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: 1224176459.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: Why are the temperature data from Hadley different from NASA?
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:00:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Judith Lean <jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Yousif K Kharaka <ykharaka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
thanks Phil--this all makes sense. I'll be intrigued to hear more about how the melting sea
ice issue is going to be dealt with. no question there is a lot of warming going on up
there.
hope to see you one of these days,
mike
On Oct 16, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Hi Mike, Judith and Yousif,
Mike has basically answered the question. The GISS group average surface T data into
80 equal area boxes across the world. The UK group (CRU/MOHC) grid the data into
5 by 5 degree lat/long boxes, as does NCDC. These griddings don't allow so much
extrapolation of data - no extrapolation beyond the small grid box. The US groups also
calculate the globe as one domain, whereas we in the UK use (NH+SH)/2. This also
makes some difference as most of the missing areas are in the SH, and currently the NH
is warmer than the SH with respect to 1961-90. Our rationale for doing what we do is that
it is better to estimate the missing areas of the SH (which we do by tacitly assuming they
are the average of the rest of the SH) from the rest of the SH as opposed to the rest of
the world.
The Arctic is a problem now. With less sea ice, we are getting SST data in for regions
for which we have no 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverages - because it used to sea ice (so had no
measurements).
We are not using any of the SST from the central Arctic in summer.
So we are probably underestimating temperatures in the recent few years. We're working
on what we can do about this. There are also more general SST issues in recent years.
In 1990, for example, almost all SST values came from ships. By 2000 there were about
20% from Buoys and Drifters, but by 2008 this percentage is about 85%. We're also
doing comparisons of the drifters with the ships where both are plentiful, as it is
likely that drifters measure a tenth of one degree C cooler than ships, and the 1961-90
period is ship-based average.
New version of the dataset coming in summer 2009.
All the skeptics look at the land data to explain differences between datasets and
say urbanization is responsible for some or all of the warming. The real problem is
the marine data at the moment.
Attaching a recent paper on urbanization and effects in China.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:08 15/10/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Judith,
Its nice to hear from you, been too long (several years??). My understanding is that
the differences arise largely from how missing data are dealt with. For example, in Jim
et al's record the sparse available arctic data are interpolated over large regions,
whereas Phil an co. either use the available samples or in other versions (e.g. Brohan
et al) use optimal interpolation techniques. The bottom line is that Hansen et al 'j05 I
believe weights the high-latitude warming quite a bit more, which is why he gets a
warmer '05, while Phil and co find '98 to be warmer.
But Phil can certainly provide a more informed and complete answer!
mike
p.s. see you at AGU this year??
On Oct 15, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Judith Lean wrote:
Hi Yousif,
Many apologies for not replying sooner to your email - but I've only just returned from
travel and am still catching up with email.
Unfortunately, I am simply a "user" of the surface temperature data record and not an
expert at all, so cannot help you understand the specific issues of the analysis of the
various stations that produce the differences that you identify. I too would like to
know the reason for the differences.
Fortunately, there are experts who can tell us, and I am copying this email to Mike Mann
and Phil Jones who are such experts.
Mike and Phil (hi! hope you are both well!), can you please, please help us to
understand these differences that Yousif points out in the GISS and Hadley Center
surface temperature records (see two attached articles).
Many thanks, for even a brief answer, or some reference.
Judith
On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Yousif K Kharaka wrote:
Judith:
I hope you are doing well (these days OK would be good!) at work and personally.
Can you help me to understand the huge discrepancy (see below) between the temperature
data from the Hadley Center and GISS? Any simple explanations, or references that I can
read on this topic? I certainly would appreciate your help on this.
Best regards. Yousif Kharaka
Yousif Kharaka, Research Geochemist Phone: (6xxx xxxx xxxx
U. S. Geological Survey, MS xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: (6xxx xxxx xxxx
345, Middlefield Road Mail: [1]ykharaka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Menlo Park, California 94025, USA
----- Forwarded by Yousif K Kharaka/WRD/USGS/DOI on 10/08/2008 10:42 AM -----
Yousif K Kharaka/WRD/USGS/DOI
10/06/2008 02:07 PM
To
"Dr David Jenkins" <[2]jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >
cc
[3]allyson_anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [4]drahovzal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [5]dvance@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[6]ebarron@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "'Gene Shinn'" <[7]eshinn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
[8]jarmenrock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [9]jblank@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [10]Jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[11]jjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [12]julie.kupecz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [13]pgrew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[14]rick-bsr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [15]scott.tinker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [16]tpaexpl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[17]w.a.morgan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject
Why are the temperature data from Hadley different from NASA? [18]Link
David and all:
One advantage (or great disadvantage if you are very busy!) of membership in GCCC is
that you are forced to investigate topics outside your areas of expertise. For some time
now, I have been puzzled as to why global temperature data from the British Hadley
Centre are different from those reported by NASA GISS, especially in the last 10 years.
GISS reports that 2005 was the warmest year (see first attachment) on record, and that
2007 tied 1998 for the second place. The Hadley group continues reporting 1998 (a strong
El Nino year) as having the highest global temperature, and then showing temperature
decreases thereafter. The two groups report their temperatures relative to different
time intervals (1xxx xxxx xxxxfor GISS; 1xxx xxxx xxxxfor Hadley), but much more important is
the fact that GISS data include temperatures from the heating Arctic that are excluded
by others (see second attachment). If you are interested in the topic of sun spots, the
11-year irradiance cycle, and solar forcing versus AGHGs, see the first attachment for
what NASA has to say.
We may need help on this complex topic from a "true climate scientists", such as Judith
Lean!
Cheers. Yousif Kharaka
Yousif Kharaka, Research Geochemist Phone: (6xxx xxxx xxxx
U. S. Geological Survey, MS xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: (6xxx xxxx xxxx
345, Middlefield Road Mail: [19]ykharaka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Menlo Park, California 94025, USA
<GCC-Data @ NASA GISS_ GISS Surface Temperature Analysis_ 2007.pdf>
<GCC-2005 Warmest Year In A Century.pdf>
<GCC-Data @ NASA GISS_ GISS Surface Temperature Analysis_ 2007.pdf><GCC-2005 Warmest
Year In A Century.pdf>
--
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: [20]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [21]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[22]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [23]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<jonesetal2008_china.pdf>
--
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: [24]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [25]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[26]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
1. mailto:ykharaka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:allyson_anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:drahovzal@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:dvance@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:ebarron@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:eshinn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:jarmenrock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:jblank@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:Jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:jjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. mailto:julie.kupecz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:pgrew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:rick-bsr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. mailto:scott.tinker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. mailto:tpaexpl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:w.a.morgan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. Notes:///8825668F00670ABE/DABA975B9FB113EB852564B5001283EA/A93F684FF508B452872574D90044850F
19. mailto:ykharaka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
20. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
21. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
22. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
23. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
24. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
26. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
27. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1225026120.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mick Kelly <mick.tiempo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300
Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.
Mick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 24 October 2008 20:39
> To: Mick Kelly
> Subject: Re: Global temperature
>
>
> Mick,
> They have noticed for years - mostly wrt
> the warm year of 1998. The recent coolish years
> down to La Nina. When I get this question I
> have 1xxx xxxx xxxxand 2xxx xxxx xxxx/8 averages to hand.
> Last time I did this they were about 0.2 different,
> which is what you'd expect.
> In Iceland at a meeting that Astrid invited me to.
> Cold with snow on the ground, but things cheap as the
> currency has gone down 30-40% wrt even the pound.
>
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> > Hi Phil
> >
> > Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a
> public talk and
> > noted
> > that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or
> so and 2008
> > doesn't look too hot.
> >
> > Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they
> haven't done
> > already, has anyone had a good look at the large-scale circulation
> > anomalies
> > over this period? I haven't noticed anything consistent
> coming up in the
> > annual climate reviews but then I wasn't really looking.
> >
> > Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
> >
> > Hope all's well with you
> >
> > Mick
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > Mick Kelly
> > PO Box 4xxx xxxx xxxx Kamo
> > Whangarei 0xxx xxxx xxxxNew Zealand
> > email: mick.tiempo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > web: www.tiempocyberclimate.org
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
Original Filename: 1225140121.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: End of the road...
Date: Mon Oct 27 16:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
It seems that Climate Audit has been discussing the paper. I ad
a look whilst I was in Iceland as I had nothing better to do a few times.
It was cold and snowy outside, there was internet.....
Seems as though they are making some poor assumptions; someone
is trying to defend us, but gets rounded upon and one of the co-authors
on the paper is in touch with McIntyre.
As it isn't me, and I can rule out a number of the others, my list of who
it might be isn't that long....
Looking forward to next week !!
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: 1225412081.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Typo in equation 12 Santer.]]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
I thought you'd be interested in my reply to Gavin (see forwarded email).
Cheers,
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: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m9V3Arh7024023;
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5419"; a="30418306"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,519,1220252400";
d="scan'208";a="30418306"
Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29])
by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2008 20:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Message-ID: <490A773D.20807@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Reply-To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
CC: Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Typo in equation 12 Santer.]
References: <1224543811.19301.2452.camel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
In-Reply-To: <1224543811.19301.2452.camel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<x-flowed>
Dear Gavin,
There is no typo in equation 12. The first term under the square root in
equation 12 is a standard estimate of the variance of a sample mean
(see, e.g., "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research", Zwiers and
Storch, their equation 5.24, page 86). The second term under the square
root sign is a very different beast - an estimate of the variance of the
observed trend. As we point out, our d1* test is very similar to a
standard Student's t-test of differences in means (which involves, in
its denominator, the square root of two pooled sample variances).
In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model
average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to
use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their
statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain,
but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is
not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a
demonstrably false assumption.
Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a
sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the
estimate of the model average trend in equation 12. It is NOT
appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between
two uncertain quantities (see our comments in our point #3, immediately
before equation 12). The uncertainty in the estimates of both modeled
AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the design of
any statistical test comparing modeled and observed trends. Douglass et
al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed trends.
Our Figure 6A is not a statistical test. It does not show the standard
errors in the observed trends at discrete pressure levels (which would
have made for a very messy Figure, given that we show results from 7
different observational datasets). Had we attempted to show the observed
standard errors in Figure 6A, I suspect that standard errors from the
RICH, IUK, RAOBCORE-v1.3, and RAOBCORE 1.4 datasets would have
overlapped with the multi-model average trend at most pressure levels. I
can easily produce such a Figure if necessary.
With best regards,
Ben
Gavin Schmidt wrote:
> Ben, Just thought I'd check with you first. I don't think there is a
> problem - but I think the question is really alluding to is our comment
> about Douglass et al 'being wrong' in using sigma_SE - since if we use
> it in the denominator in the d1* test, it can't be wrong, see?
>
> My response would be that we are testing a number of different things
> here: d1* tests whether the ensemble mean is consistent with the obs
> (given their uncertainty). Whereas our figure 6 and the error bars shown
> there are testing whether the real world obs are consistent with a
> distribution defined from the model ensemble members.
>
> gavin
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
>
>> From: lucia liljegren <lucia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: Typo in equation 12 Santer.
>> Date: 20 Oct 2008 15:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>> Hi Gavin,
>>
>> Someone commenting at ClimateAudit is suggesting that equation 12
>> contains a typo. They are under the impression the 1/nm does not
>> belong in the circled term. Rather than going back and forth with "is
>> not a typo", "is so a typo", I figured I'd just ask you. Is there a
>> typo in equaltion 12 below.
>>
>> ----
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW: I think Santer is pretty good paper.
>>
>> Thanks, Lucia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1225462391.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: [Fwd: Santer et al 2008]
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear folks, While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all of
the model data used in our IJoC paper (see forwarded email). After some conversation with
my PCMDI colleagues, I have decided not to respond to McIntyre's request. If McIntyre
repeats his request, I will provide him with the same answer that I gave to David Douglass
- all model and observational data used in our IJoC paper are freely available to
scientific researchers (as are algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU temperatures from
climate model and radiosonde data). If Mr. McIntyre wishes to "audit" our analysis and
findings, he has access to exactly the same raw data that we employed. He can compute
synthetic MSU temperatures exactly the same way that we did. And he has full details of the
statistical tests we applied to compare modeled and observed temperature trends. Recall
that McIntyre is the guy who "audited" the temperature reconstructions of Mike Mann and
colleagues. Now it appears as if McIntyre wants to audit us. McIntyre should have "audited"
the methods and findings of Douglass et al. 2007 - not the methods and findings of Santer
et al. 2008. I thought you should know about this development. 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 xxxxemail: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Account-Key:
account1 Return-Path: Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) by mail-2.llnl.gov
(Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: from mail-2.llnl.gov
(localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $)
with ESMTP id m9KHTFlg029183 for <[vacation]santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Mon, 20 Oct 2008
10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: (from vacmgr@localhost) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit)
id m9KHTFgZ029180 for [vacation]santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Authentication-Warning: mail-2.llnl.gov: vacmgr set sender to
stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx using -f Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov
[128.115.41.82]) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id
m9KHSuoB029014 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxX-Attachments: None X-IronPort-AV:
E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5408"; a="29194653" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,453,1220252400";
d="scan'208,217";a="29194653" Received: from nsziron-1.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.81]) by
nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxX-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:
AosBADJd/EiAZISXgWdsb2JhbACCRyyHF4llAQELBwQKBxGvE4Ns X-IronPort-AV:
E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5408"; a="65324012" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,453,1220252400";
d="scan'208,217";a="65324012" Received: from bureau61.ns.utoronto.ca ([128.100.132.151]) by
nsziron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: from acerd3c08b49af
(CPE0050bfe94416-CM00195efb6eb0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.231.2.44]) (authenticated
bits=0) by bureau61.ns.utoronto.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9KHT9Ds024194
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:11
-0400 From: "Steve McIntyre" To: Subject: Santer et al 2008 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:11
-0400 Message-ID: <000001c932d9$5e5831a0$6602a8c0@acerd3c08b49af> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C932B7.D74691A0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build
10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Dear Dr Santer,
Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 series) used for
statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL. I understand that your
version has been collated from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it
(I presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) .
Thank you for your attention,
Steve McIntyre
Original Filename: 1225465306.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)" <G.Cawley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Possible error in recent IJC paper
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gavin Schmidt" <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Tom Wigley" <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Ben,
many thanks for the full response to my query. I think my confusion arose from the
discussion on RealClimate (which prompted our earlier communication on this topic), which
clearly suggested that the observed trend should be expected to lie within the spread of
the models, rather than neccessarily being close to the mean as the models are stochastic
simulations (which seemed reasonable). I've just re-read that post, the key paragraph from
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ is as
follows:
"The interpretation of this is a little unclear (what exactly does the sigma refer to?),
but the most likely interpretation, and the one borne out by looking at their Table IIa, is
that sigma is calculated as the standard deviation of the model trends. In that case, the
formula given defines the uncertainty on the estimate of the mean - i.e. how well we know
what the average trend really is. But it only takes a moment to realise why that is
irrelevant. Imagine there were 1000's of simulations drawn from the same distribution, then
our estimate of the mean trend would get sharper and sharper as N increased. However, the
chances that any one realisation would be within those error bars, would become smaller and
smaller. Instead, the key standard deviation is simply sigma itself. That defines the
likelihood that one realisation (i.e. the real world) is conceivably drawn from the
distribution defined by the models."
I had therefore expected the test to use the standard deviations of both the models and the
observations (which would give a flat plot in 5B and there would be an obvious overlap of
the uncertainties in 6a at say 500hPa).
best regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Santer [[2]mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 4:06 AM
To: Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)
Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Gavin Schmidt; Thorne, Peter; Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper
Dear Gavin,
Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent
paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no
error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the
questions that you posed.
The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard
estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical
Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch,
Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The
second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an
estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1*
test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in
means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled
sample variances).
In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model
average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to
use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their
statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain,
but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is
not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a
demonstrably false assumption.
Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a
sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the
estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT
appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between
two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both
modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the
design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed
trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed
trends.
I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no
inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12)
and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation
(12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure
of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite
sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding
whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend."
We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting
"imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". I thought, however, that
the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made
very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2).
To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in
Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation
(12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on
N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20
smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of
the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1*
with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the
square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat.
In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the
components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A
does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete
pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors
at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy
Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational
datasets.
We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure
level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy
paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the
synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven
radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such
tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out,
the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT)
is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed
signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH,
IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the
formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed
in Figure 6.
Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the
delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of
email contact) for the past 10 days.
With best regards,
Ben
Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote:
>
>
> Dear Prof. Santer,
>
> I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your paper
> "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of the models
> 1/n_m s{<b_m>}^2 instead of the standard deviation s{<b_m>}^2. Firstly
> the current formulation of (12) seems at odds with objection 3 raised at
> the start of the first column of page 8. Secondly, I can't see how the
> modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in Figure 5B as the test statistic
> is explicitly dependent on the size of the model ensemble n_m. Thirdly,
> the equation seems at odds with the results depicted graphically in
> Figure 6 which would suggest the models are clearly inconsistent at
> higher levels (xxx xxxx xxxxhPa) using the confidence interval based on the
> standard error. Lastly, (12) seems at odds with the very lucid
> treatment at RealClimate written by Dr Schmidt.
>
> I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I have
> found most instructive!
>
> I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if
> this is the case.
>
> best regards
>
> Gavin
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
2. mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1225579812.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper]
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Ben & Phil, No need to push this further, and you probably realize this anyhow, but the
RealClimate criticism of Doug et al. is simply wrong. Ho hum. Tom. Return-Path: Received:
from nscan2.ucar.edu (nscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.192]) by upham.cgd.ucar.edu
(8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m9VB1nbA017855 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 215F8309C01C for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:01:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT) Received: from
nscan2.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nscan2.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
10024) with ESMTP id 24xxx xxxx xxxxfor ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:01:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT) X-SMTP-Auth: no
Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185]) by
nscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9B2309C018 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
(MDT) Received: from [139.222.130.203] (helo=UEAEXCHCLUS01.UEA.AC.UK) by
mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KvrlC-00006x-Sp for wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:01:46 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C93B48.10CD099C" Subject: RE:
Possible error in recent IJC paper Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:01:xxx xxxx xxxxMessage-ID:
<63675957ADD2DF4D9E246871174BEF1EC901E1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Possible error in recent IJC paper Thread-Index:
Ack7DrU3+LlgMjttS5+lB1r2EiTAkAANYJtF References:
<63675957ADD2DF4D9E246871174BEF1EC901CE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<490A8447.1010603@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> From: "Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)" To: Cc: "Jones Philip Prof
(ENV)" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Thorne, Peter" , "Tom Wigley" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
ucar.edu
Dear Ben,
many thanks for the full response to my query. I think my confusion arose from the
discussion on RealClimate (which prompted our earlier communication on this topic), which
clearly suggested that the observed trend should be expected to lie within the spread of
the models, rather than neccessarily being close to the mean as the models are stochastic
simulations (which seemed reasonable). I've just re-read that post, the key paragraph from
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ is as
follows:
"The interpretation of this is a little unclear (what exactly does the sigma refer to?),
but the most likely interpretation, and the one borne out by looking at their Table IIa, is
that sigma is calculated as the standard deviation of the model trends. In that case, the
formula given defines the uncertainty on the estimate of the mean - i.e. how well we know
what the average trend really is. But it only takes a moment to realise why that is
irrelevant. Imagine there were 1000's of simulations drawn from the same distribution, then
our estimate of the mean trend would get sharper and sharper as N increased. However, the
chances that any one realisation would be within those error bars, would become smaller and
smaller. Instead, the key standard deviation is simply sigma itself. That defines the
likelihood that one realisation (i.e. the real world) is conceivably drawn from the
distribution defined by the models."
I had therefore expected the test to use the standard deviations of both the models and the
observations (which would give a flat plot in 5B and there would be an obvious overlap of
the uncertainties in 6a at say 500hPa).
best regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Santer [[2]mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 4:06 AM
To: Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)
Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Gavin Schmidt; Thorne, Peter; Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper
Dear Gavin,
Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent
paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no
error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the
questions that you posed.
The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard
estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical
Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch,
Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The
second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an
estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1*
test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in
means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled
sample variances).
In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model
average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to
use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their
statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain,
but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is
not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a
demonstrably false assumption.
Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a
sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the
estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT
appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between
two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both
modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the
design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed
trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed
trends.
I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no
inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12)
and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation
(12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure
of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite
sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding
whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend."
We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting
"imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". I thought, however, that
the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made
very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2).
To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in
Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation
(12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on
N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20
smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of
the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1*
with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the
square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat.
In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the
components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A
does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete
pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors
at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy
Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational
datasets.
We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure
level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy
paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the
synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven
radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such
tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out,
the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT)
is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed
signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH,
IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the
formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed
in Figure 6.
Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the
delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of
email contact) for the past 10 days.
With best regards,
Ben
Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote:
>
>
> Dear Prof. Santer,
>
> I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your paper
> "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of the models
> 1/n_m s{<b_m>}^2 instead of the standard deviation s{<b_m>}^2. Firstly
> the current formulation of (12) seems at odds with objection 3 raised at
> the start of the first column of page 8. Secondly, I can't see how the
> modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in Figure 5B as the test statistic
> is explicitly dependent on the size of the model ensemble n_m. Thirdly,
> the equation seems at odds with the results depicted graphically in
> Figure 6 which would suggest the models are clearly inconsistent at
> higher levels (xxx xxxx xxxxhPa) using the confidence interval based on the
> standard error. Lastly, (12) seems at odds with the very lucid
> treatment at RealClimate written by Dr Schmidt.
>
> I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I have
> found most instructive!
>
> I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if
> this is the case.
>
> best regards
>
> Gavin
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
2. mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1226337052.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Santer et al 2008
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Mr. McIntyre,
I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our
recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
(IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the gridded
model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are freely
available to researchers. You should have no problem in accessing
exactly the same model and observational datasets that we employed. You
will need to do a little work in order to calculate synthetic Microwave
Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model atmospheric
temperature information. This should not pose any difficulties for you.
Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been
published by ourselves and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You
will also need to calculate spatially-averaged temperature changes from
the gridded model and observational data. Again, that should not be too
taxing.
In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you require
in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our IJoC paper
are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do your work for you,
and provide you with derived quantities (zonal means, synthetic MSU
temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself.
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.
I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of
the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. Rather
that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your attention to the
2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., which contains an
egregious statistical error.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
Ben Santer
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:29 PM
> *To:* ' (santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)'
> *Subject:* Santer et al 2008
>
> Dear Dr Santer,
>
> Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49
> series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to
> a URL. I understand that your version has been collated from PCMDI ; my
> interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I presume that the
> monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) .
>
> Thank you for your attention,
>
> Steve McIntyre
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1226451442.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Karen Owen <Karen.Owen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sharon Leduc <Sharon.Leduc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1),
no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was
"sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
employees between 2006 and October 2008".
As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
very purpose of an audit.
I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our
calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data.
Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU
temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually
identical to our own.
McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these
monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et
al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know
how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA
co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante)
probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of
our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December
2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I
have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a
"start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive
and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away
from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones
have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed
by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
explanations, etc., etc.
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
send to our scientific colleagues.
In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine
how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive
from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in
charge of our paper at IJoC).
I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry
that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be
subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's
"ClimateAudit" website.
With best personal wishes,
Ben
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties
> listed below including Ben.
>
> Thanks
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: FOI Request
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
> From: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: FOIA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
> Nov. 10, 2008
>
>
>
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>
> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>
> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>
> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>
> Room 10730
>
> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>
>
>
> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>
>
>
> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>
>
>
> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>
>
> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>
> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA
> employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were
> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs
> of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by
> Benjamin Santer and associates.
>
>
>
> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me:
> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models
> sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
> employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence
> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and
> October 2008.
>
>
>
> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M.
> Free and T. R. Karl.
>
>
>
> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the
> applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed
> publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made
> a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel
> on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the
> Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and
> Commerce Committee.
>
>
>
> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science
> Advisory Board
Original Filename: 1226456830.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karen Owen <Karen.Owen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sharon Leduc <Sharon.Leduc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hmmm. I note the following ,,,
"at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time"
Is this a 22 hour, or, for people with time machine, a negative 2 hour
window?
Joking aside, it seems as a matter of principle (albeit a principle yet
to be set by the courts) that provision of primary data sources that are
sufficient to reproduce the results of a scientific analysis is all that
is necessary under FOI.
It also seems that judgment of what correspondence is central to the
analysis can only be made by the persons involved. As a participant in
many of these inter-author communications, I do not recall any that
would give information not already contained in the published paper.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under
> the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1),
> no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was
> "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
> employees between 2006 and October 2008".
>
> As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
> yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
> the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
> are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
> us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
> sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
> Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
> model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
> synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
> very purpose of an audit.
>
> I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our
> calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data.
> Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU
> temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually
> identical to our own.
>
> McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these
> monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et
> al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know
> how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA
> co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante)
> probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of
> our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December
> 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I
> have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a
> "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
>
> My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive
> and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
> justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
> is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away
> from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones
> have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed
> by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
> explanations, etc., etc.
>
> Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
> the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
> unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
> frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
> McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
> Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
> al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
> conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
>
> I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
> Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
> scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
> has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
> currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
> scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
> McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
> send to our scientific colleagues.
>
> In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
> climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
> investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
> send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
> primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
> available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
> future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
> correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
> not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
>
> I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine
> how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive
> from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
>
> I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
> immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
> headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in
> charge of our paper at IJoC).
>
> I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry
> that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
> today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be
> subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's
> "ClimateAudit" website.
>
> With best personal wishes,
>
> Ben
>
> Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
>> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties
>> listed below including Ben.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: FOI Request
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> From: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: FOIA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov. 10, 2008
>>
>>
>>
>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>
>> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>>
>> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>>
>> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>>
>> Room 10730
>>
>> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>>
>>
>>
>> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>>
>>
>> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>>
>> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA
>> employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were
>> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47
>> runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series
>> by Benjamin Santer and associates.
>>
>>
>>
>> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me:
>> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate
>> models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to
>> NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence
>> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
>> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and
>> October 2008.
>>
>>
>>
>> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon,
>> M. Free and T. R. Karl.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining
>> the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5
>> peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for
>> WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National
>> Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two
>> presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the
>> House Energy and Commerce Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science
>> Advisory Board
Original Filename: 1226500291.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Wed Nov 12 09:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
Another point to discuss when you have your conference call - is
why don't they ask Douglass for all his data. It is essentially the same.
You can also think of all this positively - they think a few of us do really
important work, so they concentrate on what they think are the cutting edge
pieces of work.
I have a big review on paleo coming out soon in The Holocene - with 20+ others.
Won't be out till next year, but I can say for certain that it will feature strongly on
CA. Not too much they can request via FOI, but they will think of something. This
paper will explain where a Figure came from in the First IPCC Report - the infamous
one that Chris Folland put together on the last 1000 yeas. CA will say they found this out
- they had
a thread on it 9 months ago according to Gavin. I have the submission date of the article
and more detail though - to show we found out first.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:57 12/11/2008, you wrote:
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1), no "monthly time series of
output from any of the 47 climate models" was "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of
Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008".
As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the
raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International
Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr.
McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper
are sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr.
McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged
time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU]
temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit.
I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of
synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained "model
average" trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that
are virtually identical to our own.
McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these monthly time series
between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between
2006 and October 2008". I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You
and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John
Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of our
work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online
publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre's request for
email correspondence has a "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of
Douglass et al.
My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and
unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or
explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy
to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike
Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be
followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
explanations, etc., etc.
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious
scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my
time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme
irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a
seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of
that flawed test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and
his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the
nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific
discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to
conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre;
without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific
colleagues.
In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I
am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research.
As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since
all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to
him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide
McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about
these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground
bully.
I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and
LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that
such requests will be forthcoming.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate
superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor
Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC).
I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry that the tone of
this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today's events, I must assume that
any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on
McIntyre's "ClimateAudit" website.
With best personal wishes,
Ben
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties listed below
including Ben.
Thanks
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FOI Request
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: FOIA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Nov. 10, 2008
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
Room 10730
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA employees J. R.
Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were co-authors, reported on a statistical
analysis of the output of 47 runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly
time series by Benjamin Santer and associates.
I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: (1) any monthly
time series of output from any of the 47 climate models sent by Santer and/or other
coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any
correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008.
The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R.
Karl.
In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of
any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that
I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National
Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee.
In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science Advisory Boards
Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG). [1]http:// www.
joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf.
I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic
research, the information exists in digital format and the information should be easily
located by the primary sources.
I also include a telephone number (xxx xxxx xxxx) at which I can be contacted between 9
and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to send me a response to
the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr Karl apologized as follows:
due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the response was not
submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this oversight, and we have taken measures to
ensure this does not happen in the future.
Stephen McIntyre
25 Playter Blvd
Toronto, Ont M4K 2W1
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:///
Original Filename: 1226959467.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: GHCN
Date: Mon Nov 17 17:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Gavin,
First the figures are just for you - don't pass on!!! I don't normally see
these. I just asked my MOHC contact - and he's seen the furore on the blogs.
Why did the Daily Telegraph run with the story - it's all back to their readers
thinking the UK is run by another country!
These 3 paras (below) are from the GHCN web site. They appear to be the only mention
I can see of the WMO CLIMAT network on a web site. The rigorous QC that is being talked
about is
done in retrospect. They don't do much in real time - except an outlier check.
Anyway - the CLIMAT network is part of the GTS. The members (NMSs) send
their monthly averages/total around the other NMSs on the 4th and the 18-20th
of the month afterwards. Few seem to adhere to these dates much these days, but
the aim is to send the data around twice in the following month. Data comes in
code like everything else on the GTS, so a few centres (probably a handful, NOAA/CPC,
MOHC, MeteoFrance, DWD, Roshydromet, CMA, JMA and the Australians)
that are doing analyses for weather forecasts have the software to pick out
the CLIMAT data and put it somewhere.
At the same time these same centres are taking the synop data off the system
and summing it to months - producing flags of how much was missing. At the
MOHC they compare the CLIMAT message with the monthly calculated average/total.
If they are close they accept the CLIMAT. Some countries don't use the mean of
max and min (which the synops provide) to calculate the mean, so it is important
to use the CLIMAT as this is likely to ensure continuity. If they don't agree they
check the flags and there needs to be a bit of human intervention. The figures
are examples for this October.
What often happens is that countries send out the same data for the following month.
This happens mostly in developing countries, as a few haven't yet got software to
produce the CLIMAT data in the correct format. There is WMO software to
produce these from a wide variety of possible formats the countries might be using.
Some seem to do this by overwriting the files from the previous month. They
add in the correct data, but then forget to save the revised file. Canada did
this a few years ago - but they sent the correct data around a day later and again
the second time, after they got told by someone at MOHC.
My guess here is that NOAA didn't screw up, but that Russia did. For all countries
except Russia, all data for that country comes out together. For Russia it comes
out in regions - well it is a big place! Trying to prove this would need some Russian
help - Pasha Groisman? - but there isn't much point. The fact that all the affected
data were from one Russian region suggests to me it was that region.
Probably not of much use to an FAQ!
Cheers
Phil
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) data base contains historical
temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands of land stations worldwide. The
period of record varies from station to station, with several thousand extending back to
1950 and several hundred being updated monthly via CLIMAT reports. The data are available
without charge through NCDCs anonymous FTP service.
Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews.
These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify
spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of
the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers
from both a serial and a spatial perspective.
GHCN-Monthly is used operationally by NCDC to monitor long-term trends in temperature and
precipitation. It has also been employed in several international climate assessments,
including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment, and the "State of the Climate" report published annually by the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
At 12:56 17/11/2008, you wrote:
thanks.
Actually, I don't think that many people have any idea how the NWS's
send out data, what data they send out, what they don't and how these
things are collated. Perhaps you'd like to send me some notes on this
that I could write up as a FAQ? Won't change anything much, but it would
be a handy reference....
gavin
On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 07:53, Phil Jones wrote:
> > Gavin,
> I may be getting touchy but the CA thread on the HadCRUt October 08
> data seems full of snidey comments. Nice to see that they have very little
> right. Where have they got the idea that the data each month come
> from GHCN? There are the daily synops and the CLIMAT messages -
> nothing to do with GHCN. All they have to do is read Brohan et al (2006)
> and they can see this - and how we merge the land and marine! They
> seem to have no idea about the Global Telecommunications System.
> Anyway - expecting the proofs of the Wengen paper any day now.
> Have already sent back loads of updated references and sorted out almost all
> of the other reference problems.
> When the paper comes out - not sure if The Holocene do online first -
> happy for you to point out the publication dates (date first
> received etc) when
> they scream that they sorted out that diagram from the first IPCC Report.
>
> Don't know how you find the time to do all this responding- keep it up!
>
> 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: 1228249747.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Further fallout from our IJoC paper
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:29:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "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>
Ben,
I support you on this. However, there is more to be said than
what you give below. For instance, it would be useful to note
that, in principle, an audit scheme could be a good thing if done
properly. But an audit must start at square one (your point). So,
one can appear to applaud McIntyre at first, but then go on to
note that his modus operandi seems to be flawed.
In this case, as you have noted before, if Mc could not get the
data from us, then he could have got it from Douglass. Given this,
it is strange to keep hounding us. This would, of course, raise the
issue of whether the Douglass data are the same as ours (and/or the
same as in CCSP 1.1). I'm not sure whether Douglass et al. actually
state that there data are the same as CCSP 1.1, but it would be
good if they did -- because or IJoC data are the same as CCSP 1.1.
Mc could say that Douglass already effectively audited our calculations
from the raw data, which is why he does not want to/need to repeat
this step. But if he does say this then why not get the data from
Douglass?
Have a go at writing something -- but try to pre-empt any come back
from Mc or others. Also, don't just consider our case, but put it
as an example of more general issues.
The issue of auditing is a tricky one. The auditers must, themselves,
be able to demonstrate that they have no ulterior motives. One way
to do this would be to audit papers on both sides of an issue. In
other words, both us and Douglass should be audited together. In a
sense, our paper is an audit of Douglass -- and we found his work
to be flawed. A second opinion on this already exists, through the
refereeing of our paper. I suppose a third opinion from the likes
of Mc might be of value in a controversial area like this. But then,
is Mc the right person to do this? Is he unbiased? Does he have the
right credentials (as a statistician)?
One could argue that IPCC had an auditing system in place. This is
partly through the multiple levels of review -- but doesn't each
chapter have another person(s) to sign off on the responses to
review comments?
There are some interesting general issues here.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm happy to co-author anything you write.
> Dear folks,
>
> There has been some additional fallout from the publication of our paper
> in the International Journal of Climatology. After reading Steven
> McIntyre's discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
> about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
> official at DOE headquarters has written to Cherry Murray at LLNL,
> claiming that my behavior is bringing LLNL's good name into disrepute.
> Cherry is the Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at
> LLNL, and reports to LLNL's Director (George Miller).
>
> I'm getting sick of this kind of stuff, and am tired of simply taking it
> on the chin.
>
> Accordingly, I have been trying to evaluate my options. I believe that
> one option is to write a letter to Nature, briefly outlining some of the
> events that have transpired subsequent to the publication of our IJoC
> paper. Nature would be a logical choice for such a letter, since they
> published a brief account of our findings in their "Research Highlights"
> section. The letter would provide some public record of my position
> regarding McIntyre's data request, and would note that:
>
> "all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008
> Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are
> freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
> and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he
> has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing
> Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
> (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic
> Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very
> purpose of an audit." (email from Ben Santer to Tom Karl, Nov. 11, 2008).
>
> I think that some form of public record would be helpful, particularly
> if LLNL management continues to receive emails alleging that my behavior
> is tarnishing LLNL's scientific reputation.
>
> Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities
> (synthetic MSU temperatures), I'm perfectly happy to be the sole author
> of such a letter to Nature.
>
> Your thoughts or advice in this matter would be much appreciated.
>
> 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: 1228258714.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Further fallout from our IJoC paper
Date: 02 Dec 2008 17:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "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>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Ben, there are two very different things going on here. One is technical
and related to the actual science and the actual statistics, the second
is political, and is much more concerned with how incidents like this
can be portrayed. The second is the issue here.
The unfortunate fact is that the 'secret science' meme is an extremely
powerful rallying call to people who have no idea about what is going
on. Claiming (rightly or wrongly) that information is being hidden has a
huge amount of resonance (as you know), much more so than whether
Douglass et al know their statistical elbow from a hole in the ground.
Thus any increase in publicity on this - whether in the pages of Nature
or elsewhere - is much more likely to bring further negative fallout
despite your desire to clear the air. Whatever you say, it will still be
presented as you hiding data.
The contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you
can ask people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional
calculations, residuals, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a
workable version of the code on any platform etc.), and like Somali
pirates they have found that once someone has paid up, they can always
shake them down again.
Thus, I would not advise any public statements on this. Instead, email
you immediate superiors and the director with a short statement along
the lines of what you suggest below (i.e. of course you want open
science, the data *are* in the public domain (with links) and calls for
more intermediate steps are just harassment to prevent scientists doing
what they are actually paid too). I wouldn't put in anything
specifically related to McIntyre.
A much more satisfying response would be to demonstrate how easy it is
to replicate the analysis in the paper starting from scratch using
openly available data (such as through Joe Sirott's portal) and the
simplest published MSU weighting function. If you can show that this can
be done in a couple of hours (or whatever), it makes the other side look
like incompetent amateurs. Maybe someone has a graduate student
available....?
Gavin
On Tue, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 15:52, Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear folks,
>
> There has been some additional fallout from the publication of our paper
> in the International Journal of Climatology. After reading Steven
> McIntyre's discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
> about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
> official at DOE headquarters has written to Cherry Murray at LLNL,
> claiming that my behavior is bringing LLNL's good name into disrepute.
> Cherry is the Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at
> LLNL, and reports to LLNL's Director (George Miller).
>
> I'm getting sick of this kind of stuff, and am tired of simply taking it
> on the chin.
>
> Accordingly, I have been trying to evaluate my options. I believe that
> one option is to write a letter to Nature, briefly outlining some of the
> events that have transpired subsequent to the publication of our IJoC
> paper. Nature would be a logical choice for such a letter, since they
> published a brief account of our findings in their "Research Highlights"
> section. The letter would provide some public record of my position
> regarding McIntyre's data request, and would note that:
>
> "all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008
> Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are
> freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
> and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he
> has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing
> Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
> (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic
> Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very
> purpose of an audit." (email from Ben Santer to Tom Karl, Nov. 11, 2008).
>
> I think that some form of public record would be helpful, particularly
> if LLNL management continues to receive emails alleging that my behavior
> is tarnishing LLNL's scientific reputation.
>
> Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities
> (synthetic MSU temperatures), I'm perfectly happy to be the sole author
> of such a letter to Nature.
>
> Your thoughts or advice in this matter would be much appreciated.
>
> 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: 1228330629.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince
them otherwise
showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were
dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school
- the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals. The VC is also
aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn't know
the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures.
One issue is that these requests aren't that widely known within the School. So
I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of
requests at UEA though - we're way behind computing though. We're away of
requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College.
So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be the first thing
you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI.
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by
a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his
peers!
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails
and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of
emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation is different from the
FOI -
it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !
In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - mainly paleo data.
Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put up. Every time, so
far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just statements saying read
what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such
response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We've never sent programs, any codes
and manuals.
In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time.
These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we'll
be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grants,
papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get
should be another.
When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of
people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin
and Mike are on this with loads of others. I've told both exactly what will appear on
CA once they get access to it!
Cheers
Phil
At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Tom,
I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good one. Steve Sherwood
made a similar suggestion. I'd be perfectly happy NOT to be involved in such a
Commentary. My involvement would look too self-serving.
One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I'm
damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he
requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm
convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would
have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations,
additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from
McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for
further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: "You
see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom.
During much of that time, we've had to do science in "reactive mode", responding to the
latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred
Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my own research
agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy,
Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don't want to spend years of my life interacting
with the likes of Steven McIntyre.
I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If they do not, I'm
fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.
With best regards,
Ben
Tom Wigley wrote:
Ben,
Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.)
this is something that Nature or Science might like
as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include
some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The
notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem
is that you could not be first author as this would
look like garnering publicity for your own work (as
the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having
me as the first author may not work. An ideal person
would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying "nice
summary".
What do you think?
Tom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1228412429.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Thu Dec 4 12:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
Obviously don't pass on! These proofs have gone back with
about 60 changes to be made. Should be out first issue of 2009.
The bet is that CA will say they found that the IPCC Figure from 1990
was a Lamb diagram 6 months ago. They did, but they didn't
get the right source, and our paper was submitted in early 2008. CA
will also comment on the section on pp21-31. The summary of
where we are with the individual proxies is useful for most of them -
but we didn't get anyone working with speleothems involved. I
remain unconvinced they get the resolution claimed. Yet to see
a speleothem paper which doesn't compare their (individual site) reconstruction with
either the MBH series or a solar proxy.
I hope Ben gets the support from PCMDI and LLNL.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 22:33 03/12/2008, you wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for all the information on the GISS etc. data.
Re below -- can you send me a preprint of the Holocene
paper.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++
>
> Ben,
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
> by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a
> screen, to convince them otherwise
> showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the
> types of people we were
> dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the
> Environmental Sciences school
> - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've
> got to know the FOI
> person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals.
> The VC is also
> aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but
> probably doesn't know
> the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures.
>
> One issue is that these requests aren't that widely known within
> the School. So
> I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up
> the ladder of
> requests at UEA though - we're way behind computing though. We're away
> of
> requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and
> Imperial College.
>
> So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be
> the first thing
> you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI.
>
> The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data
> Protection Act request sent by
> a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific
> credibility with his peers!
> If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go
> through my emails
> and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago
> I deleted loads of
> emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation
> is different from the FOI -
> it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor
> credit rating !
>
> In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data -
> mainly paleo data.
> Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put
> up. Every time, so
> far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just
> statements saying read
> what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one
> such
> response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We've never sent
> programs, any codes
> and manuals.
>
> In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out
> in 2 weeks time.
> These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next
> year we'll
> be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and
> amounts of grants,
> papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of
> FOI requests you get
> should be another.
>
> When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of
> people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early
> next year. Gavin
> and Mike are on this with loads of others. I've told both exactly
> what will appear on
> CA once they get access to it!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>>Dear Tom,
>>
>>I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good
>>one. Steve Sherwood made a similar suggestion. I'd be perfectly
>>happy NOT to be involved in such a Commentary. My involvement would
>>look too self-serving.
>>
>>One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation.
>>At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to
>>provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to
>>McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced
>>(based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I
>>would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands
>>for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil
>>has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies
>>for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for
>>further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully
>>and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website.
>>
>>You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the
>>MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in
>>"reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and
>>inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer.
>>For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my
>>own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant
>>need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly
>>don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of
>>Steven McIntyre.
>>
>>I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If
>>they do not, I'm fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.
>>
>>With best regards,
>>
>>Ben
>>
>>Tom Wigley wrote:
>>>Ben,
>>>Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.)
>>>this is something that Nature or Science might like
>>>as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include
>>>some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The
>>>notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem
>>>is that you could not be first author as this would
>>>look like garnering publicity for your own work (as
>>>the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having
>>>me as the first author may not work. An ideal person
>>>would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying "nice
>>>summary".
>>>What do you think?
>>>Tom.
>>
>>
>>--
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: 1228841349.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: David Thompson <davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Kennedy <john.kennedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Wallace <wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: the paper and a can of worms
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
hi all, I plan on sending the 'penultimate' draft of the full paper later today, but
thought I'd comment on the NH/SH comparison in a separate email. Anyway, I've been debating
adding a comparison of the NH and SH, as per your suggestions. But I think I'm going to
delay that discussion to a different paper. The current paper is already long. And I think
looking at the differences between the hemispheres is going to open a can of worms. Here is
an example that influenced my thinking: The time series in the attached figure show the
differences between the NH and SH mean (0-90N minus 0-90S) for the raw data (top) and
ENSO/COWL residual data (bottom). (COWL is removed only from the NH). Among many things,
the difference time series show that the cooling in the 70s is largest in the NH, which we
know from previous work. Maybe it's just my eye, but the differences between the time
series in the 70s look almost discrete. It's as if the NH ratcheted downwards relative to
the SH in a very short period ~1968, then crept upwards through the present. My thinking is
that we will get a lot of mileage out of comparing the hemispheres, but that to do it
right, it's going to take a fair bit more analysis. And at 27 pages I think we're pushing
the attention span of the average reader. So I'm going to delay the analysis to our next
paper. It gives us something to do in future! Paper will follow later... -Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet ? Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhi all,
I plan on sending the 'penultimate' draft of the full paper later today, but thought I'd
comment on the NH/SH comparison in a separate email.
Anyway, I've been debating adding a comparison of the NH and SH, as per your suggestions.
But I think I'm going to delay that discussion to a different paper. The current paper is
already long. And I think looking at the differences between the hemispheres is going to
open a can of worms. Here is an example that influenced my thinking:
The time series in the attached figure show the differences between the NH and SH mean
(0-90N minus 0-90S) for the raw data (top) and ENSO/COWL residual data (bottom). (COWL is
removed only from the NH).
Among many things, the difference time series show that the cooling in the 70s is largest
in the NH, which we know from previous work. Maybe it's just my eye, but the differences
between the time series in the 70s look almost discrete. It's as if the NH ratcheted
downwards relative to the SH in a very short period ~1968, then crept upwards through the
present.
My thinking is that we will get a lot of mileage out of comparing the hemispheres, but that
to do it right, it's going to take a fair bit more analysis. And at 27 pages I think we're
pushing the attention span of the average reader. So I'm going to delay the analysis to our
next paper. It gives us something to do in future!
Paper will follow later...
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachNHandSHRawFullResidual.pdf"
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 1228922050.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
Haven't got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I'm not
entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be
to look on CA, but I'm not doing that. I did get an email
from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails -
unless
this was 'normal' deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn't
paid his
Original Filename: 1229468467.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FOIA request
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Goldstein <goldstein3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <delarubia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hal Graboske <graboske1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cherry Murray <murray38@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Fulkerson <wfulk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Luca Delle Monache <ldm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vladeckd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Wehner <mfwehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Ben,
This is a good idea. However, will you give only tropical
(20N-20S) results? I urge you to give data for other zones
as well, viz, SH, NH, GL, 0-20N, 20-60N, 60-90N, 0-20S,
20-60S, 60-90S (plus 20N-20S). To have these numbers on
line would be of great benefit to the community. In other
words, although prompted by McIntyre's request, you will
actually be giving something to everyone.
Also, if you can give N3.4 SSTs and SOI data, this would be
an additional huge boon to the community.
For the data, what period will you cover. Although for our
paper we only use data from 1979 onwards, to give data for
the full 20th century runs would be of great benefit to all.
This, of course, raises the issue of drift. Even over 1979
to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From memory we
did not account for this in our paper -- but it is an
important issue.
This is a lot of work -- but the benefits to the community
would be truly immense.
Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list
the 47 models that he wants the data for. The current request
is ambiguous -- or, at least, ill defined. I think it is
crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants.
Even if we think we know what he wants, this is not good
enough -- FOIA requests must be clear, complete and
unambiguous. This, after all, is a legal issue, and no court
of law would accept anything less.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear co-authors,
>
> I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
> a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA). McIntyre asked for "Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
> climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al.,
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere". I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning.
>
> McIntyre's request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
> Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested
> records are to be provided to the "FOIA Point of Contact" (presumably at
> NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008.
>
> McIntyre's request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the
> Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined "a set of 49
> simulations of twentieth century climate change performed with 19
> different models". McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century
> realizations analyzed in our paper (49, not 47!) with the number of
> climate models used to generate those realizations (19). This very basic
> mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre's
> understanding of climate models, or his ability to undertake meaningful
> analysis of climate model results.
>
> Over the past several weeks, I've had a number of discussions about the
> "FOIA issue" with PCMDI's Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL
> colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these
> discussions, I have decided to "publish" all of the climate model
> surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the
> tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to
> upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of
> Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets
> through an internal "Review and Release" procedure, and then placing the
> datasets on PCMDI's publicly-accessible website. The website will also
> provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
> temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc.
>
> After publication of the model data, we will inform the "FOIA Point of
> Contact" that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
> available for bona fide scientific research.
>
> Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional
> misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.
>
> By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be
> providing far more than the "Monthly average T2LT values" mentioned in
> McIntyre's FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre
> to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the
> climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings.
> All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available
> to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the
> algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw
> model temperature data.
>
> I hope that "publication" of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves
> this matter to the satisfaction of NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL.
>
> 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>
Original Filename: 1229712795.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Allan Astrup Jensen" <aaj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stefan Reimann" <Stefan.Reimann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: WP8 added text and additional person from CMA
Date: Fri Dec 19 13:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "lu xiaoxia" <luxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> "Brian Reid" <b.reid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.burton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Allan,
I was leaving that for Brian Reid or Paul Burton here.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:32 19/12/2008, Allan Astrup Jensen wrote:
Fine, do you know how status is with WP14?
Allan Astrup Jensen
Technical Vice President
Secretariat for Quality Management and Metrology
FORCE Technology, Br
Original Filename: 1230052094.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, kevin trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Lisa,
That's great news! I've confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom's Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can't come up with their own
travel money. I'll try to resolve this question in the next few days.
Best wishes to you and your family for a very Merry Christmas, and a
happy, healthy, and peaceful 2009!
Ben
Lisa Butler wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> Sorry for the slow reply -- I had to check on a few things, but yes, now
> I can agree that June 19th seems like a good bet for our Wigley
> Symposium. CCSM in Breckenridge will adjourn sometime on Thursday
> afternoon, 6/18.
>
> For June 19 I reserved the Main Seminar Room at the Mesa from 8:00 AM -
> 5:30 PM and the Damon Room (for a reception) from 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM. Of
> course we can tweak these times as we get closer if need be.
>
> After the holidays I work up a rough draft budget for the catering and
> see what, if any, financial help we might be able to get from CGD
> and/or NCAR Directorate.
>
> Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
> Lisa
>
> Ben Santer wrote:
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> I think we agreed that your symposium would be after the 2009 CCSM
>> Workshop in Breckenridge, which will take place during the week of
>> June 15th. I do not yet have the exact dates of the CCSM meeting - I
>> don't know whether it ends on Thursday, June 18th. I suspect it will.
>> In the past, CCSM Workshops have generally started on a Tuesday and
>> ended on a Thursday. So my guess is that Friday, June 19th would
>> probably be our best bet for your symposium. CCSM Workshops are
>> usually preceded by a Monday meeting of the CCSM Scientific Steering
>> Committee, CCSM Working Group Co-Chairs, and CCSM Advisory Board. As a
>> Co-Chair of the Climate Change Working Group, I would be involved in
>> this Monday meeting.
>>
>> I'm copying Lisa on this email, in order to check whether Friday, June
>> 19th is a good date for the symposium.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ben
>> Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> Did you get my email about papers on averaging of
>>> model results? Do you want me to email the papers?
>>>
>>> Is there a date for my symposium? Have you invited
>>> anyone? Shall I make a priority list? This would/could
>>> be based on ...
>>>
>>> (1) A balance of sub-disciplines so as to have the
>>> potential to produce a useful book
>>>
>>> (2) Importance of topics, perhaps determined via
>>> citations of related papers by the invited participants
>>>
>>> (3) Closeness to me personally
>>>
>>> (4) Numbers of jointly authored papers
>>>
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> So, e.g., there would have to be presentations by you
>>> and Phil. Also (as a close friend) Tim -- on paleoclimate
>>> in general I guess rather than just isotopes in speleothems.
>>> He could easily slot in some cool caving stuff.
>>>
>>> Jerry Meehl on AOGCMs. Malte and/or Sarah on UD EBMs.
>>> (But how to get some SCENGEN in? ... as this is almost
>>> totally my work.)
>>>
>>> Rob Wilby on downscaling.
>>>
>>> Niel Plummer would be nice to invite, but I'm not sure
>>> how he would fit in subject wise.
>>>
>>> Peter Foukal (or Claus Frohlich) on the Sun -- altho I've not
>>> worked much with them, this is an important subject area.
>>>
>>> Caspar on volcanoes.
>>>
>>> Also, Jean Palutikof on impacts and adaptation (her new Oz
>>> job is focussed on adaaptation).
>>>
>>> I'm just thinking out loud here. Might be good to talk about
>>> this soon.
>>>
>>> ---------------
>>>
>>> But in the meantime -- what is the proposed date?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1231166089.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Johns <tim.johns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:34:49 +0000
Cc: "Smith, Doug" <doug.smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Johns <tim.johns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Chris, cc: Doug
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational
uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it
is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen
by different integrated assessment models shows a range of
possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES
project, since we have been running models with a new
mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions
reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM)
and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a
different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2
emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1
scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B
scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the
secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most likely
to be "realistic".
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite
marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few
decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations,
reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in
GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much
cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4
for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs
show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which
I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See
the attached plot for illustration but please don't circulate this any
further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other
ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short
term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2
emissions trajectories.
So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing
similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a
multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar
kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be
different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2
emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment fine
print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sat, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
> Tim and Doug
>
> Please see McCrackens email.
>
> We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
>
> Any guidance welcome
>
> Chris
>
>
> Prof. Chris Folland
> Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
>
> Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)
> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
> Fellow of the Met Office
> Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
> To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
> Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
> Subject: Temperatures in 2009
>
> Dear Phil and Chris--
>
> Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
>
> That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
>
> Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.
> Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done.
>
> In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
>
> We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
>
> Best, Mike MacCracken
>
>
> Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
>
> On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4
Original Filename: 1231190304.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Johns <tim.johns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Smith, Doug" <doug.smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Johns <tim.johns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tim, Chris,
I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts.
Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems
a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk)
it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg C for the LWC.
It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. The paper
shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
and Rothamsted).
Cheers
Phil
At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
Dear Chris, cc: Doug
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational
uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it
is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen
by different integrated assessment models shows a range of
possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES
project, since we have been running models with a new
mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions
reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM)
and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a
different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2
emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1
scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B
scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the
secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most likely
to be "realistic".
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite
marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few
decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations,
reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in
GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much
cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4
for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs
show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which
I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See
the attached plot for illustration but please don't circulate this any
further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other
ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short
term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2
emissions trajectories.
So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing
similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a
multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar
kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be
different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2
emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment fine
print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sat, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
> Tim and Doug
>
> Please see McCrackens email.
>
> We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is
the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are
there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the
2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability
of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods
we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be
told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for
recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a
bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However
having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony
about the temperature of 2009.
>
> Any guidance welcome
>
> Chris
>
>
> Prof. Chris Folland
> Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
>
> Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)
> <[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
> Fellow of the Met Office
> Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike MacCracken [[2]mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
> To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
> Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
> Subject: Temperatures in 2009
>
> Dear Phil and Chris--
>
> Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went
around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the
analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how
much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know
that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an
inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going
to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that,
for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are
efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked
a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions
(amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific
uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be
repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would
really help to know what is being emitted).
>
> That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC
figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example,
suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak,
'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick,
fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also
seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and
right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor
feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
>
> Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as
it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and
quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate
loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset
while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage
things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but
it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out
over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
(will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to
stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during
periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for
10 days or so.
> Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done.
>
> In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might
end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over
past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just
suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate
issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are
no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
>
> We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
>
> Best, Mike MacCracken
>
>
> Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
>
> On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East
Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average
global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4
Original Filename: 1231254297.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Phil
Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more general studies show relationships between the population or size of cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban warming in some cases? And why this might be so?
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
(International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather.
Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI
in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't
see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought.
Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather,
and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote:
>Phil
>
>Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature
>Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them.
>
>Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here as
>well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been better,
>allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30!
>
>Chris
>
>
>Prof. Chris Folland
>Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
>
>Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
>Kingdom
>Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)
><http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
>of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,
> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
> Still a way to go before 2014.
>
> I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
>
> Chris - I presume the Met Office
> continually monitor the weather forecasts.
> Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems
> a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20
> days (in Norfolk)
> it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
>
> I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg
> C for the LWC.
> It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
> the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
> The paper
> shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
> and Rothamsted).
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
> >Dear Chris, cc: Doug
> >
> >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the
> >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the
> >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario
> >(for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models
> >shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us
> >in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a
> >new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions
> >reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE
> >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by
> >a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2
> >emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1
> >scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The
> >A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than
> >the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most
> >likely to be "realistic".
> >
> >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite
> >marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first
> >few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations,
> >reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence
> >in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although
> >much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than
> >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement -
> >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the
> >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in
> >the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please
> >don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress,
> >not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We
> >think the different short term warming responses are largely
> >attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
> >
> >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
> >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing
> >similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a
> >multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes
> >similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might
> >well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their
> >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment
> >fine print to that extent).
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Tim
> >
> >On Sat, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
> > > Tim and Doug
> > >
> > > Please see McCrackens email.
> > >
> > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4
> > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation
> > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols.
> > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a
> > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have
> > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.
> > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
> > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In
> > a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net
> > warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the
> > method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent
> > warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless
> > perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
> > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys
> > are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
> > >
> > > Any guidance welcome
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Prof. Chris Folland
> > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June
> > > 2008)
> > >
> > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
> > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> > > Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> > > Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> > > (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)
> > > <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon.
> > > Professor of School of Environmental
> > Sciences, University of East Anglia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
> > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
> > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
> > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009
> > >
> > > Dear Phil and Chris--
> > >
> > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting
> > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot
> > of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have
> > done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how
> > much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from
> > China and India (I know that at least some plants are using
> > desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry
> > that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going
> > to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to
> > tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to
> > pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better
> > inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US
> > EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory
> > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were
> > not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not
> > having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated
> > in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but
> > it would really help to know what is being emitted).
> > >
> > > That there is a large potential for a cooling
> > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present
> > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example,
> > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also
> > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air
> > quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put
> > the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems
> > quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low
> > albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe
> > one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies
> > the sulfate cooling influence.
> > >
> > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more
> > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit
> > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and
> > quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to
> > enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to
> > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2
> > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage
> > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more
> > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
> > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and
> > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
> > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed,
> > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning
> > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are
> > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.
> > > Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done.
> > >
> > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
> > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
> > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past
> > decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin.
> > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also
> > do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a
> > quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise,
> > the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the
> > models are no good, etc.
> > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
> > >
> > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
> > >
> > > Best, Mike MacCracken
> > >
> > >
> > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
> > >
> > > On December 30, climate scientists from the
> > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will
> > be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global
> > temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4
Original Filename: 1231257056.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: data request]
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:50:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST)
Cc: "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Goldstein <goldstein3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Pat Berge <berge1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cherry Murray <murray38@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, George Miller <miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Anjuli Bamzai <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <delarubia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Rotman <rotman1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
"Thanks" Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience--but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution--with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred--so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.
This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code--which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work--and then assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same topics--like has been done on the "hockey stick". That is how credible scientific replication should proceed.
Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent--to discredit papers so they have no "evidentiary value in public policy"--what you resort to when you can't win the intellectual battle scientifically at IPCC or NAS.
Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international climate policy actions, We are witnessing the "contrarian battle of the bulge" now, and expect that all weapons will be used.
Cheers, Steve
PS Please do not copy or forward this email.
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Santer" <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Peter Thorne" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Leopold Haimberger" <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Karl Taylor" <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Tom Wigley" <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John Lanzante" <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Susan Solomon" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Melissa Free" <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter gleckler" <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thomas R Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Steve Klein" <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "carl mears" <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Doug Nychka" <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gavin Schmidt" <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Steven Sherwood" <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Frank Wentz" <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bill Goldstein" <goldstein3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Pat Berge" <berge1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Cherry Murray" <murray38@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "George Miller" <miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Anjuli Bamzai" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" <delarubia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Doug Rotman" <rotman1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:23:41 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [Fwd: data request]
Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology
paper (and other interested parties),
I am forwarding an email I received this morning from a Mr. Geoff Smith.
The email concerns the climate model data used in our
recently-published International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper.
Mr. Smith has requested that I provide him with these climate model
datasets. This request has been made to Dr. Anna Palmisano at DOE
Headquarters and to Dr. George Miller, the Director of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.
I have spent the last two months of my scientific career dealing with
multiple requests for these model datasets under the U.S. Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). I have been able to do little or no productive
research during this time. This is of deep concern to me.
From the beginning, my position on this matter has been clear and
consistent. The primary climate model data used in our IJoC paper are
part of the so-called "CMIP-3" (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project)
archive at LLNL, and are freely available to any scientific researcher.
The primary observational (satellite and radiosonde) datasets used in
our IJoC paper are also freely available. The algorithms used for
calculating "synthetic" Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from
climate model data (to facilitate comparison with actual satellite
temperatures) have been documented in several peer-reviewed
publications. The bottom line is that any interested scientist has all
the scientific information necessary to replicate the calculations
performed in our IJoC paper, and to check whether the conclusions
reached in that paper were sound.
Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Stephen McIntyre (Mr. McIntyre is the
initiator of the FOIA requests to the U.S. DOE and NOAA, and the
operator of the "ClimateAudit.com" blog) is interested in full
replication of our calculations, starting from the primary climate model
and observational data. Instead, they are demanding the value-added
quantities we have derived from the primary datasets (i.e., the
synthetic MSU temperatures).
I would like a clear ruling from DOE lawyers - ideally from both the
NNSA and DOE Office of Science branches - on the legality of such data
requests. They are troubling, for a number of reasons.
1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any
derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to
FOIA requests. At LLNL's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the
calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. These
derived quantities include synthetic MSU temperatures, ocean heat
content changes, and so-called "cloud simulator" products suitable for
comparison with actual satellite-based estimates of cloud type,
altitude, and frequency. The intellectual investment in such
calculations is substantial.
2. Mr. Smith asserts that "there is no valid intellectual property
justification for withholding this data". I believe this argument is
incorrect. The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper - and
the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above - are integral
components of both PCMDI's ongoing research, and of proposals we have
submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). Can any competitor
simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed
full scientific analysis of these datasets?
3. There is a real danger that such FOIA requests could (and are
already) being used as a tool for harassing scientists rather than for
valid scientific discovery. Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests to DOE and NOAA
are but the latest in a series of such requests. In the past, Mr.
McIntyre has targeted scientists at Penn State University, the U.K.
Climatic Research Unit, and the National Climatic Data Center in
Asheville. Now he is focusing his attention on me. The common
denominator is that Mr. McIntyre's attention is directed towards studies
claiming to show evidence of large-scale surface warming, and/or a
prominent human "fingerprint" in that warming. These serial FOIA
requests interfere with our ability to do our job.
Mr. Smith's email mentions the Royal Meteorological Society's data
archiving policies (the Royal Meteorological Society are the publishers
of the International Journal of Climatology). Recently, Prof. Glenn
McGregor (the Chief Editor of the IJoC) provided Mr. McIntyre with the
following clarification:
"In response to your question about data policy my position as Chief
Editor is that the above paper has been subject to strict peer review,
supporting information has been provided by the authors in good faith
which is accessible online (attached FYI) and the original data from
which temperature trends were calculated are freely available. It is not
the policy of the International Journal of Climatology to require that
data sets used in analyses be made available as a condition of
publication."
As many of you may know, I have decided to publicly release the
synthetic MSU temperatures that were the subject of Mr. McIntyre's FOIA
request (together with additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were
not requested by Mr. McIntyre). These datasets have been through
internal review and release procedures, and will be published shortly on
PCMDI's website, together with a technical document which describes how
synthetic MSU temperatures were calculated. I agreed to this publication
process primarily because I want to spend the next few years of my
career doing research. I have no desire to be "taken out" as scientist,
and to be involved in years of litigation.
The public release of the MSU data used in our IJoC paper may or may not
resolve these problems. If Mr. McIntyre's past performance is a guide to
the future, further FOIA requests will follow. I would like to know that
I have the full support of LLNL management and the U.S. Dept. of Energy
in dealing with these unwarranted and intrusive requests.
I do not intend to reply to Mr. Smith's email.
Sincerely,
Ben Santer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------