The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 1212686327.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <EWWO@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jan.esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Janice Lough <j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Juerg Luterbacher <juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kim Cobb <kcobb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Michael Schulz <mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick Graham <ngraham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Francis Zwiers <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sandy Tudhope <sandy.tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tas van Ommen <tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Brendan Buckley <bmb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugues Goosse <hugues.goosse@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Review Comments on the Wengen paper
Date: Thu Jun 5 13:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: <larry.williams@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Naresh Kumar <NKumar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear All (especially Peck!),
Attached are three sets of reviews of the paper - 2 in the pdf file and one in the
small doc file.
As you'll be able to see, there isn't that much to do and the reviews have been
good. All three reviewers seem to be in awe of the group! I've had a brief
discussion with Keith as to who should do what. You're all welcome to help
but I only think most of you will need go through the revised version when we get that
out - hopefully asap. John Matthews is still hopeful of a 2008 publication date,
and you'll see we won't be going out for any further reviews - just John checking.
Many of the comments relate to the tree-ring section and Keith will
deal with these. They involve some re-organization and some additional refs
on dendro isotope work.
The coral and isotope sections get praised for organization - so well done!
I'll need some help with the one coral comment on 'vital effects', so can
Janice, Kim and Sandy work on that. I think it only needs a few sentences
and maybe extra refs. I know some of you are in Trieste next week, so maybe
you can work on it there.
I'll work on the documentary section a bit and liaise with Juerg. This shouldn't
involve
much extra work.
I'll also look at the borehole section together with what was in Ch 6 of AR4.
The major bit of new text we need is on the high-res varves and laminated lake records,
so this is why I highlighted Peck. They aren't used in large-area high-freq climate
reconstructions, so emphasis there and to a few key review papers. Is this doable in
the next couple of weeks, Peck? I don't think more than a page or two is required.
Related to the issue of the different proxies use or potential use in high-freq
reconstructions, I'll work on trying to bring that out in the Introduction. I'll
bring out the issues of the maturity of the different proxy disciplines.
Sections 3 and 4 just seem to need some minor wording changes and
some clarification - possibly in a revised introduction. We're hoping that Tim
here will be able to do that. Note that although the reviewer suggested dropping
the forcing section, John Matthews would like that kept.
In conclusion, we are nearly there. CRU will be able to find the colour costs
envisaged.
To those in Trieste - enjoy the week and I hope it will as fruitful as Wengen was.
If anyone is going to be out of contact during the second half of June and early July
can you let me know.
I've reattached the submission as a word file.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1212924720.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: request for some additional info.
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Phil,
I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel room in Trieste--the
weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to be too strong, we may have that
here! Lonnie is also confirmed as supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and
Jean J. (4 of the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important! Surprisingly, Ben
is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I'm guessing
Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had something to do w/ that ;)
Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value of "N" where "N" is
the number of papers an individual authored/co-authored that have more than N citations.
N=40 (i.e., an individual has published at least 40 papers that have each been cited at
least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would
be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind figuring out that number and sending--I
think it would be useful is really sealing the case.
2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page bibliography. In my
nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the diverse areas where you've made major
contributions, and I think its well known and obvious to many that two of these are
instrumental data and paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally
important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on climate w/ both
models and observations. For example, your early Nature papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81
seem to be among the earliest efforts to try to do this (though I don't have copies of the
papers, so can't read them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me. My
suggestion is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection and
include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area including the two early
Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your later work w/
Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of your work in this area isn't as
primary author, but I do think it would be helpful to show this side of your research, and
I'd like to incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your efforts have
been to developments in areas such as D&A). You could still fit this onto 2 pages by
making the font smaller for the references (10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the
headings at 11 pt, and if necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface
temperature record references to make space for the additional references.
Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or even just the text for
the abstracts, it would be great to have a little more detail about those papers so I can
appropriately work them into the narrative of my letter.
thanks for any help,
mike
p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here to Trieste, I was
really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and many others here). I hope all is well
w/ his daughter.
--
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: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1213201481.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: request for some additional info.
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
thanks Phil--yes, that's perfect. I just wanted to have some idea of the paper, that's more
than enough info. I wouldn't bother worrying about scanning in, etc.
I should have a draft letter for you to comment on within a few days or so, after I return
from Trieste,
talk to you later,
mike
[1]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Mike,
Thanks.
The 1980/1981 papers. I don't have the pdfs.
1980: This paper looked (spatially) at temperatures and
precipitation for the 5 warmest years during the 20th century
and the 5 coldest. We then differenced these to produce
what might happen. We expanded this in a DoE Tech Report
to look at the warmest/coldest 20-year periods. This latter
effort didn't make much difference.
1981: This looked at statistics of annual/winter/summer
Temperatures for the NH and zones of the NH to see what
signals might you be able to detect. SNR problem really.
Showed that best place to detect was NH annual and
also Tropics in summer. Last place to look was the Arctic
because variability was so high.
I did look a while ago to see if Nature had back scanned these
papers, but they hadn't.
Is the above enough? I have hard copies of these two papers -
in Norwich
Cheers
Phil
Hi Phil,
thanks---yes, revised bibliography looks great.
I'll can send you a copy of my nominating letter for comment/suggestions
when done.
also--can you provide one or two sentences about the '80 and '81 Nature
articles w/ Wigley so that I might be able to work this briefly into the
narrative of my letter?
thanks,
mike
[2]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Mike.
Will this do? Have added in a section on D&A.
You didn't send the narrative. Will I have to alter that?
Hope to get out of AVL at 5pm tonight - thunderstorms
permitting.
Cheers
Phil
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
HI Phil,<br>
<br>
OK--thanks, I'll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.<br>
<br>
I've attached the 2 page bibliography. I think it would be good to add
some some of the more prominent D&A type papers, especially those
early ones because they seem to be ahead of their time, and it is a
high profile topic (more so than hydrology!). but its your call.<br>
<br>
Enjoy Asheville--say hi to Tom for me.<br>
<br>
talk to you later,<br>
<br>
mike<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href=[3]"mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx">[4]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx</a> wrote:
<blockquote
cite=[5]"mid:1079.87.113.67.115.1212941466.squirrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Mike,
Off to the US tomorrow for 1.5 days in Asheville.
On 1, this is what people call the H index. I've tried working
this out and there is software for it on the web of science.
Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the
software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through
and deleted those in journals I'd never heard of and got
52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s,
so go with 52.
I don't have pdfs of the early papers. I won't be able to do
anything for a few days either. When do you want this in, by
the way? Can you email me the piece I wrote for you, as I don't
have this on my lap top. I can then pick it up tomorrow
at some airport.
The D&A work has always been with others. There is another
area on hydrology that I omitted as well.
Keith's daughter is OK. She had the operation last Tuesday.
He should be over in Birmingham this weekend.
Cheers
Phil
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Hi Phil,
I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel
room
in Trieste--the weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to
be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as
supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of
the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important!
Surprisingly,
Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one
of
these). I'm guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had
something to do w/ that ;)
Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value
of
"N" where "N" is the number of papers an individual
authored/co-authored
that have more than N citations. N=40 (i.e., an individual has
published
at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is
supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than
that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind
figuring out that number and sending--I think it would be useful is
really sealing the case.
2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page
bibliography. In my nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the
diverse areas where you've made major contributions, and I think its
well
known and obvious to many that two of these are instrumental data and
paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally
important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on
climate w/ both models and observations. For example, your early
Nature
papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81 seem to be among the earliest efforts
to
try to do this (though I don't have copies of the papers, so can't read
them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me. My
suggestion
is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection
and include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area
including the two early Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your
later work w/ Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of
your work in this area isn't as primary author, but I do think it would
be helpful to show this side of your research, and I'd like to
incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your
efforts have been to developments in areas such as D&amp;A). You
could
still fit this onto 2 pages by making the font smaller for the
references
(10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the headings at 11 pt, and if
necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface temperature
record references to make space for the additional references.
Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or
even
just the text for the abstracts, it would be great to have a little
more
detail about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the
narrative of my letter.
thanks for any help,
mike
p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here
to
Trieste, I was really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and
many
others here). I hope all is well w/ his daughter.
-- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science
Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The
Pennsylvania State University email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href=[6]"mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx">[7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx</a> University Park,
PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href=[8]"http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm">[9]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.h
tm</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href=[10]"mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx">[11]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx</a>
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href=[12]"http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm">[13]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann
.htm</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[15]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [16]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[17]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
References
1. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:mid:1079.87.113.67.115.1212941466.squirrel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
9. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
14. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
16. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1213387146.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amlibpub@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Your website
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
To the Editor
American Liberty Publishers
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Dear Sir,
Your website (http://www.amlibpub.com/top/contact_us.html) was recently
brought to my attention. On this site, you make the following claims:
"In the Second Assessment Report, Benjamin Santer, lead author of a
crucial study, falsified a chart to make it appear to support global
warming
Original Filename: 1213882741.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: nomination letter
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
thanks Phil--fixed!
waiting on two more letters, then I'll send in the package to AGU.
Should be a no-brainer!
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Mike,
> There is one type in your nomination letter. I missed it firts
> time I read it.
>
> In the second paragraph, second line remove the first 'surface'. You
> have
> two one before and one after (CRU). Just the one after needed.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 16:59 18/06/2008, you wrote:
>> hey Phil, at Dulles waiting for flight to Orlando Florida.
>>
>> IUGG is the first time I ever met you. but I believe I had already
>> corresponeded w/ you about some of the work I was doing w/ Ray w/
>> proxy records. But the thing we talked about was the quality of the
>> early Trenberth and Paolino SLP gridbox data. you alerted me to some
>> of the early problems w/ that dataset. It was very helpful. I was
>> young and naive!
>> anyway, it made a very positive impression on me that you were so
>> approachable. im' sure many others agree.
>>
>> got to run to my flight now. talk later,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>> This is fine. I don't remember talking to you at IUGG in Boulder !
>>> I am approachable though and have talked to lots of people. I get
>>> people
>>> coming up to me now saying we met in 199? and have no recall
>>> of our meeting - sometime no recall of even going to the meeting
>>> where I was supposed to have met them!
>>>
>>> Another thanks for putting this all togther.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> At 22:04 14/06/2008, you wrote:
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> I've attached a copy of my nomination letter. I just want to make
>>>> sure I've got all my facts right--please let me know if there is
>>>> anything I've gotten wrong or should be changed. I would be shocked
>>>> is this doesn't go through--you're a no-brainer, and long overdue
>>>> for this.
>>>>
>>>> I've got letters from 3 of the 5 other letter writers now, waiting
>>>> on the 2 last ones, then will submit the package.
>>>>
>>>> talk to you alter,
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1214228874.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,"Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: IPCC FOIA Request
Date: Mon Jun 23 09:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Caspar
I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private ,
inter-collegial discussion is just that - PRIVATE . Your communication with individual
colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC
process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these
"demands" undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is
for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe
none of us should submit to these "requests". Best wishes
Keith
At 09:01 23/06/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Caspar,
I've just had a quick look at CA. They seem to think that somehow it is an advantage to
send material outside the formal review process. But *anybody* could have emailed us
directly. It is in fact a disadvantage! If it is outside the formal process then we
could simply ignore it, whereas formal comments had to be formally considered. Strange
that they don't realise this and instead argue for some secret conspiracy that they are
excluded from!
I'm not even sure if you sent me or Keith anything, despite McIntyre's conviction! But
I'd ignore this guy's request anyway. If we aren't consistent in keeping our
discussions out of the public domain, then it might be argued that none of them can be
kept private. Apparently, consistency of our actions is important.
Best wishes
Tim
At 07:37 23/06/2008, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Caspar,
In Zurich at MeteoSwiss for a meeting this week.
It doesn't discredit IPCC!
Cheers
Phil
> FYI, more later.
> Caspar
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Brian Lynch <killballyowen2003@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Date: June 21, 2008 3:30:28 PM MDT
>> To: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: IPCC FOIA Request
>> Reply-To: killballyowen2003@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> I have read correspondence on web about your letter to the in
>> relation to expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by you
>> to Keith Briffa, sent outside the formal review process.
>>
>> The refusal to give these documents tends to discredit you and the
>> IPCC in the eyes of the public,
>>
>> Could I suggest that you make your letter and documents pubic. I
>> would be very glad if you gave me a copy and oblige,
>>
>> Yours faithfully,
>>
>> Brian Lynch
>> Galway
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
>> A Smarter Email.
>
> Caspar M. Ammann
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
> 1850 Table Mesa Drive
> Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>
>
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1214229243.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CA
Date: Mon Jun 23 09:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Phil, Keith and "Confidential Agent Ammann",
At 17:00 21/06/2008, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
This is a confidential email
So is this.
Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the
responses and letters up.
There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and
a third later one.
Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim?
I've saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read all the comments, but I
did note in "Fortress Met Office" that someone has provided a link to a website that helps
you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a
further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an
organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information,
then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering
them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.
Tim
Original Filename: 1215477224.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Andrew Revkin" <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: clearing up climate trends sans ENSO and perhaps PDO?
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:33:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wpatzert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ackerman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sarachik@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john.kennedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cwunsch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Andy
Here's some further results, based on the time series for 1900 to 2007
Results:
xxx xxxx xxxxcorrelation between ENSO and PDO: for the smoothed IPCC decadal
filter: 0.490662
xxx xxxx xxxxcorrelation between ENSO and PDO: for the annual means: 0.527169
xxx xxxx xxxxregression coef for PDO with global T : 0.0473447
xxx xxxx xxxxregression coef for N34 with global T : 0.0664886
Data sources:
;----------------------------------------------
; PDO: http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
; http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
;----------------------------------------------
; N34: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/Nino_3_3.4_indices.html
; http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html#Sec5
; ---------------------------------
; CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
; Hadcrut: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
;===================================================================
; Files were manually stripped for 1900 to 2007
;============================================/=======================
These numbers mean that for a one standard deviation in the ENSO index
there is 0.066C change in global T, or from PDO: 0.047C, but that much of
the latter comes from the ENSO index. Very roughly, since the correlation
is 0.5 between PDO and ENSO, half of the 0.066 or 0.033C of the 0.047 is
from ENSO. Strictly one should do this properly using screening
regression.
Kevin
> dear all,
> re-sending because of a glitch.
>
> finally got round to posting on an earlier inquiry I made to some of
> you about whether there was a 'clean' graph of multi-decades
> temperature trends with ENSO wiggles removed -- thanks to gavin (and
> david thompson) posting on realclimate.
> here's Dot Earth piece with link to Realclimate etc..
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/?ex=1216094400&en=a57177d93165cba3&ei=5070
>
> next step is PDO. has anyone characterized how much impact (if any)
> PDO has on hemispheric or global temp trends, and if so is there a
> graph showing what happens when that's accounted for?
>
> as you are doubtless aware, this is another bone of contention with a
> lot of the anti-greenhouse-limits folks and some scientists (the post
> 1970s change is a PDO thing, etc etc). hoping to show a bit of how
> that works.
>
> thanks for any insights.
> and i encourage you to comment and provide links etc with the current
> post to add context etc.
>
> --
> Andrew C. Revkin
> The New York Times / Science
> 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
> Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxMob: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> www.nytimes.com/revkin
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Original Filename: 1215712600.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxx.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
The wedding was really very moving and beautiful. I had a great time.
I'm sending along a picture of Tom and Helen which was taken at Granite
Island (near Victor Harbor). I don't know whether I've ever seen Tom as
happy as he is now...
Myles (if it is Myles) was a bit pedantic in his second review. Karl
(who is a very-mild-mannered guy) described the tone of the review as
"whining". It seems like the Reviewer was saying, "I'm a lot smarter
than you, and I could do all of this stuff much better than you've
done". I was very unhappy about the "wilfully ignoring" bit. That was
completely uncalled for.
Have a great time at Lake Constance, Phil. It's a beautiful part of the
world.
Best regards, and best wishes to Ruth,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Will read the comments in detail tomorrow, when at CRU.
> I presume the wedding went well and a good time was had
> by all.
>
> I'm in CRU tomorrow, but away next week. I'm off to one
> your old hunting grounds - Friedrichshafen. I am going to
> a summer school on the other side of the Lake near Konstanz.
> Can't recall the village name - somthing like Treffpunkt.
>
> Only gone a week, back Friday week.
>
> From a quick scan below Myles does seem to be a pain!
> As we both know he can be.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there.
>> Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding
>> the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see,
>> Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper.
>> Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor
>> (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is
>> requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments.
>>
>> Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting higher-order
>> autoregressive models to the temperature time series used in our paper.
>> As noted in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor
>> technical point. The main point is that we include an estimate of the
>> standard error of the observed trend. DCPS07 do not, which is the main
>> error in their analysis.
>>
>> In calculating modeled and observed standard errors, we assume an AR-1
>> model of the regression residuals. This assumption is not unreasonable
>> for many meteorological time series. We and others have made it in a
>> number of previous studies.
>>
>> Reviewer 2 would have liked us to fit higher-order autoregressive models
>> to the T2, T2LT, and TS-T2LT time series. This is a difficult business,
>> particularly given the relatively short length of the time series
>> available here. There is no easy way to reliably estimate the parameters
>> of higher-order AR models from 20 to 30 years of data. The same applies
>> to reliable estimation of the spectral density at frequency zero (since
>> we have only 2-3 independent samples for estimating the spectral density
>> at frequency zero). Reviewer 2's comments are not particularly relevant
>> to the specific problem we are dealing with here.
>>
>> It's also worth mentioning that use of higher-order AR models for
>> estimating trend standard errors would likely lead to SMALLER effective
>> sample sizes and LARGER standard errors, thus making it even more
>> difficult to find significant differences between modelled and observed
>> trends! Our use of an AR-1 model makes it easier for us to obtain
>> "DCPS07-like" results, and to find significant differences between
>> modelled and observed trends. DCPS cannot claim, therefore, that our
>> test somehow stacks the deck in favor of obtaining a non-significance
>> trend difference - which they might claim if we used a
>> (poorly-constrained) higher-order AR model for estimating standard
>> errors.
>>
>> The Reviewer does not want to "see the method proposed in this paper
>> become established as the default method of estimating standard errors
>> in climatological time series". We do not claim universal applicability
>> of our approach. There may well be circumstances in which it is more
>> appropriate to use higher-order AR models in estimating standard errors.
>> I'd be happy to make a statement to this effect in the revised paper.
>>
>> I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2's
>> comments. The bit about "wilfully ignoring" time series literature was
>> uncalled for. Together with my former MPI colleague Wolfgang
>> Brueggemann, I've fooled around with a lot of different methods of
>> estimating standard errors, in both the time domain and frequency
>> domain. One could write a whole paper on this subject alone. Such a
>> paper would not help us to expose the statistical deficiencies in
>> DCPS07. Nor would in-depth exploration of this issue lead to the shorter
>> paper requested by the Reviewer.
>>
>> It should take me a few days to revise the paper and draft a response to
>> Reviewer 2's comments. I'll send you the revised paper and draft
>> response early next week. Slowly but surely, we are getting there!
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:eudoraattachDSCN2786.JPG"
Original Filename: 1215713915.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxx.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Glenn,
I thought you might be interested in this email exchange with Francis
Zwiers. It's directly relevant to the third criticism raised by Reviewer 2.
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>
X-Account-Key: account1
Return-Path: <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m6AK864P023034
for <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5336"; a="21284881"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212390000";
d="scan'208";a="21284881"
Received: from nsziron-2.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.82])
by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 13:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao4AAHkJdkjH1BOCmmdsb2JhbACSJgEBAQEBCAUIBxGfMgE
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5336"; a="42743336"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212390000";
d="scan'208";a="42743336"
Received: from ecdow130.tor.ec.gc.ca (HELO OntExch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca) ([199.212.19.130])
by nsziron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 13:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from OntExch3.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca ([142.97.202.217]) by OntExch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxx.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Message-ID: <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC804095CEA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
In-Reply-To: <487663E3.1040309@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxx.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Thread-Index: Acjiw9lJw91pKfupQQOFEbAg5s2/SgAAHtnA
References: <48764B2C.5050004@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC804095CB7@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <487663E3.1040309@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 20:07:45.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E3BB9B0:01C8E2C8]
Hi Ben, sure, that would be fine.
Cheers, Francis
Francis Zwiers
Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax xxx xxxx xxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: July 10, 2008 3:33 PM
To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxx.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Dear Francis,
Thanks - this information will be extremely helpful in responding to
Reviewer 2. I really do feel that the Reviewer is getting overly
exercised about a relatively minor technical point. As you note, the key
issue is that, in terms of the statistical significance testing, we are
making it easier to get a "Douglass-like" result by using an AR-1 model
for calculating the adjusted standard errors.
I'm concerned that going down the road proposed by Reviewer 2 could
leave us open to unjustified criticism. It would be a shame if Douglass
et al. argued (erroneously) that our failure to find significant
differences between modelled and observed trends was spurious, and arose
primarily from use of higher-order autoregressive models for calculating
the adjusted standard errors.
Would it be o.k. to share your email with Glenn McGregor and with my
other coauthors on the paper? Since you've looked at these issues in
detail in your previous papers with Thiebaux and with Hans, your
comments would be very useful background information for Glenn.
With best regards,
Ben
Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Sorry the 2nd reviewer is being a pain. As you say, there is already
> quite a bit of literature on dealing with dependence in tests of the
> mean (and this referree would have been critical if this paper had
> gone over that ground again :)).
>
> Regardless, you might be interested in the attached papers. Both
> contain relevant information and might help to formulate a response to
> the editor.
>
> Thiebaux and Zwiers show that the equivalent sample size is hard to
> estimate well, particularly from small samples. The approach proposed
> by the reviewer is what we termed the "ARMA" method, and it produces
> equivalent sample size estimates that have unacceptably large RMSE's
> when the sample is small, even when the time series in question is not
> very persistent (see Table 6).
>
> Zwiers and von Storch show the performance of an estimator of
> equivalent sample size using the approach you use (i.e., assume the
> data are AR(1)). They show that the equivalent sample size tends to be
> over-estimated (Table 1) particularly when samples are small, and that
> the corresponding t-test tends to operate at significance levels above
> the nominal level (i.e., rejects too frequently - Table 2). So using
> such a test in effect gives those who would like to reject the null
> hypothesis a small leg up.
>
> Directly comparable results are not shown in the two papers, but you
> can infer, from the comparison between equivalent sample size results
> (Table
> 6 in TZ, Table 2 in ZvS) that the "ARMA" approach for estimating
> equivalent sample size would be much less reliable than the approach
> that you are using (and thus, the sampled series would have to be very
> far from being AR(1) for the ARMA approach to be beneficial). The
> absolute key is to keep things as parsimonius as possible - there is
> simply not enough data to entertain complex models of the
> auto-covariance structure.
>
> Cheers, Francis
>
>
> Francis Zwiers
> Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada
> 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4
> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: July 10, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John
> Lanzante; ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; 'Philip D.
> Jones'; Thomas R Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug Nychka; Gavin
> Schmidt; Steven Sherwood; Frank Wentz
> Subject: [Fwd: JOC-xxx xxxx xxxx.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
>
> Dear folks,
>
> I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there.
> Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding
> the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see,
> Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper.
> Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor
> (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is
> requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments.
>
> Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting
> higher-order autoregressive models to the temperature time series used
in our paper.
> As noted in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor
> technical point. The main point is that we include an estimate of the
> standard error of the observed trend. DCPS07 do not, which is the main
> error in their analysis.
>
> In calculating modeled and observed standard errors, we assume an AR-1
> model of the regression residuals. This assumption is not unreasonable
> for many meteorological time series. We and others have made it in a
> number of previous studies.
>
> Reviewer 2 would have liked us to fit higher-order autoregressive
> models to the T2, T2LT, and TS-T2LT time series. This is a difficult
> business, particularly given the relatively short length of the time
> series available here. There is no easy way to reliably estimate the
> parameters of higher-order AR models from 20 to 30 years of data. The
> same applies to reliable estimation of the spectral density at
> frequency zero (since we have only 2-3 independent samples for
> estimating the spectral density at frequency zero). Reviewer 2's
> comments are not particularly relevant to the specific problem we are
dealing with here.
>
> It's also worth mentioning that use of higher-order AR models for
> estimating trend standard errors would likely lead to SMALLER
> effective sample sizes and LARGER standard errors, thus making it even
> more difficult to find significant differences between modelled and
> observed trends! Our use of an AR-1 model makes it easier for us to
> obtain "DCPS07-like" results, and to find significant differences
> between modelled and observed trends. DCPS cannot claim, therefore,
> that our test somehow stacks the deck in favor of obtaining a
> non-significance trend difference - which they might claim if we used
> a
> (poorly-constrained) higher-order AR model for estimating standard
> errors.
>
> The Reviewer does not want to "see the method proposed in this paper
> become established as the default method of estimating standard errors
> in climatological time series". We do not claim universal
> applicability of our approach. There may well be circumstances in
> which it is more appropriate to use higher-order AR models in
estimating standard errors.
>
> I'd be happy to make a statement to this effect in the revised paper.
>
> I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2's
> comments. The bit about "wilfully ignoring" time series literature was
> uncalled for. Together with my former MPI colleague Wolfgang
> Brueggemann, I've fooled around with a lot of different methods of
> estimating standard errors, in both the time domain and frequency
> domain. One could write a whole paper on this subject alone. Such a
> paper would not help us to expose the statistical deficiencies in
> DCPS07. Nor would in-depth exploration of this issue lead to the
> shorter paper requested by the Reviewer.
>
> It should take me a few days to revise the paper and draft a response
> to Reviewer 2's comments. I'll send you the revised paper and draft
> response early next week. Slowly but surely, we are getting there!
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ----
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore,
CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Original Filename: 1216753979.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: A long and rocky road...
Date: Tue Jul 22 15:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Ben,
well, thanks for your thanks. I'm not sure that I did all that much, but glad that the
small amount is appreciated. It's a shame that the process couldn't have been quicker
still, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly.
Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I've skim read already -- looks very carefully done
and therefore convincing (I'm sure you already heard that from others).
I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM). Provision of SOM is a
relatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething problems.
A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February still has its
SOM missing! Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but I'll now email Glenn to remind him
of this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM. I think this
is a problem on the publisher's side of things rather than an editorial problem.
Because of our absent SOM, we've temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our personal
website. If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complain if the
paper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on your own website
when the paper appears online. But hopefully there'll be no problem with it!
I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Tom's wedding -- hope that was fun!
Best regards
Tim
At 22:28 21/07/2008, you wrote:
Dear Tim,
Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, and is
"in press" at IJoC. I've appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. It's
been a long and rocky road, and I'll be quite glad if I never have to write another MSU
paper again - ever!
I'd be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since IJoC now has
online publication, we're hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks.
Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokering the
submission of the paper to IJoC.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1217431501.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jason Lowe <jason.lowe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Cox, Peter" <P.M.Cox@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bryant.mcavaney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Curtis Covey <covey1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mlatif@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Tom.Delworth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Andreas Hense <ahense@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Asgeir Sorteberg <asgeir.sorteberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erich Roeckner <roeckner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Evgeny Volodin <volodin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gary L. Russell" <Gary.L.Russell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Greg Flato <gflato@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Helge Drange <helge.drange@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jean-Francois Royer <jean-francois.royer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jean-Louis Dufresne <Jean-Louis.Dufresne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jozef Syktus <jozef.syktus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julia Slingo <J.M.Slingo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kimoto Masahide <kimoto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Gent <gent@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Qingquan Li <liqq@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Seita Emori <emori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Seung-Ki Min <seung-ki.min@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shan Sun <ssun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shoji Kusunoki <skusunok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shuting Yang <shuting@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Silvio Gualdi <gualdi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephanie Legutke <legutke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tongwen Wu <twwu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tony Hirst <Tony.Hirst@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Toru Nozawa <nozawa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wilhelm May <wm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Won-Tae Kwon <wontk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ying Xu <xuying@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Yong Luo <yluo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Yongqiang Yu <yyq@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kamal Puri <K.Puri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Stockdale <Tim.Stockdale@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Murphy <james.murphy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Marco Giorgetta <marco.giorgetta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, George Boer <George.Boer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, claudia tebaldi <claudia.tebaldi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nathan Gillett <n.gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Karoly <dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, D
Original Filename: 1219078495.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>
Subject: RE: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01
Date: Mon Aug 18 12:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
At 13:35 20/05/2008, you wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for this.
In response:
1. I can't remember the thinking behind this - can you?
2. I don't think we'll be doing anything with UKCIP08 material, or briefing people;
initially at least it will be about user needs without people thinking about how they
might use UKCIP08, if that makes sense!
3. This is fine, although we may want some consistency between us e.g. Newcastle rates
have been revised and are substantially larger than yours.
4. We need a pen portrait for Tim.
5. Thanks - we'll use this in with the other text.
Best wishes,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 19 May 2008 15:36
To: Darch, Geoff J; Jim Hall; C G Kilsby; Mark New; ana.lopez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Anthony
Footitt; Suraje Dessai; Clare Goodess; t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: McSweeney, Robert; Arkell, Brian; Sene, Kevin
Subject: Re: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making on
climate change impacts - PCC(08)01
Geoff,
Clare is off to Chelsea - back late tomorrow. We (Clare, Tim and me)
have had a brief meeting. Here are some thoughts and questions we had.
1. Were we going to do two sets of costings?
2. Those involved in UKCIP08 (both doing the work and involved in the SG) have
signed confidentiality texts with DEFRA. Not sure how these affect access to
the headline messages in the drafts we're going to be looking at over the next few
months. Also not sure how these will affect the UKCIP workshops that are coming
up before the launch.
3. We then thought about costs for the CRU work. We decided on 25K for all
CRU work. At
Original Filename: 1219239172.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gavin,
Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening.
On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of
yours making it read a little better.
Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so
I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit
about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing - he
used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his
mind and its inherent bias(es).
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and
traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to
something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible.
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our
FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions
not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an
aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself
from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with
this hassle.
The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the
skeptics
have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info
the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't
have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:07 19/08/2008, you wrote:
Phil, here are some edits - mostly language, a couple of bits of logic,
an attempt to soothe Mike on the borehole bit, and a paragraph for
consideration in the Appendix. Two questions require a little thinking -
the reference to 'regional freshening' on the coral section needs to be
more specific - I doubt it is a global phenomena, second there is an 'in
prep' reference to some new work by van Ommen - I don't think this is
appropriate and should either be removed and put as a personal
communication.
Having looked over the tropical trees section, I think that's fine.
The fig A1 does need labelling though.
Gavin
On Tue, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 09:11, Phil Jones wrote:
> Mike,
> Peck didn't do the speleothem bit either.
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> Mike,
> Have your text in - just need to read the borehole section again.
> Noted your comment re the final Appendix figure. Will look at more
> when Tim back.
> Peck's bit is 2.5 and the terrestrial part of 2.6 - except for the
> borehole text.
>
> Next time I co-ordinate anything I'll get the GB cycling coach
> involved. We've just one our 7th gold medal on two wheels. Only
> one short of Phelps.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 13:52 19/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
> > thanks Phil--which part is Peck's? I'd like to read it over
> > carefully,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > Phil Jones wrote:
> > > Mike, Gavin,
> > > On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of
> > > the annual CET record
> > > were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim's away, but when he did
> > > this with
> > > them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The
> > > purpose of the piece
> > > was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same.
> > > It wasn't
> > > to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the
> > > red/blue lines,
> > > as they are crap anyway.
> > > The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in
> > > the IPCC
> > > diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully
> > > back in or
> > > dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes
> > > quite
> > > a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is
> > > that CET
> > > has been so warm the last 20 years or so.
> > > Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the
> > > summer is
> > > lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year.
> > > Warmth
> > > in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds
> > > when it comes to warming.
> > >
> > > Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been
> > > written
> > > by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I
> > > will
> > > mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over.
> > > > only 2 substantial comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3
> > > > (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement
> > > > here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of
> > > > 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling.
> > > > the end of the first sentence:
> > > > e.g., Zorita and Gonz
Original Filename: 1219844013.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Gabi Hegerl <gabi.hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: comments on AR5 experimental design - reply by Aug xxx xxxx xxxx(thursday)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:33:33 +0100
Cc: dpierce@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, JKenyon <kenyon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nathan <n.gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Karoly <dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knutti Reto <reto.knutti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Toru Nozawa <nozawa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Knutson <tom.knutson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Claudia Tebaldi <tebaldi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Smith <rls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Daithi Stone <stoned@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Wehner <mfwehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Francis Zwiers <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <hvonstorch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Thanks Tim! We'll have another round later, confirmed by Tim, when we
discuss storage and
documentation - probably should try before WGCM meeting so that David
can present results.
the 'near term prediction' is a mip all by itself, so there will be some
guidance coming up hopefully!
In terms of ensemble size: for the stuff I was involved in, even one run
from a model was good since
it increased the overall ensemble size for multi model means and
estimates of variance - did you analyze
models individually? I would be keen to hear from the group:
is say a single 20th c run, single natural only run, single ghg run
a) useless
b) much better than nothing?
| vouch for b) for things I was involved in but it would be good to know
for which applications its a!
Gabi
Tim Barnett wrote:
> hi gabi..in real haste.....people will use the AR5 data set for impact
> studies no doubt about it. so what will they find when they jump
> in....same as we did trying to do the western D&A work with AR4....a very
> disparate set of numbers.
> 1.some models don't give the data one would like.
> 2.some models have only 1 realization...which makes them useless. we
> found that with multiple realizations one can do statistics with ensemble
> techniques which give a lot more statistical power. suggesting 10 member
> ensembles. with less the S/N can be small...e.g. we could not use the
> GFDL runs very well as they were so noisey and had few (5) realizations)
> 3. daily data is required. storage is cheap these days so at least daily
> data for order 100 years is desired. otherwise it is finageled a la the
> current downscaling methods (save one).
> 4. the 20th century runs need to go to 2015 as suggested by IDAG. we had
> to stop at 1999 and lost 8 years we would well like to have studies.
> 5. some of the variables we needed to compare with satellite obs were
> largely missing, e.g. clouds information.
> 6. to Mike's point....just what data is going to be saved?
> 7. i hope potential users of the data aside from the modeling groups get
> a say in what is archived. we are to the point now where policy makers
> want our best guesses as to what will happen in the next 20 years. the
> people who will make those 'guesses' are most likely not in the major
> model centers.
>
> I invite David Pierce to chip in here as he spend alot of time in the
> details of the data sets and associated problems.
>
> sorry to be so hasty but such is life at the moment. best, tim
>
>
>
>
>> Hi IDAG'ies,
>>
>> As you probably know, a proposal for the AR5 experiments is being
>> circulated in the moment, with comments due by September 1. This will
>> then be presented at the working group for coupled modelling (WGCM)
>> meeting in Paris, which David Karoly will attend.
>> Peter Stott and I discussed the draft when I visited last week, and we
>> drafted a response and suggestions from IDAG (attached) Please let me
>> know if you are ok with this (if I dont hear back I assume you are),
>> if you suggest changes and if you want us to add another topic/concern.
>>
>> I would need this by next thursday to add it to a comment 'from IDAG'
>> to be sent in time, and then hopefully David can present this also in
>> Paris at the WGCM meeting.
>>
>> hope you all had a nice summer, and still remember our next meeting in
>> planning, and your IDAG tasks :))
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>>
>> p.s. we were wondering also about forcing, and if the forcing issue
>> (how stored, synchronized?) should be added. However, given even some
>> 'rich' modelling groups worry about getting the mandatory experiments
>> through we should however not hope that groups will run more than 1
>> single forcing set for the 20th century, and arguments against
>> synchronizing are that its not feasible for many forcings (eg
>> aerosols) and that we loose quite a bit of information if only a
>> single, for example, set of solar forcings were used and with this
>> open the AR5 up for criticism. Ideally, of course, one center would
>> systematically explore all the forcings - but I am not sure somebody
>> is planning to do this - in that case, a common set of 20th century
>> forcings may be an advantage. Based on some EU project, forcings are
>> synchronized for some European modeling centers - we could draw
>> attention to that if you feel strongly about this...anyway, I hesitate
>> to start a discussion about this...
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gabriele Hegerl
>> School of GeoSciences
>> University of Edinburgh
>> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613
>>
>> --
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Dr Gabriele Hegerl
School of GeoSciences
The University of Edinburgh
Grant Institute, The King's Buildings
West Mains Road
EDINBURGH EH9 3JW
Phone: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx, FAX: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: Gabi.Hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1219861908.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: New Wengen Draft -- including changes to accommodate new Figure 3
Date: Wed Aug 27 14:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eugene Wahl <Eugene.R.Wahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Caspar,
Thanks.
Phil
At 14:16 27/08/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Phil,
I worked on the figures yesterday and sent them off to Gene for double check. Will be
one panel each (6), much improved legibility and significantly reduced "footprint" in
the appearance of the text. You should have them before the end of your day.
Thanks for all your work on this paper! (Tim too!)
Cheers,
Caspar
On Aug 27, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Caspar, Gene,
We're going to send the manuscript back tomorrow. If we get a
revised diagram we'll include - otherwise we won't.
Have had a few more comments, but nothing substantial. All yours Gene
are in, as are those from Gavin, Mike, Juerg and the coral people. There
is a completely revised tropical dendro section and Peck finally came
through with a section on less-resolved proxies and varves.
All in all it reads very well and the recommendations should prove very
useful for PAGES.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:52 26/08/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Hey Gene,
I'll see how I can adjust the figures to fit.
Caspar
On Aug 25, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Eugene Wahl wrote:
Hi Phil and Tim, and Caspar:
Here are my full set of comments on the entirety of section 3, the figures relevant to
section 3, the authors' address, and abstract (none there). I made slight changes in
the portion of the text already sent last night, sorry that I could not avoid that!
Caspar, please note that I've operated here on the assumption that Figure 3 is
simplified to one panel for each section, according to the suggestions we have talked
about, but does contain all 6 portions, A-F.
There are two versions: one with just the relevant portions of the text, and the full
amended text document. The changes noted should be identical in each version.
Peace, Gene
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Physical Scientist
NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch
325 Broadway Street
Boulder, CO 80305
xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
[2]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Gene,
Thanks. Today is a holiday here. We'll all be back in
CRU tomorrow. So, we'll begin revising Section 3 then.
Have had quite a few comments so far, and all are in.
New Figure 3 most appreciated. We must send this off
on Thursday or Friday.
Hope you're settling in to Boulder life. At least you
should be able to contact Caspar more easily!
Cheers
Phil
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: New Wengen Draft
From: [3]Eugene.R.Wahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Mon, August 25, 2008 2:45 am
To: [4]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Phil:
I've had to wait to the weekend to get to this, due to several other
matters that had to be attended to here at NOAA this week and in
relation to a report required by a funder that was due Friday.
I've looked over about half of section 3 (up to the start of section
3.4.2), and also the abstract and the authors' address section.
Attached are my comments on those sections. I will be getting to the
rest of section 3 tonight and tomorrow and will send anything else to
you. Everything is done in WORD with "Track Changes" turned on.
HIGHLIGHTS
1) My address information has been updated to include my NOAA
information, which is now appropriate. The original Alfred information
is kept, as also appropriate. I've condensed it all to not change the
overall page spacing of the address citations.
2) The addition to the results description of the Riedwyl et al.
(2008) paper across pp xxx xxxx xxxxhere (near the top of p 56 in the text you
sent this week). It is NECESSARY to keep this addition, as the text as
it was "overemphasized" the differential quality of the RegEM results
in this study. Their graphs 4 and 6 clearly show the results I added,
in which RegEM for winter adds quite problematic artifacts at the
highest levels of noise added. The white-noise SNR at which this
happens (0.25), while low, is not outside of what reality might bring.
[NB: I have talked with Juerg about this situation, and he is clearly
aware of my sense that RegEM is given too high marks in this context.]
3) I added very brief descriptions how the CFRs actually come up with
a reconstruction to the descriptions of them in section 3.2. If you
feel these three sentences cannot be included I understand, but I think
they are useful for the readers to know HOW the covariance information
we are talking about there is actually used.
TO COME: Caspar and I are working out a much simplified version of
Figure 3 (one panel per each section A-F), which I think will be much
better than what is there now. We communicated on that Friday and
yesterday, and are now close to having a new graphic. I will adapt the
references to Figure 3 in section 3.4.2 and in the figure caption in my
next message accordingly, which I plan will come either tonight or
tomorrow.
Peace, and again thanks!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: From Phil Jones New Wengen Draft
Dear All,
Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the
responses to the reviewers.
We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by
the beginning
of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next
Monday
is a national
holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look
through
your
parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or
over
the
weekend?
Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let
me
know of
any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I
think
just look
wrong?
I hope you'll think of this as an improvement.
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 [5]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
>
<wengendraft_version_18Aug_Wahl_review_SHORT_b.doc><wengendraft_version_18Aug_Wahl_revie
w.doc>
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
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
email: [8]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: 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 p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
2. mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1220039621.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: paper on smoothing
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Curtis Covey <covey1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
yeah, its statistically real, but an artifact almost certainly of
natural variability. As Josh Willis nicely pointed out in a recent
interview, anyone citing this as a reason to doubt the reality of
anthropogenic climate change is like a vegas roller thinking he can beat
the system because he's on a momentary winning streak...
m
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> Curt,
>
> At this point the leveling off is more of a Blog myth than any change
> point scientific analysis
>
> Tom
> Kevin Trenberth said the following on 8/29/2008 3:47 PM:
>> No
>> Kevin
>>
>> Curtis Covey wrote:
>>> Very interesting. Does it mean that the apparent leveling-off of
>>> global mean surface temperature since the turn of the century is due
>>> to "artificial suppression of trends near the time series boundaries" ?
>>>
>>> - Curt
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> dear all,
>>>>
>>>> attached is a paper of mine (GRL) on time series smoothing that
>>>> might be of interest.
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>> 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
website: http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
"Dire Predictions" book site: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.html
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1221683947.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Climate
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:39:07 +0100 (BST)
Cc: Wibj
Original Filename: 1221742524.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Clare Goodess <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: R.L.Wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,c.harpham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,M.agnew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, s.busby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: RE: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:55:24 +0100
Cc: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear all
Jacquie had sounded very positive about this back in August, but it sounds like CSERGE are
as stretched as much as people in CRU.
I'm afraid it's looking like we're not going to be able to get anything together on this
unless Rob is able to take a lead. But I think that we would still be lacking the
interdisciplinary research team that AXA are stressing.
Clare
PS Rob - sorry not to have been in touch with you sooner about this, but I didn't know
until Tuesday that you were interested/had been approached.
Subject: RE: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:32:25 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Thread-Index: AckXVyDtvdPNCFYaR+WQsE/hzBjNYgCCW77g
From: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)" <Jacquie.Burgess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Clare I dont think weve got the capacity to take this on at this stage. Never mind
there will always be other opportunities.
Best wishes
Jacquie
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Clare Goodess [[1] mailto:C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 15 September 2008 18:19
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Alexander Jan Dr (ENV); Agnew Maureen Dr (ENV); Harpham Colin Dr (ENV); Busby Simon
Mr (ENV)
Subject: RE: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Dear Jacquie
I'm afraid that I've not had time to do anything about this call since returning from
holiday. The deadline is rapidly approaching - 3 October and after this week, I'm away
at meetings until after the deadline. I also have two ARCC proposals and a DCMS tender
to get sorted out this week.
So, I am not going to be able to take any kind of a lead on this even if we think its
worth trying to get a last minute proposal together. No-one else from CRU has time to
take a leading role, but Colin and Maureen are interested. Colin has been working on the
CRU weather generator which will be an integral part of the UKCIP08 user interface and
Maureen has a broader impacts perspective and is lead author on the climate chapter in
the forthcoming CII report. Simon Busby might also be interested - and has good
experience of working with climate model outputs (although for a rather different
purpose). One task for CRU would be to extend some of the validation work of the
ENSEMBLES RCM runs. I should also be able to read and comment on material and provide
some short draft sections of text (e.g., on ENSEMBLES, PRUDENCE, MICE and STARDEX) - I
will have at least sporadic email access while away I hope.
But I think this is only going to be viable if somebody from CSERGE or the
decision-making group is able to co-ordinate things. And we don't have the capacity for
hydrological modelling in CRU - so again, this would need input from others. Though
there is also the requirement in the call to assess the quality of flood modelling tools
currently licensed by insurers - about which I know nothing. If it would be helpful to
have a quick meeting this week, Iet me know.
Best wishes, Clare
At 16:30 12/08/2008, you wrote:
Dear Clare,
Many thanks for this I think it would be an excellent opportunity for a CRU + other
parts of the School response. I know Jan Alexander has already got a European bid
through to second stage on floods. We could certainly put something together with the
environmental decision-making components too. Lets discuss when you get back from
holiday.
Best wishes
Jacquie
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Clare Goodess [ [2]mailto:C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 12 August 2008 14:58
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Agnew Maureen Dr (ENV); Harpham
Colin Dr (ENV)
Subject: Fwd: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Dear Jacquie
CRU is interested in putting in a proposal under this call. As you can see, as well as
the climate science aspects, there is also a need to work on economic issues - so this
could be a good opportunity for putting in a joint proposal with people in CSERGE or
other parts of ENV. There are also additional collaborators on the climate and flooding
aspects that we could involve both in the UK and Germany.
I'm away from tomorrow for a couple of weeks, but the CRU people copied in on this email
are also all interested in a potential proposal. Though currently we're not sure which
if any of us has time to lead on this at least immediately.
Best wishes, Clare
Subject: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:18:02 +0200
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Thread-Index: AcjsHuVgYlR8ndbHSHiv/kWz02+NeQ==
From: "CHOUX Mathieu" <mathieu.choux@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "appelaprojets" <appelaprojets@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f034)
X-Spam-Score: 4.10 (****) [Tag at 5.00] DEAR_SOMETHING,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f034 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 6808857 - c6a2c2ad9106
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=6808857&m=c6a2c2ad9106&c=f
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=6808857&m=c6a2c2ad9106&c=n
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=6808857&m=c6a2c2ad9106&c=s
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
Hello Clare,
AXA recently launched a call for projects to academic institutions focused on the
flooding risk and the impacts of climate change. The Climatic Research Unit may have
been approached with the email reproduced below, and I just wanted to make sure you
received the information.
Sincerely Yours,
Mathieu Choux
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Madam/Sir,
The AXA Research Fund has been created in order to encourage research in a number of
disciplines that touch on the risks, challenges and major transformations that affect
our rapidly changing world. The Fund will award 100 million Euros over five years to
finance innovative research.
The AXA Research Fund team is delighted to announce the launch of a new call for
projects on climate change impacts on the risk of flooding in <?xml:namespace prefix =
st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Europe (see attached document) .
All the information needed to apply can be found on our internet site:
[6]http://researchfund.axa.com/en/research-funding/calls-projects/
Please make sure this information is communicated within your institution. The results
of the selection process will be communicated to them as of January 15, 2009 .
Sincerely,
The AXA Research Fund Team
[7]appelaprojets@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mathieu CHOUX
Risk Analyst - Catastrophe Modeling Department
AXA Group
GIE AXA - 9 av. de Messine - Paris, France
[8]mathieu.choux@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel. : xxx xxxx xxxx- Fax : xxx xxxx xxxx
AXA redefining / standards
Please consider the environment before printing this message
Ce message
est
confidentiel; Son contenu
ne represente en
aucun
cas
un engagement de la part
de
AXA sous reserve de
tout accord
conclu
par ecrit entre
vous
et AXA. Toute
publication,
utilisation
ou
diffusion,
meme
partielle, doit
etre
autorisee
prealablement.
Si
vous n'etes pas
destinataire de ce
message,
merci d'en
avertir
immediatement
l'expediteur.
This message is
confidential;
its contents
do
not
constitute
a
commitment by AXA
except where provided for
in a written
agreement
between you and AXA.
Any unauthorised
disclosure,
use
or
dissemi-
nation, either whole
or
partial, is
prohibited. If you are
not
the
intended recipient of
the
message, please
notify
the
sender
imme-
diately.
Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Web: [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
[10]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Web: [11]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
[12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Web: [13]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
[14]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
References
1. mailto:C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=6808857&m=c6a2c2ad9106&c=f
4. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=6808857&m=c6a2c2ad9106&c=n
5. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=6808857&m=c6a2c2ad9106&c=s
6. blocked::http://researchfund.axa.com/en/research-funding/calls-projects/
7. mailto:appelaprojets@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:mathieu.choux@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
10. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
11. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
12. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
13. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
14. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
Original Filename: 1221851501.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Status of IJoC manuscript
Date: Fri Sep 19 15:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
Good news. Endnote types is a much better option
than in the text - not as good as footnotes.
Yes the paper you attached does look crap. I will read it though
even if the journal is even worse.
This paper has come out. The plot of London and Vienna temps,
although an aside, is something I need to follow up more.
London has a UHI, but it doesn't mean any more warming in
the 20th century!
Hope all is well with you.
Cheers
Phil
PS Attached another paper - has some nice photos!
At 17:12 18/09/2008, you wrote:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to give you a brief update on the status of our IJoC manuscript.
I received the page proofs about three weeks ago. Unfortunately, IJoC did not allow us
to employ footnotes. You may recall that we made liberal use of footnotes in order to
present technical information that would have interfered with the "flow" of the main
text. The IJoC copy editors simply folded all footnotes into the main text. This was
done without any regard for context. It made the main text very difficult to read. After
lengthy negotiations with IJoC editors, we decided on a compromise solution. While IJoC
was unwilling to accept footnotes (for reasons that are still unclear to me), they did
agree to accept endnotes. The footnotes have now been transferred to an Appendix 2
entitled "Technical Notes". While this is not an optimal solution, it's a heck of a lot
better than IJoC's original "assimilate in main text" solution.
Now that the footnote issue has been resolved, I'm hoping that online publication of our
paper will happen within the next several weeks. I'll let you know as soon as I receive
a publication date from IJoC. LLNL (and probably NOAA, too) will be working on press
releases for the paper. I'll also be drafting a one-page, plain English "fact sheet",
which will address why we initiated this study, what we learned, why I'll never do this
again, etc. I'll circulate this fact sheet for your comments early next week.
With best regards,
Ben
(P.S.: David Douglass and John Christy continue to publish crappy papers. For their
latest science fiction, please see:
[1]http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Original Filename: 1222285054.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: London UHI
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:37:34 +0100
Cc: "Wilby, Robert" <r.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Phil
Thanks for the comments on the Briefing report. You say "There is no evidence with London
of any change in the amount of the UHI over the last 40 years. The UHI is clear, but it's
not getting any worse" and sent a paper to show this. By coincidence I also got recently a
paper from Rob which says "London's UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp
during spring and summer". Its not something I need to sort out for UKCIP08, but I thought
you both might like to be aware of each others findings. I didn't keep a copy of Rob's PDF
after I printed it off but I am sure you can swap papers. I don't need to be copied in to
any discussion.
Cheers
Geoff
Original Filename: 1222901025.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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@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: Next version of press release
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Anne Stark <stark8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Parker, David (Met Office)" <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear folks,
Here is the next version of the press release for our IJoC paper. I
received a number of comments from you (many thanks!), and have tried
hard to incorporate them without increasing the length of the release.
Peter Thorne suggested that it might be useful to delete the explicit
reference to the UR/UAH group, and instead refer to the Douglass et al.
IJoC paper in a footnote. After some internal debate, I have not done
that. Anne Stark advised me that footnotes are not often used in press
releases (they tend to get ignored by reporters). Furthermore, I
couldn't see an easy way of getting rid of the "UR/UAH" acronym, yet
still making a clear distinction between their results and our results,
their test and our test, etc., etc.
I've tried to capture the spirit if not the letter of your suggested
edits. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the time to iterate for days
on the press release - we really need to finalize this tomorrow. We will
have a little more time to finalize the "fact sheet".
So please let me know as soon as possible if there's anything you can't
live with in the press release.
One final point. Peter also asked whether it might be useful to include
the telephone numbers of co-authors in the final paragraph of the press
release. Anne and I would prefer not to do that. If you are agreeable to
fielding press inquiries about the paper, please let me know, and send
me a telephone number under which you can be reached in the next few
days. We'll then compile a list (with contact information) of co-authors
willing to discuss the paper with interested reporters.
I hope to send you a revised version of the fact sheet later tomorrow.
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:eudoraattachSanter_IJC_Sept_2008_v7.doc"
Original Filename: 1223915581.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Clare Goodess <C.Goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Douglas Maraun" <d.maraun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Janice Darch" <J.Darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: potential DfID funding for climate centre
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:01 +0100
<x-flowed>
have not been approached - but I think it really
does sound like the sort of initiative CRU/ENV are looking for.
I get the feeling this is the sort of potential
contact ENV would wish to take over.
Keith
At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
>Hi CRU Board,
>
>I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham
>from the International Development Team at Price
>Waterhouse Cooper. They get lots of DfID
>(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department
>for International Development) funding.
>
>They've heard that DfID are likely to call for
>expressions of interest for a new centre
>focussing on international climate
>change. Their idea is to fund a centre that
>would be the first point of call for advice and
>for commissioning research related to climate
>change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate.
>
>He was talking about
Original Filename: 1224005421.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: David Douglass <douglass@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Response
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Peter W. Thorne" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, 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>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Prof. Douglass,
You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in our
recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
(IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the calculations
we performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome to do so.
We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) to
calculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmospheric
levels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
zonal means. You can compare your results directly with those displayed
in Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our "numerical quantities" in
order to determine whether we have correctly calculated zonal-mean
trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric amplification of
surface temperature changes.
Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
"synthetic" MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms for
calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by ourselves
and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have already
demonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable of
computing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output.
Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have already
successfully replicated our "model average" synthetic MSU temperature
trends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report).
In summary, you have access to the same model and observational data
that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information that
you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our
IJoC paper are sound or unsound.
You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints against
me "with the journal and other scientific bodies". If I were you, Dr.
Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the serious
error in the "robust statistical test" that you applied to compare
modeled and observed temperature trends.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC
paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They deserve to
be fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
Ben Santer
David Douglass wrote:
> My request is not unreasonable. It is normal scientific discourse and
> should not be a personal matter.
> This is a scientific issue. You have published a paper with conclusions
> based upon certain specific numerical quantities. As another scientist,
> I challenge the value of those quantities. These values can not be
> authenticated by my calculating them because I have nothing to compare
> them to.
>
> If you will not give me the values of the IUK data in figure 6 then I
> will consider filing a formal complaint with the journal and other
> scientific bodies.
>
> David Douglass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1224035484.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Gabi Hegerl <Gabi.Hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Meeting Jan 21-23
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:51:24 +0100
Cc: Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, claudia tebaldi <claudia.tebaldi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knutti Reto <reto.knutti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <hvonstorch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Claudia Tebaldi <tebaldi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Karoly <dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Toru Nozawa <nozawa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Daithi Stone <stoned@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Smith <rls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nathan Gillett <n.gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Wehner <MFWehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Xuebin Zhang <Xuebin.Zhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Chris Miller <christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Knutson <Tom.Knutson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Delsole <delsole@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jones, Gareth S" <gareth.s.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tara Torres <tara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi all, I assume this is general interest, not IDAG meeting - I think the
meeting would be a bit too big and complicated if we would try to resolve
IPCC type issues - on the other hand, involving Chris Field and maybe
Tom Stocker may be an interesting way to vent the scientific issues in
a relaxed setting. But I would suggest to avoid agency type things -
can be convinced otherwise if you feel strongly. we do have a limited
budget, too!
Gabi
Quoting "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> Myles,
>
> The Dept of State is the U.S. lead on IPCC, Conference of Party
> discussions, etc. USAID does the bulk of adaptation assistance at the
> international level. At the national level, there are various CCSP
> agencies, e.g. Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Interior, EPA, who are more
> on the 'application' side of the CCSP.
>
> I'd need to ask someone in those agencies on how they are approaching
> the issues you raise. Perhaps Chris Miller knows someone there...?
>
> Programs such as NOAA Climate Change Data Detection (CCDD), and DOE
> Climate Change Prediction Program(CCPP) focus almost exclusively on
> IPCC WG I type of questions.
>
> Anjuli
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myles Allen [mailto:allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:00 AM
> To: claudia tebaldi; Gabi Hegerl
> Cc: Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett;
> Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa;
> Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner;
> Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom Knutson;
> Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S; Tara Torres
> Subject: RE: Meeting Jan 21-23
>
> Hi All,
>
> That is a very good idea indeed. I was talking to Tom Stocker last week,
> arguing that resolving the differences in the definition of attribution
> between WG1 and WG2 was going to be one of the key challenges for AR5,
> particularly as attribution of impacts becomes a live topic as countries
> start to make the case for adaptation assistance. How about we invite
> the co-Chair of WG1 along as well?
>
> If we are going to invite Chris Field, we should definitely also invite
> someone from the "double attribution" community, or it will seem a bit
> like WG1 lecturing to the co-Chair of WG2. Any suggestions, David?
>
> Anjuli, has anyone in the US State Department (or whichever department
> will handle this) started addressing the question of how the US
> government will distinguish "impacts of climate change" from
> "vulnerability to natural climate variability" in allocating resources
> for adaptation assistance? If anyone has even started thinking about
> this problem, it would be very interesting to hear from them to know
> what questions they are likely to need answering. We could also try and
> find out if anyone in the European Commission is worrying about this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Myles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: claudia tebaldi [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 13 October 2008 20:46
> To: Gabi Hegerl
> Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario];
> Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly;
> Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; stoned@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Richard Smith; Nathan
> Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli;
> Chris Miller; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S;
> Tara Torres
> Subject: Re: Meeting Jan 21-23
>
> Hi Gabi et al.
>
> I wonder if we could try to get Chris Field, who is going to be the
> chair of working group 2 for AR5...I don't know how likely it is to get
> him but it may be interesting to get his perspective on what was done in
> AR4 WG2 and what he would like to see in AR5 WG2.
>
> c
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gabi Hegerl <gabi.hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> wrote:
>> Hi IDAG people,
>>
>> Its time to start planning our next IDAG meeting in detail. A
> provisional
>> coarse agenda is attached. Please feel free to email me suggestions
>> to improve/update this, and if there is a topic you would
> love
>> to see covered but that isn;t please get in touch as well.
>> Also, we should have one topic related to the impacts review paper
> that is
>> to be written in year 2 of the grant. Therefore, if you have a
>> suggestion of a guest that would help us elucidate the
> challenges in
>> impact attribution but also to move forward on this, please let me
>> know!
>> Tara Torres from UCAR (tara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) will help us to plan the
> meeting.
>> Also, I hope to hire a student helper at Duke to get our meeting
> webpage
>> going, keep track of agenda items etc, but please bear with me and
>> tolerate a bit of chaos before we have succeeded with this!
>>
>> What I need from you is to please
>> - let me know if you can make it, and what you would vaguely like to
> speak
>> about (you can do the first now and postpone the second)
>> - get in touch with Tara to book your travel - ideally, towards the
> end of
>> October / or in early November (she is a bit buried right now)
>> - get in touch with me when you have suggestions, or want to bring
> somebody
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>> --
>> Dr Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences The University of Edinburgh
>> Grant Institute, The King's Buildings West Mains Road EDINBURGH EH9
>> 3JW Phone: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx, FAX: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> 3184
>> Email: Gabi.Hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claudia Tebaldi
> Research Scientist, Climate Central
> http://www.climatecentral.org
> currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR
> PO Box 3000
> Boulder, CO 80305
> tel. 303.497.2487
>
>
>
>
--
Gabriele Hegerl
School of GeoSciences
University of Edinburgh
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
</x-flowed>