 j=1,36
> 128 read(ir,29)(iorigt(i,j),i=37,72),(iorigt(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> do 129 j=1,36
> 129 read(ir,29)(icount(i,j),i=37,72),(icount(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> 26 continue
> 25 continue
> c read in the land and sst data (both variance corrected)
> c reading in the land allow for the greenwich start of the land
> c and the dateline start for the SST. Output is from the dateline
> do 31 k=1870,1999
> ashy=0.0
> anhy=0.0
> if(k.ge.1901)ir=14
> if(k.ge.1951)ir=15
> if(k.ge.1991)ir=16
> if(k.ge.1994)ir=17
> do 32 kk=1,12
> npch(kk)=0
> npchan(kk)=0
> np(kk)=0
> npinf(kk)=0
> npsst(kk)=0
> c read in the original gridded land to get the station count
> c per grid box
> read(ir,27)i1,i2
> do 131 j=1,36
> 131 read(ir,29)(iorigt(i,j),i=37,72),(iorigt(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> do 132 j=1,36
> 132 read(ir,29)(icount(i,j),i=37,72),(icount(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> c read in the variance corrected land
> read(2,27)i1,i2
> write(7,27)kk,k
> do 33 j=1,36
> 33 read(2,29)(lnd(i,j),i=37,72),(lnd(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> c copy lnd array to nlnd so that the growing doesn't use already
> c infilled values
> do 34 j=1,36
> do 34 i=1,72
> 34 nlnd(i,j)=lnd(i,j)
> c read in sst data
> read(3,21)i1,i2
> do 35 j=1,36
> 35 read(3,23)(ivsst(i,j),i=1,72)
> c check land for extremes and fill in gaps (only one grid box away
> c provided there are at least 4 of the 8 surrounding boxes)
> do 41 j=1,36
> j1=j-1
> j2=j+1
> if(j1.eq.0)j1=1
> if(j2.eq.37)j2=36
> do 42 i=1,72
> sum=0.0
> nsum=0
> i1=i-1
> i2=i+1
> do 43 jj=j1,j2
> do 44 ii=i1,i2
> iii=ii
> if(iii.eq.73)iii=1
> if(iii.eq.0)iii=72
> if(jj.eq.j.and.iii.eq.i)go to 44
> if(lnd(iii,jj).eq.-9999)go to 44
> sum=sum+lnd(iii,jj)
> nsum=nsum+1
> 44 continue
> 43 continue
> if(lnd(i,j).ne.-9999)np(kk)=np(kk)+1
> if(nsum.le.3)go to 47
> sum=sum/nsum
> ndep=sum+0.5
> if(sum.lt.0.0)ndep=ndep-1
> nval=ndep
> if(lnd(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 46
> npch(kk)=npch(kk)+1
> ndep=lnd(i,j)-nval
> if(neigsd(i,j,kk).eq.-9999)go to 47
> if(iabs(ndep).le.225)go to 47
> if(iabs(ndep).lt.neigsd(i,j,kk)*2.0)go to 47
> if(icount(i,j).ge.2)go to 47
> nlnd(i,j)=nval
> npchan(kk)=npchan(kk)+1
> 48 write(6,202)k,kk,j,i,nval,lnd(i,j),ndep,isdvar(i,j,kk),
> >neigsd(i,j,kk),nlnd(i,j),nsum,icount(i,j),iorigt(i,j)
> 202 format(4i4,9i6)
> go to 47
> 46 nlnd(i,j)=nval
> npinf(kk)=npinf(kk)+1
> 47 continue
> 42 continue
> 41 continue
> c merge with marine using the weighting factors
> do 51 j=1,36
> do 52 i=1,72
> wx=0.0
> xx=0.0
> if(nlnd(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 55
> wx=wx+alcov(i,j)
> xx=xx+alcov(i,j)*nlnd(i,j)
> 55 if(ivsst(i,j).eq.-32768)go to 56
> wx=wx+ascov(i,j)
> xx=xx+ascov(i,j)*ivsst(i,j)
> 56 if(wx.ge.0.001)go to 59
> icmb(i,j)=-9999
> go to 57
> 59 aa=xx/wx
> ia=aa+0.5
> if(xx.lt.0.0)ia=ia-1
> icmb(i,j)=ia
> c writing out the land/sst merging checking when both are present
> c if(wx.ge.99.9)write(6,203)kk,j,i,ia,nlnd(i,j),ivsst(i,j),
> c >wx,alcov(i,j),ascov(i,j)
> c 203 format(6i6,3f7.1)
> 57 continue
> 52 continue
> 51 continue
> c write out the new merged file
> do 53 j=1,36
> 53 write(7,54)(icmb(i,j),i=1,72)
> 54 format(12i5)
> c calculate the hemispheric averages
> anh(kk)=0.0
> ash(kk)=0.0
> ashp(kk)=0.0
> anhp(kk)=0.0
> wx=0.0
> xx=0.0
> do 61 j=1,18
> w=cos((92.5-j*5.0)/rad)
> do 62 i=1,72
> if(icmb(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 62
> wx=wx+w
> xx=xx+w*icmb(i,j)
> 62 continue
> 61 continue
> anh(kk)=xx*0.01/wx
> anhp(kk)=wx*100.0/xnh
> wx=0.0
> xx=0.0
> do 63 j=19,36
> w=cos((j*5.0-92.5)/rad)
> do 64 i=1,72
> if(icmb(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 64
> wx=wx+w
> xx=xx+w*icmb(i,j)
> 64 continue
> 63 continue
> ash(kk)=xx*0.01/wx
> ashp(kk)=wx*100.0/xnh
> anhy=anhy+anh(kk)
> ashy=ashy+ash(kk)
> 32 continue
> anhy=anhy/12.0
> ashy=ashy/12.0
> write(8,89)k,anh,anhy
> 89 format(i4,12f6.2,f7.2)
> write(8,90)k,anhp
> 90 format(i4,12f6.0)
> write(9,89)k,ash,ashy
> write(9,90)k,ashp
> write(10,91)k,np
> write(10,91)k,npch
> write(10,91)k,npchan
> write(10,91)k,npinf
> write(10,92)
> 92 format(/)
> 91 format(i4,12i6)
> 31 continue
> stop
> end
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1203693276.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Yan Zhongwei" <yzw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Adjusting Beijing temperature series
Date: Fri Feb 22 10:14:xxx xxxx xxxx

Zhongwei,
Will read soon !
Attached is what I finally submitted to JGR.
Don't pass on to anyone else.
I have also received a paper from Li, Q, but have yet to
read that. He only sent it yesterday.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:55 22/02/2008, you wrote:

Hi, Phil,
Attached please find a draft paper about site-changes and urbanization at Beijing. It
may be regarded as an extension of our early work (Yan et al 2001 AAS) and therefore I
would be happy to ask you to join as a co-author.
Regarding your recent paper about UHI effect in China (no doubt upon a large-scale
warming in the region), I hope the Beijing case may serve as a helpful rather than a
contradictory (as it may appear so) reference.
The urbanization-bias at BJ was considerable but could hardly be quantified. I suspect
it was somehow overestimated by a recent work (Ren et al 2007). Please feel free to
comment and revise.
I'll check and complete the reference list, while you may also add in new references
Cheers
Zhongwei

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

Original Filename: 1204315423.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IJOC paper
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Melissa,

Thanks for your comments on the IJoC paper. Here are a few quick responses.

Melissa Free wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> I've looked through the draft and have some comments:
> 1. I don't feel completely comfortable with the use of SSTs rather than
> combined land-sea surface temperatures for the lapse-rate analysis. Are
> we sure we have thought through the implications of this approach? If
> you show that the relationship between SSTs and tropical mean
> tropospheric temperatures is consistent between models and observations,
> that seems to imply that they are not so consistent for land
> surface-troposphere lapse rates. Could this be used to support the
> Pielke-Christy theory that (land) surface temperature trends are
> overestimated in the existing observational datasets?

I do feel comfortable with use of SSTs (rather than combined land+ocean
temperatures) to estimate changes in tropical lapse rates. As Isaac Held
pointed out, the temperature of the free troposphere in the deep tropics
follows a moist adiabat which is largely set by the warmest SSTs in
areas experiencing convection. The temperature of the free troposphere
in the deep tropics is not set by temperatures over land. So if you want
to see whether observations and models show lapse-rate changes that are
in accord with a moist adiabatic lapse rate theory, it makes sense to
look at SSTs rather than combined land+ocean surface temperatures.
Admittedly, the focus of this paper is NOT on amplification behavior.
Still, it does make sense to look at tropical lower tropospheric lapse
rates in terms of their primary physical driver: SSTs.

As I tried to point out in the text of the IJoC paper, models and
RSS-based estimates of lapser-rate changes are consistent, even if
lapse-rate changes are inferred from combined land+ocean surface
temperatures. The same same does not hold for lapse rate changes
estimated from HadCRUT3v and UAH data. I must admit that I don't fully
understand the latter result. If you look at Table 1, you'll see that
the multi-model ensemble-mean temporal standard deviation of T{SST} is
0.243 degrees C, while the multi-model ensemble-mean temporal standard
deviation of T{L+O} is higher (0.274 degrees C). This makes good
physical sense, since noise is typically higher over land than over
ocean. Yet in the HadCRUT3v data, the temporal standard deviation of
T{L+O} (0.197 degrees C) is very similar to that of T{SST} for the
HadISST1 and HadISST2 data (HadISST2 is the SST component of HadCRUT3v).
The fact that HadCRUT3v appears to have very similar variability over
land and ocean seems counter-intuitive to me. Could it indicate a
potential problem in the tropical land 2m temperatures in HadCRUT3v? I
don't know. I'll let Phil address that one. The point is that we've done
- at least in my estimation - a thorough job of looking at the
sensitivity of our significance test results to current observational
uncertainties in surface temperature changes.

> 2. The conclusion seems like too much of a dissertation on past history
> of the controversy.

As I pointed out in my email of Feb. 26th, I had a specific concern
about the "Summary and Conclusions" section. I think that many readers
of the paper will skip all the statistical stuff, and just read the
Abstract and the "Summary and Conclusions". I did want the latter
section to be relatively self-contained. We could have started by
saying: "Here are the errors in Douglass et al., and here is what we
found". But on balance, I thought that it would be more helpful to
provide some scientific context. As I mentioned this morning, the
Douglass et al. paper has received attention in high places. Not
everyone who reads our response will be apprised of the history and context.

> 3. Regarding the time scale invariance of model amplification and the
> effects of volcanic eruptions on the trend comparisons, I am attaching a
> draft of my paper with John Lanzante comparing volcanic signals in sonde
> datasets v. models. I'm not sure if the statements on page 45 of the
> IJOC paper are consistent with my findings. (I thought about sending you
> this paper before, but it seemed like you were probably too busy with
> the IJOC paper to look at it.)

I'll look at your paper this weekend. I'm not quire sure which
statements on page 45 you are referring to.

> 4. I suspect the statement in the last sentence of the conclusion won't
> represent the view of all authors-although it's certainly Dian's view. I
> don't think it is my view quite yet.

Others have also queried this final paragraph. At present, it looks like
it might be tough to accommodate the divergent views on this subject.
But I'll certainly try my best!

> I'm investigating an expedited internal review process and will let you
> know how it looks.

Thanks for looking into the expedited review!

> -Melissa

With best regards,

Ben

(P.S.: I hope you don't mind that I've copied my reply to Phil. I'm
hoping he can chime in on the issue of land surface temperature
variability in the HadCRUT3v data.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1205413129.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Phil,
Sorry, one other point. In item #4 below, the point that is being made, as shown (and
discussed) elsewhere, applies both to the MBH method and the the canonical regression
method (the latter is demonstrated in experiments by Wahl and Ammann not shown but referred
to elsewhere in the text). So to be accurate and fair, the sentence in question on page 50
really has to be rephrased as follows:
Examinations of this kind are shown in Figures 3a,b (and parallel experiments not shown)
demonstrating that, at least for the truncated-EOF CFR method used by MBH98 (employing
inverse regression) and the canonical regression method that has been widely used by many
other paleoclimate researchers, there is some degree of sensitivity to the climatological
information available in calibration.
I realize there are many co-authors on the paper that have used the canonical regression
method before, so perhaps there is pressure to focus the criticism on the MBH method. But
that is simply not fair, as the other analyses by Wahl and Ammann not shown clearly
demonstrates this applies to canonical regression as well--we can debate the relative
sensitivity of the two methods, but it is similar.
This is an absolutely essential issue from my point of view, and I'm afraid I cannot sign
my name to this paper w/out this revision.
I'm sure you understand--thanks for your help,
mike
Michael Mann wrote:

Phil,
Looks mostly fine to me now. I'm in Belgium (w/ the Louvain crowd) and only intermittent
internet access, so will be difficult to provide much more feedback than the below. I hope
that is ok? Here are my remaining minor comments:
1) the author list is a bit front-loaded w/ CRU folks. You should certainly be the first
author, but the remaining order makes this paper look more like a "CRU" effort than a
"Wengen" effort, and perhaps that will have an unintended impact on the way the paper is
received by the broader community. I was also wondering how I ended up so far down the list
:(
I think I was one of the first to provide a substantive contribution to the paper. Was my
contribution really so minor compared to those others? The mechanism behind the author list
is unclear, partially alphabetical (towards the end), but partly not. You are of course the
best judge of peoples' relative contributions, and if the current author order indeed
represents that according to your judgment, then I'm fine w/ that. Just thought I'd check
though.
2) page 45, 2nd paragraph, should substitute "(e.g. Shindell et al, 2001; Collins et al
2002)" for "Collins et al 2002"
3) page 48, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, should substitute "RegEM (implemented with TTLS as
described by Mann et al 2007) for "RegEM".
4) page 50, bottom paragraph, first sentence: I think that the use of "crucially" here is
unnecessarily inflammatory and overly dramatic. This word can be removed without any
detriment to the point being made, don't you think?
5) page 51, 2nd paragraph, logic does not properly follow in certain places as currently
phrased (a frequent problem w/ Eugene's writing unfortunately!):
a. sentence beginning at end of line 9 of paragraph, should be rephrased as follows:
Mann et al. (2005) used pseudo-proxy experiments that apparently showed that this method
did not underestimate the amplitude of the reconstructed NH temperature anomalies: however,
Smerdon and Kaplan (2007) show that this may have been a false positive result arising from
differences between the implementation of the RegEM algorithm in the pseudo-proxy
experiments and in the real-proxy reconstructions which leads to a sensitivity of the
pseudoproxy results to the calibration period used (also noted by Lee et al., 2008).
b. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased:
Mann et al. (2007; cf. their Figs. 3-4) demonstrate that a variant of the RegEM method that
uses TTLS, rather than ridge regression produces an NH temperature reconstruction whose
amplitude fidelity does not exhibit the calibration interval dependence of the previous
implementation by Mann et al 2005, and yields reconstructions that do not suffer from
amplitude loss for a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios and noise spectra (though Lee et
al., 2008, suggest that an appropriately implemented ridge regression can also produce good
results).
c. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased:
With TTLS as implemented by Mann et al (2007), RegEM performs without amplitude loss in
model-based tests (versions without trend removal), including using the high-amplitude
ECHO-G model output utilized by B

Original Filename: 1206549942.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: David Parker <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Mann, Michael" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Heads up
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:45:42 +0000
Cc: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Kennedy, John" <john.kennedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jones, Phil" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Karl, Tom" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike

Yes it was based on only Jan+Feb 2008 and padding with that final value
but John Kennedy has changed / shortly will change this misleading plot!

Regards

David




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mann [mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 26 March 2008 11:19
To: Folland, Chris
Cc: Phil Jones; Thomas R Karl
Subject: heads up

Hi Chris (and Tom and Phil),

I hope you're all doing well. Just wanted to give you a heads up on
something. Have you seen this?
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_s21
.png
apparently the contrarians are having a field day w/ this graph. My
understanding that it is based on using only Jan+Feb 08 and padding w/
that final value.

Surely this can't be?? Is Fred Singer now running the UK Met Office
website?

Would appreciate any info you can provide,

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


--
David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
E-mail: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhttp:www.metoffice.gov.uk

Original Filename: 1206628118.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,"Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: ukweatherworld
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:28:38 +0000
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Susan Solomon" <susan.solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

Peck et al,
I recall meeting David Deeming at a meeting years ago (~10).
He worked in boreholes then. I've seen his name on several of the
skeptic websites.
Kevin's idea is a possibility. I wouldn't post on the website
'ukweatherworld'.

The person who sent you this is likely far worse. This is David Holland.
He is a UK citizen who send countless letters to his MP in the UK, writes
in Energy & Environment about the biased IPCC and has also been hassling
John Mitchell about his role as Review Editor for Ch 6. You might want to
talk to John about how he's responding. He has been making requests under
our FOI about the letters Review Editors sent when signing off. I'm
sure Susan
is aware of this. He's also made requests for similar letters re
WG2 and maybe 3.
Keith has been in contact with John about this.

I've also seen the quote about getting rid of the MWP - it would seem to go
back many years, maybe even to around the TAR. I've no idea where it came
from. I didn't say it!

I've written a piece for RMS [popular journal Weather on the MWP
and LIA - from a UK
perspective. It is due out in June. I can send if you want.

I'm away all next week - with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti - you can't
turn those sorts of meetings down!

Cheers
Phil


At 23:15 26/03/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>Hi Jon
>There is a lot to be said for ignoring such a thing. But I understand the
>frustration. An alternative approach is to write a blog on this topic of
>the medieval warm period and post it at a neutral site and then refer
>enquiries to that link. You would have a choice of directly confronting
>the statements or making a more general statement, presumably that such a
>thing is real but was more regional and not as warm as most recent times.
>This approach would not then acknowledge that particular person, except
>indirectly.
>
>A possible neutral site might be blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/
>I posted a number of blogs there last year but not this year. I can send
>you the contact person if you are interested and you can make the case
>that they should post the blog.
>
>Good luck
>Kevin
>
>
> > Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben - I'm looking
> > for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in
> > advance. The email below recently came in and I
> > googled "We have to get rid of the warm medieval
> > period" and "Overpeck" and indeed, there is a
> > person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
> > an email from me. He apparently did mention the
> > quote (but I don't think me) in a Senate hearing.
> > His "news" (often with attribution to me) appears
> > to be getting widespread coverage on the
> > internet. It is upsetting.
> >
> > I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any
> > record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive
> > search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I
> > assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long
> > ago, and that he's taking the quote out of
> > context, since know I would never have said what
> > he's saying I would have, at least in the context
> > he is implying.
> >
> > Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
> > ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
> > imagine that it could take on a life of it's own
> > and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
> > than later. I could - as the person below
> > suggests - make a quick statement on a web site
> > that the attribution to me is false, but I
> > suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
> > a fake email. I would then say it's fake. Or just
> > ignore? Or something else?
> >
> > I googled Deeming, and from the first page of
> > hits got the sense that he's not your average
> > university professor... to put it lightly.
> >
> > Again, thanks for any advice - I'd really like
> > this to not blow up into something that creates
> > grief for me, the IPCC, or the community. It is
> > bogus.
> >
> > Best, Peck
> >
> >
> >>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3
> >>Reply-To: "David Holland" <d.holland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> >>From: "David Holland" <d.holland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> >>To: <jto@u.arizona.edu>
> >>Subject: ukweatherworld
> >>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
> >>
> >>Dear Dr Overpeck,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I recall David Deeming giving evidence to a
> >>Senate hearing to the effect that he had
> >>received an email including a remark to the
> >>effect "We have to get rid of the warm medieval
> >>period". I have now seen several comment web
> >>pages attribute the email to your. Some serious
> >>and well moderated pages like
> >>ukweatherworld would welcome a post from you if
> >>the attribution is untrue and would, I feel
> >>sure, remove it if you were to ask them to. I am
> >>sure that many other blogs would report your
> >>denial. Is there any reason you have not issued
> >>a denial?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>David Holland
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/dgesl/
> > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
> >
>
>
>___________________
>Kevin Trenberth
>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>PO Box 3000
>Boulder CO 80307
>ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

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

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1207158227.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: heads up
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard.W.Reynolds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hey Chris,

In Tahiti (w/ Phil), limited email. Thanks so much for the detailed
response. I also heard from David about this, who had similar. sounds
like you guys are on top of this. The contrarians will cry conspiracy
once the spurious plot is taken down and replaced w/ a corrected one,
but what you can do.

I'm sorry to hear you're retiring from the Met Office, but sounds like
you're going to remain active, which is great. lets catch up on things
sometime soon more generally!

talk to you later,

mike

Folland, Chris wrote:
> Dear Mike and all
>
> First, thanks very much, Mike, for noticing this and preventing greater
> problems. The error arose from a pre-existing hidden software bug that
> the person updating the data had not realised was there. The software is
> a mixture of languages which makes it less than transparent. The bug is
> now fixed on all the smoothed graphs. It was made worse because the last
> point was not an average of several preceding years as it should have
> been but was just January 2008. So many apologies for any excitement
> this may have created in the hearts of the more ardent sceptics. Some
> are much on the warpath at present over the lack of recent global
> warming, fired in some cases by visions of a new solar Dalton Minimum.
>
> I'm retiring from full time work on 17th April but I will return part
> time semi-retired taking pension on 1 June. I've managed to keep my
> present grading. My Climate Variability and Forecasting group is being
> split (it's the largest in the Hadley Centre by a margin). The biggest
> part is becoming technically from today a new Climate Monitoring and
> Attribution group under Peter Stott as Head. He will bring two existing
> attribution staff to make a group of c.22. Most of the rest (12) will
> form the bulk of a new Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting group to be set
> up most likely this summer with a new Head. Finally Craig Donlon,
> Director of the GODAE GHRSST sea surface temperature project, will go
> back to our National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (in the next wing of
> this building), but will work closely we hope with Nick Rayner in Peter
> Stott's new group on HadISST2.
>
> I will return to a new 3 day a week position in the Seasonal to Decadal
> Forecasting Group, a mixture of research, some strategy and advice, and
> importantly, operational seasonal, annual, and probably decadal,
> forecasting. The Met Office are putting more emphasis on this area,
> especially the seasonal at present, which is becoming high profile as
> seasonal success is perceived to have improved. No staff
> responsibilities! Tom Peterson will approve! I will keep my
> co-leadership with Jim Kinter of the Clivar Climate of the Twentieth
> Century modelling project for now as well.
>
> So quite a change, as I will be doing more computing work than I have
> had time for, moving into IDL this autumn which the Hadley Centre as a
> whole are moving over to about then.
>
> Mike, it's a fair time since we interacted so I'd be very interested in
> your activities and plans.
>
> With best regards
>
> Chris
>
> Prof. Chris Folland
> Head of Climate Variability and Forecasting Research
>
> Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
> Kingdom
> Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)
> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
> Fellow of the Met Office
> Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
> Anglia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Mann [mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 26 March 2008 11:19
> To: Folland, Chris
> Cc: Phil Jones; Thomas R Karl
> Subject: heads up
>
> Hi Chris (and Tom and Phil),
>
> I hope you're all doing well. Just wanted to give you a heads up on
> something. Have you seen this?
> http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_s21
> .png
> apparently the contrarians are having a field day w/ this graph. My
> understanding that it is based on using only Jan+Feb 08 and padding w/
> that final value.
>
> Surely this can't be?? Is Fred Singer now running the UK Met Office
> website?
>
> Would appreciate any info you can provide,
>
> mike
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Associate Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> 503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>
>


--
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: 1208278112.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Darch, Geoff J" <Geoff.Darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Clare Goodess" <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Anthony Footitt" <a.footitt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Suraje Dessai" <s.dessai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Mark New" <mark.new@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim Hall" <jim.hall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "C G Kilsby" <c.g.kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ana.lopez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EA PQQ for review by 4pm
Date: Tue Apr 15 12:48:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Arkell, Brian" <Brian.Arkell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Sene, Kevin" <Kevin.Sene@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Geoff,
Have had a look through. I hope all will read their own CVs and institution bits.
My caught one word in Suraje's paragraph. The word was 'severed'. It should be
'served' ! Also his promising suit of methods would read better as a 'suite'
Finally in Mark's he's a Principal Investigator.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:38 15/04/2008, Darch, Geoff J wrote:

Dear all,
Thanks to everyone for sending text etc, in particular to Jim and Chris for the succinct
answer to ET1.
Please find attached (1) the full PQQ, minus Experience and Technical (ET) text, for
information; (2) the ET text, for review.
I'd be grateful for your review of the ET text. In particular (a) please comment on my
draft table in ET2 - I have done my best to capture my knowledge of CRU and Tyndall
skills with respect to the criteria, but you are clearly better placed than me! (b) do
you think the CVs cover the technical areas adequately? We may be a little weak on
conservation and ecology. We have a good CV we can add here, and I'm sure Tyndall has
too (e.g. Andrew) but that would mean taking another out.
We are exploring a link with the specialist communications consultancy Futerra, but
apart from a brief mention, we leaving anything else on this to the full bid stage.
I'd be grateful if you would let me have any comments by 4pm today. This will give me
time to finalise the document and email it first thing tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Geoff
<<EA PQQ_ET_Draft.doc>> <<EA-PQQ_Atkins-CRU-Tyn_Draft.DOC>>
Geoff Darch
Senior Consultant
Water and Environment
ATKINS
Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough, PE2 6YS, UK
Tel: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
Mobile: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: geoff.darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: [1]www.atkinsglobal.com/climatechange

This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not
the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless
otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be
legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No.
1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of
wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at:
[2]http://www.atkinsglobal.com/terms_and_conditions/index.aspx.
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

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

References

1. file://www.atkinsglobal.com/climatechange
2. http://www.atkinsglobal.com/terms_and_conditions/index.aspx

Original Filename: 1209080077.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Susan Solomon'" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInternational Journal of Climatology]
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear folks,

I'm forwarding an email from Prof. Glenn McGregor, the IJoC editor who
is handling our paper. The email contains the comments of Reviewer #1,
and notes that comments from two additional Reviewers will be available
shortly.

Reviewer #1 read the paper very thoroughly, and makes a number of useful
comments. The Reviewer also makes some comments that I disagree with.

The good news is that Reviewer #1 begins his review (I use this personal
pronoun because I'm pretty sure I know the Reviewer's identity!) by
affirming the existence of serious statistical errors in DCPS07:

"I've read the paper under review, and also DCPS07, and I think the
present authors are entirely correct in their main point. DCPS07 failed
to account for the sampling variability in the individual model trends
and, especially, in the observational trend. This was, as I see it, a
clear-cut statistical error, and the authors deserve the opportunity to
present their counter-argument in print."

Reviewer #1 has two major concerns about our statistical analysis. Here
is my initial reaction to these concerns.

CONCERN #1: Assumption of an AR-1 model for regression residuals.

In calculating our "adjusted" standard errors, we assume that the
persistence of the regression residuals is well-described by an AR-1
model. This assumption is not unique to our analysis, and has been made
in a number of other investigations. The Reviewer would "like to see at
least some sensitivity check of the standard error formula against
alternative model assumptions." Effectively, the Reviewer is asking
whether a more complex time series model is required to describe the
persistence.

Estimating the order of a more complex AR model is a tricky business.
Typically, something like the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) or
AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) is used to do this. We could, of
course, use the BIC or AIC to estimate the order of the AR model that
best fits the regression residuals. This would be a non-trivial
undertaking. I think we would find that, for different time series, we
would obtain different estimates of the "best-fit" AR model. For
example, 20c3m runs without volcanic forcing might yield a different AR
model order than 20c3m runs with volcanic forcing. It's also entirely
likely (based on Rick Katz's experience with such AR model-fitting
exercises) that the AIC- and BIC-based estimates of the AR model order
could differ in some cases.

As the Reviewer himself points out, DCPS07 "didn't make any attempt to
calculate the standard error of individual trend estimates and this
remains the major difference between the two paper." In other words, our
paired trends test incorporates statistical uncertainties for both
simulated and observed trends. In estimating these uncertainties, we
account for non-independence of the regression residuals. In contrast,
the DCPS07 trend "consistency test" does not incorporate ANY statistical
uncertainties in either observed or simulated trends. This difference in
treatment of trend uncertainties is the primary issue. The issue of
whether an AR-1 model is the most appropriate model to use for the
purpose of calculating adjusted standard errors is really a subsidiary
issue. My concern is that we could waste a lot of time looking at this
issue, without really enlightening the reader about key differences
between our significance testing testing procedure and the DCPS07 approach.

One solution is to calculate (for each model and observational time
series used in our paper) the parameters of an AR(K) model, where K is
the total number of time lags, and then apply equation 8.39 in Wilks
(1995) to estimate the effective sample size. We could do this for
several different K values (e.g., K=2, K=3, and K=4; we've already done
the K=1 case). We could then very briefly mention the sensitivity of our
"paired trend" test results to choice of order K of the AR model. This
would involve some work, but would be easier to explain than use of the
AIC and BIC to determine, for each time series, the best-estimate of the
order of the AR model.

CONCERN #2: No "attempt to combine data across model runs."

The Reviewer is claiming that none of our model-vs-observed trend tests
made use of data that had been combined (averaged) across model runs.
This is incorrect. In fact, our two modified versions of the DCPS07 test
(page 29, equation 12, and page 30, equation 13) both make use of the
multi-model ensemble-mean trend.

The Reviewer argues that our paired trends test should involve the
ensemble-mean trends for each model (something which we have not done)
rather than the trends for each of 49 individual 20c3m realizations. I'm
not sure whether the rationale for doing this is as "clear-cut" as the
Reviewer contends.

Furthermore, there are at least two different ways of performing the
paired trends tests with the ensemble-mean model trends. One way (which
seems to be what the Reviewer is advocating) involves replacing in our
equation (3) the standard error of the trend for an individual
realization performed with model A with model A's intra-ensemble
standard deviation of trends. I'm a little concerned about mixing an
estimate of the statistical uncertainty of the observed trend with an
estimate of the sampling uncertainty of model A's trend.

Alternately, one could use the average (over different realizations) of
model A's adjusted standard errors, or the adjusted standard error
calculated from the ensemble-mean model A time series. I'm willing to
try some of these things, but I'm not sure how much they will enlighten
the reader. And they will not help to make an already-lengthy manuscript
any shorter.

The Reviewer seems to be arguing that the main advantage of his approach
#2 (use of ensemble-mean model trends in significance testing) relative
to our paired trends test (his approach #1) is that non-independence of
tests is less of an issue with approach #2. I'm not sure whether I
agree. Are results from tests involving GFDL CM2.0 and GFDL CM2.0
temperature data truly "independent" given that both models were forced
with the same historical changes in anthropogenic and natural external
forcings? The same concerns apply to the high- and low-resolution
versions of the MIROC model, the GISS models, etc.

I am puzzled by some of the comments the Reviewer has made at the top of
page 3 of his review. I guess the Reviewer is making these comments in
the context of the pair-wise tests described on page 2. Crucially, the
comment that we should use "...the standard error if testing the average
model trend" (and by "standard error" he means DCPS07's sigma{SE}) IS
INCONSISTENT with the Reviewer's approach #3, which involves use of the
inter-model standard deviation in testing the average model trend.

And I disagree with the Reviewer's comments regarding the superfluous
nature of Section 6. The Reviewer states that, "when simulating from a
know (statistical) model... the test statistics should by definition
give the correct answer. The whole point of Section 6 is that the DCPS07
consistency test does NOT give the correct answer when applied to
randomly-generated data!

In order to satisfy the Reviewer's curiosity, I'm perfectly willing to
repeat the simulations described in Section 6 with a higher-order AR
model. However, I don't like the idea of simulation of synthetic
volcanoes, etc. This would be a huge time sink, and would not help to
illustrate or clarify the statistical mistakes in DCPS07.

It's obvious that Reviewer #1 has put a substantial amount of effort
into reading and commenting on our paper (and even performing some
simple simulations). I'm grateful for the effort and the constructive
comments, but feel that a number of comments are off-base. Am I
misinterpreting the Reviewer's comments?

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


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach- santerreport.pdf"
X-Account-Key: account1
Return-Path: <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id m3OJlZk7028016
for <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: - santerreport.pdf
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5281"; a="32776528"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,705,1199692800";
d="pdf'?scan'208";a="32776528"
Received: from nsziron-3.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.83])
by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2008 12:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: - santerreport.pdf
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5281"; a="36298571"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,705,1199692800";
d="pdf'?scan'208";a="36298571"
Received: from uranus.scholarone.com ([170.107.181.135])
by nsziron-3.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2008 12:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from tss1be0004 (tss1be0004 [10.237.148.27])
by uranus.scholarone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F0554F44D5
for <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:47:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Message-ID: <379866627.1209066453582.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0004>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:47:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
From: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInternational Journal of Climatology
Errors-To: masmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_Part_678_379761858.1209066453554"
X-Errors-To: masmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sender: onbehalfof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

24-Apr-2008

JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxConsistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere

Dear Dr Santer

I have received one set of comments on your paper to date. Altjhough I would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation for revisions. Accordingly please find attached one set of comments. Hopefully I should have two more to follow in the near future.

Best,

Prof. Glenn McGregor

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach- santerreport1.pdf"

Original Filename: 1209143958.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Susan Solomon'" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInternational Journal of Climatology]
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear folks,

On April 11th, I received an email from Prof. Glenn McGregor at IJoC. I
am now forwarding that email, together with my response to Prof. McGregor.

Prof. McGregor's email asks for my opinion of an "Addendum" to the
original DCPS07 IJoC paper. The addendum is authored by Douglass,
Christy, Pearson, and Singer. As you can see from my reply to Prof.
McGregor, I do not think that the Addendum is worthy of publication.
Since one part of the Addendum deals with issues related to the RAOBCORE
data used by DCPS07 (and by us), Leo responded to Prof. McGregor on this
point. I will forward Leo's response in a separate email.

The Addendum does not reference our IJoC paper. As far as I can tell,
the Addendum represents a response to discussions of the original IJoC
paper on RealClimate.org. Curiously, Douglass et al. do not give a
specific source for the criticism of their original paper. This is
rather bizarre. Crucially, the Addendum does not recognize or admit ANY
ERRORS in the original DCPS07 paper.

I have not yet heard whether IJoC intends to publish the Addendum. I'll
update you as soon as I have any further information from Prof. McGregor.

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


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach[Fwd Re JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInterna.pdf"
X-Account-Key: account1
Return-Path: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id m3BIJN5F012995
for <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5272"; a="31695223"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,642,1199692800";
d="scan'208";a="31695223"
Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29])
by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2008 11:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
Message-ID: <47FFAA8D.8040308@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Reply-To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
CC: Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInternational Journal of Climatology
References: <363780847.1207875178234.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0004>
In-Reply-To: <363780847.1207875178234.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0004>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<x-flowed>
Dear Prof. McGregor,

Thank you for your email, and for your efforts to ensure rapid review of
our paper.

Leo Haimberger (who has led the development of the RAOBCORE* datasets)
and Peter Thorne would be best placed to comment on the first issue
raised by the Douglass et al. "Addendum". As we show in Figure 6 of our
IJoC paper, recently-developed radiosonde datasets which do not rely on
reanalysis data for correction of inhomogeneities (such as the Sherwood
et al. IUK product and the Haimberger et al. "RICH" dataset) yield
vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature change that are in better
agreement with model results, and quite different from the profiles
shown by Douglass et al.

The second issue raised in the Douglass et al. "Addendum" is completely
spurious. Douglass et al. argue that their "experimental design"
involves involves "comparing like to like", and satisfying "the critical
condition that the model surface temperatures match the observations".
If this was indeed their experimental design, Douglass et al. should
have have examined "AMIP" (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project)
simulations, in which an atmospheric model is run with prescribed
changes in observed time-varying sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and
sea-ice distributions. Use of AMIP simulations would allow an analyst to
compare simulated and observed tropospheric temperature changes given
the same underlying changes in SSTs.

But Douglass et al. did NOT consider results from AMIP simulations, even
though AMIP data were freely available to them (AMIP data were in the
same "CMIP-3" archive that Douglass et al. accessed in order to obtain
the model results analyzed in their original IJoC paper). Instead,
Douglass et al. examined results from coupled model simulations. As we
discuss at length in Section 3 of our paper, coupled model simulations
are fundamentally different from AMIP runs. A coupled model is NOT
driven by observed changes in SSTs, and therefore would not have (except
by chance) the same SST changes as the real world over a specific period
of time.

Stratifying the coupled model results by the observed surface
temperature changes is not a meaningful or useful thing to do,
particularly given the small ensemble sizes available here. Again, if
Douglass et al. were truly interested in imposing "the critical
condition that the model surface temperatures match the observations",
they should have examined AMIP runs, not coupled model results.

I also note that, although Douglass et al. stipulate their "critical
condition that the model surface temperatures match the observations",
they do not actually perform any stratification of the model trend
results! In other words, Douglass et al. do NOT discard simulations with
surface trends that differ from the observed trend. They simply note
that the MODEL AVERAGE surface trend is close to the observed surface
trend, and state that this agreement in surface trends allows them to
evaluate whether the model average upper air trend is consistent with
observed upper air trends.

The Douglass et al. "Addendum" does nothing to clarify the serious
statistical flaws in their paper. Their conclusion - that modelled and
observed upper air trends are inconsistent - is simply wrong. As we
point out in our paper, Douglass et al. reach this incorrect conclusion
by ignoring uncertainties in observed and modelled upper air trends
arising from interannual variability, and by applying a completely
inappropriate "consistency test". Our Figure 5 clearly shows that the
Douglass et al. "consistency test" yields incorrect results. The
"Addendum" does not suggest that the authors are capable of recognizing
or understanding the errors inherent in either their "experimental
method" or their "consistency test".

The Douglass et al. IJoC paper reached a radically different conclusion
from the conclusions reached by Santer et al. (2005), the 2006 CCSP
report, the 2007 IPCC report, and Thorne et al. (2007). It did so on the
basis of essentially the same data used in previous work. Most
scientists would have asked whether the "consistency test" which yielded
such startlingly different conclusions was appropriate. They would have
applied this test to synthetic data, to understand its behaviour in a
controlled setting. They would have applied alternative tests. They
would have done everything they possibly could to examine the robustness
of their findings. Douglass et al. did none of these things.

I will ask Leo Haimberger and Peter Thorne to respond to you regarding
the first issue raised in the Douglass et al. "Addendum".

Best regards,

Ben Santer

(* In their addendum, Douglass et al. erroneously refer to "ROABCORE"
datasets. One would hope that they would at least be able to get the
name of the dataset right.)

g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> 10-Apr-2008
>
> JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxConsistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
>
> Dear Dr Santer
>
> Just to let you know that I am trying to secure reviews of your paper asap.
>
> I have attached an addendum for the Douglass et al. paper recently sent to me by David Douglass. I would be interested to learn of your views on this
>
>
> Best,
>
> Prof. Glenn McGregor


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1209474516.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature variability]
Date: Tue Apr 29 09:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Tom,
Here's what I sent Kevin yesterday. Still don't have the proofs with Figures in. It is
most odd how
this Cambridge seminar has been so widely publicised. Michael
McIntyre seems to be sending it everywhere. Dave Thompson is
on a sabbatical in the UK for 6 months (at Reading). Should be here soon
for a visit to CRU.
The press release is very much work in progress. Appended the latest version
at the end. This version still need some work. Maybe I'll get a chance later today.
cc'd Ben as if and when (hopefully) the 'where Douglass et al went wrong' paper comes
out a press release then would be useful. In both cases, there is a need to say things
in plain English and not the usual way we write.
For some reason the skeptics (CA) are revisiting the Douglass et al paper. A very quick
look shows that a number think the paper is wrong!
There is also a head of steam being built up (thanks to a would be Australian
astronaut who knows nothing about climate) about the drop in temperature due
to La Nina. If you've time look at the HadCRUT3 plot for March08. It was the
warmest ever for NH land. The snow cover plots at Rutgers are interesting also.
Jan08 for Eurasia had the most coverage ever, but March08 had the least
(for their respective months).
It seems we just need the La Nina to finally wind down and the oceans to warm up
a little. The press release could be an issue, as it looks as though we are
underestimating SST
with the buoys - by about 0.1 deg C.
Cheers
Phil

Using a novel technique to remove the effects of temporary fluctuations in global
temperature due to El Ni

Original Filename: 1210030332.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInternational Journal of Climatology
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Glenn,

This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC
in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al.
IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary
claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et
al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred
Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his
argument that "Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such
erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the
more harm is caused.

In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review
process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that
it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of
review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC.

With best regards,

Ben Santer

g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> 05-May-2008
>
> JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxConsistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
>
> Dear Dr Santer
>
> I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have these in hand I will pass them onto to you.
>
> Best,
>
> Prof. Glenn McGregor
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1210079946.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxInternational Journal of Climatology
Date: Tue May 6 09:19:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Glenn -- I hope the slow reviewer is not one that I suggested! Sorry if it is. I'm not
sure what Ben Santer expects you to do about it at this stage; I guess you didn't expect
such a lengthy article... I've not seen it, but Phil Jones told me it ran to around 90
pages! Hope all's well in NZ. Tim
At 03:32 06/05/2008, Ben Santer wrote:

Dear Glenn,
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to
correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that
there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific
value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author
(S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that
"Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such erroneous claims are made without
any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused.
In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be
handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months
until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our
paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

05-May-2008
JOC-xxx xxxx xxxxConsistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical
Troposphere
Dear Dr Santer
I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have
these in hand I will pass them onto to you.
Best,
Prof. Glenn McGregor

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