Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1231279297.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 17:01:xxx xxxx xxxx

Phil

Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them.

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: 06 January 2009 14:56
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009


Chris,
City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think
a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water bodies as well.
I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th century.
I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the
areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I
could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it.
Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger
UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be
raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and
on Horseguards Parade!

The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably.
It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the skeptics.
They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability!

Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as
it was the last one on your list.

Cheers
Phil



At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote:
>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: 1231350711.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Wed Jan 7 12:51:xxx xxxx xxxx

Chris,
Apart from contacting Gavin and Mike Mann (just informing them)
you should appeal.
In essence it means that Real Climate is a publication.
If you do go to GRL I wouldn't raise the issue with them. Happy to
be a suggested reviewer if you do go to GRL.
Cheers
Phil
Chris,
Worth pursuing - even if only GRL.
Possibly worth sending a note to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate
to say what Nature have used as a refusal!
Cheers
Phil
At 17:01 06/01/2009, you wrote:

Phil
Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate
Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed
the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I
have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them.
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: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think
a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water
bodies as well.
I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th
century.
I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the
areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I
could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it.
Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger
UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be
raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and
on Horseguards Parade!
The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably.
It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the
skeptics.
They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability!
Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as
it was the last one on your list.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote:
>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)
><[3]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 [[4]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)
> ><[5]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 [[6]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)
> > > > <[7]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 [[8]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: 1232064755.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Data published
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Goldstein <goldstein3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Pat Berge <berge1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Janet Tulk <tulk1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kathryn Craft Rogers <CraftRogers1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, George Miller <miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <delarubia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cherry Murray <murray38@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Rotman <rotman1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Anthony Socci <socci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bud Ward <wardbud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Peter U. Clark" <clarkp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Verardo, David J." <dverardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Branko Kosovic <kosovic1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Fulkerson <wfulk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Wehner <mfwehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hal Graboske <graboske1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Guilderson <tguilderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Luca Delle Monache <ldm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Celine J. W. Bonfils" <bonfils2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Dean N. Williams" <williams13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Charles Doutriaux <doutriaux1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Anne Stark <stark8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology
paper (and other interested parties),

I have now publicly released the synthetic MSU tropical lower
tropospheric temperatures that were the subject of Mr. Stephen
McIntyre's request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security
Agency under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have also
released additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not requested
by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI's
publicly-accessible website. The link to the datasets is:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php

Technical information about the synthetic MSU datasets is provided in a
document entitled:

"Information regarding synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
temperatures calculated from CMIP-3 archive"

The link to the technical document is:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/MSU_doc.pdf

I hope that these datasets will prove useful for bona fide scientific
research, and will be employed for such purposes only.

I am also hopeful that after publication of these datasets, I will be
able to return to full-time research, unencumbered by further FOIA
requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests
are for the purpose of harassing Government scientists, and not for the
purpose of improving our understanding of the nature and causes of
climate change.

I'd like to thank Dave Bader, Bill Goldstein, and Pat Berge for helping
me complete the process of reviewing, releasing, and publishing the
synthetic MSU datasets and the technical document. And thanks to all of
you for your support and encouragement over the past two months. It is
deeply 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1233245601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
doesn't realize that, as the length of record increases and trend
confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between
an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are
judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend
differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever - they
are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.

It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre's paper for review.
Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the
Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!

I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn't be the same without
him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.

Have fun in Switzerland!

With best regards,

Ben

P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too
> old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier
> at some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than
> 200m at the moment.
>
> It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on
> Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
> telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think
> Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has.
>
> With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have
> submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more
> years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
> laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up
> statements saying you've done this following Obama's
> statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely
> get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
> Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll
> suggest this.
>
> Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's
> work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment
> piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
> they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it
> hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
> reading them unless interested.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1233249393.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! That's great news. I'm really
delighted. I hope that Mr. Mc "I'm not entirely there in the head" isn't
there to spoil the occasion...

With best regards,

Ben

P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Meant to add - hope you're better! You were missed at
> IDAG. Meeting went well though.
>
> I heard during IDAG that I've been made an AGU Fellow.
> Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it.
> I hope I don't see a certain person there!
> Have to get out of a keynote talk I'm due to give in
> Finland the same day!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> Ben,
> I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too
> old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier at
> some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than 200m at
> the moment.
>
> It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on
> Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
> telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think
> Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has.
>
> With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have
> submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more
> years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
> laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up
> statements saying you've done this following Obama's
> statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely
> get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
> Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll
> suggest this.
>
> Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's
> work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment
> piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
> they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it
> hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
> reading them unless interested.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1233326033.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Smithg <smithg49@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: data request
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Mr. Smith,

Please do not lecture me on "good science and replicability". Mr.
McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data
necessary to replicate our results. Full replication of our results
would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was
unwilling to do that.

Our results were published in a peer-reviewed publication (the
International Journal of Climatology). These results were fully
available for "independent testing and replication by others". Indeed, I
note that David Douglass et al. performed such independent testing and
replication in their 2007 International Journal of Climatology paper.

Douglass et al. used the same primary climate model data that we
employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do - they
independently calculated estimates of "synthetic" Microwave Sounding
Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model data. The Douglass et al.
"synthetic" MSU temperatures are very similar to our own. The scientific
differences between the Douglass et al. and Santer et al. results are
primarily related to the different statistical tests that the two groups
employed in their comparisons of models and observations. Demonstrably,
the Douglass et al. statistical test contains several serious flaws,
which led them to reach incorrect inferences regarding the level of
agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends.

Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
Douglass et al. statistical test and our statistical test with
randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not
to do that. He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil
Government-funded scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well.

Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to LLNL and DOE
management to complain about my "unresponsiveness" and my failure to
provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of
the information available on Mr. McIntyre's blog. You did not understand
- and still do not understand - that the primary model data used in our
paper have always been freely available to any scientific researcher,
and are currently being used by many hundreds of scientists around the
world. Any competent climate scientist could perform full replication of
our calculation of "synthetic" MSU temperatures - as Douglass et al.
have already done.

Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my
behavior in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and
damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in
establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in
the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or
post it on Mr. McIntyre's blog.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ben Santer

Smithg wrote:
> Dear Dr. Santer,
>
> I'm pleased to see that the requested data is now available on line.
> Thank you for your efforts to make these materials available.
>
> My "dog in this fight" is good science and replicability. I note the
> following references:
>
> The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):
>
> "The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness
> of scientists to:
>
> 1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and
> replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data,
> procedures and materials.
> 2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted
> with more complete or reliable experimental or observational
> evidence.

Original Filename: 1233586975.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: data availability]
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

Yes, this is the same Geoff Smith who wrote to me. Do you know who he
is? From his comments about the RMS, he seems to be a Brit.

In his email to you, Mr. Smith notes that: "there is a strong case to be
made that intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the
relevant code should be made available in studies such as this one,
since there is an important possibility of errors in trying to replicate
such a collation".

This is a key point. Douglass et al. already audited our "collation" of
the primary temperature data (i.e., our calculation of synthetic MSU
temperatures). As I've already told Mr. Smith, Douglass et al. obtained
synthetic MSU temperatures very similar to the ones published in our
IJoC paper. Mr. Smith does not understand this. Nor does he understand
that the algorithms used to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from
raw model temperature data have already been published and documented in
the peer-reviewed literature.

I think it would be useful to raise these issues with Paul Hardaker.

Cheers,

Ben

P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Is this the Smith who has emailed? Why does he think
> you've not informed your co-authors that you've made the
> data available? Most odd - though he does accept that the
> raw data was already there. Pity that loads of people on
> CA including McIntyre didn't seem to accept or realise this.
> I'm not on an RMS committee at the moment, but I could
> try and contact Paul Hardaker if you think it might be useful.
> Possibly need to explain what is raw and what is intermediate.
>
> I wasn't going to give this guy Smith the satisfaction of a reply!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: data availability
> From: "Smithg" <smithg49@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Date: Sun, February 1, 2009 2:09 pm
> To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> ref: Santer, et. al.
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere
> International Journal of Climatology
> Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
> know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
>
> You will be aware that intermediate data ("monthly model data (49 series)
> used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with
> a file of the data as used it the paper") had been requested from the
> first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted on line, but in the
> meantime the data is now available at
> http:// www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php .
>
> Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
> claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported response
> to a FOIA request was "I have examined my files and have no monthly time
> series from climate models used in the paper referred to, and no
> correspondence regarding said time series".
>
> No one disputes Dr. Santer's claim that the "primary model data" is
> publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that
> intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant code
> should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an
> important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation.
> The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics
> journals, among others.
>
> It is further reported on line that the posting of the data was not
> pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at the
> request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of
> Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary action.
> You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the CEO of the Royal
> Meteorological Society which publishes the International Journal of
> Climatology, has confirmed the issue of data archiving will be on the
> agenda for the next meeting of the Society's Scientific Publishing
> Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and
> publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and
> code archiving policies. A more precise definition of "recorded factual
> material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
> validate research findings" is probably overdue.
>
> I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to time
> I'll look at the progress on archiving, but in the meantime, no reply is
> necessary.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> ref: Santer, et. al.
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere
> International Journal of Climatology
> Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
> know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
>
> You will be aware that intermediate data ("monthly model data (49
> series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to
> a URL with a file of the data as used it the paper") had been requested
> from the first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted on line,
> but in the meantime the data is now available at
> http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php .
>
> Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
> claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported
> response to a FOIA request was "I have examined my files and have no
> monthly time series from climate models used in the paper referred to,
> and no correspondence regarding said time series".
>
> No one disputes Dr. Santer's claim that the "primary model data" is
> publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that
> intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant code
> should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an
> important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation.
> The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics
> journals, among others.
>
> It is further reported on line that the posting of the data was not
> pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at
> the request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of
> Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary
> action. You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the CEO of the Royal
> Meteorological Society which publishes the International Journal of
> Climatology, has confirmed the issue of data archiving will be on the
> agenda for the next meeting of the Society's Scientific Publishing
> Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and
> publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and
> code archiving policies. A more precise definition of "recorded factual
> material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
> validate research findings" is probably overdue.
>
> I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to
> time I'll look at the progress on archiving, but in the meantime, no
> reply is necessary.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1234277656.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "peter.thorne" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Visit to Met Office
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:54:16 +0000
Cc: David Parker <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Phil, David,

as David says I'll be away in Oklahoma first week in March. Antarctic
data first piqued my interest with the Science paper on raobs trends
which was clearly non-physical but hard to nail down how wrong it was. I
did some minor digging into READER and found that in the UA domain it
was qc'ed but not homogenised. I've made a rather rash assumption that
this would also be the case for the surface data but am happy to be
corrected.

Its clear to me that Antarctica is a uniquely difficult environment to
collect long-term homogeneous data in. So I have substantial doubts that
all the manned station pegs in Steig et al. are adequate. Does this
really matter? I'm not sure.

What Steig et al., satellites, and potentially reanalyses does do is
allow us, in principle, at least to get around the no-neighbours issue
in assessing homogeneity away from the peninsula.

For example we could use a bootstrapping of the Steig et al approach by
creating say 50 realisations of each station series using randomly
seeded combinations of manned station pegs as the S et al. RegEM
constraint (excluding the candidate station) to make a neighbour
composite ensemble. We could then add in the available reanalysis field
estimates and satellite estimates and make a reasonable punt about the
existence and magnitude of any breaks based upon multiple lines of
evidence (of course, we lose some of these before 1979 ...). We could
use this information to assess in a more rigorous way than has been done
to date the homogeneity of these sparse stations. Then cleaned up data
could be fed back through Steig et al. afterwards to see how it impacts
that analysis making for a nice clean self-contained study.

My understanding from the blog discussion of Steig et al. is that the
analysis step is fairly trivial so such an ensemble realisation approach
should be plausible with a humble PC so long as it has the coding
platform available.

Of course, this doesn't resolve any fundamental methodological concerns
about the S et al. approach that may exist but it does give us a
reasonable chance of creating a much more homogeneous READER manned
station dataset for next IPCC AR and our future products.

My suspicion is that actually changing the manned station data in this
way may make S et al. more different to the straight average of the
READER data as used (effectively) in AR5 and point to the importance of
the long-term homogeneity of the data pegs in RegEM ... this may, of
course, be felt to be a can of worms too far ...

Peter


On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 16:53 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
> David,
> I think I misinterpreted your email when in Switzerland. I think I thought
> you wanted a talk and a possible project. Now I read it and it is just a
> possible project.
> I've done a lot with the Antarctic temperature data - I also have an
> archive of MSLP data for most sites (for some it is station level pressure).
> With regards homogeneity it is difficult to do much beyond the Peninsula
> (and be confident about anything) as the stations are too far apart. There is
> an issue I could ask Adrian - whether ERA-INTERIM is good enough since
> 1988? This could also assess the AVHRR, but this may be circular.
> I've read Steig et al now, and I can see all the comments on the CA and
> RC sites about some of the data. It seems that BAS have made some mistakes
> with some of the AWS sites. The only AWS site used in CRUTEM3 is the one
> at Byrd, as this is at one of the manned sites. The issue with the AWS's is
> getting reasonable data in real time. Whilst I was away the checked monthly
> data arrived for 2002! I will add Byrd's data in. The problem is
> that some sites
> get buried, but still seem to transmit.
> What Steig et al have done is a paleo-type reconstruction of the
> full field
> from the AVHRR for a recent period and extended it back to 1957. If the
> data are OK, all you're assuming is that covariance structure
> remains the same.
>
> I did this paper (attached) ages ago, but it doesn't seem all
> that relevant.
>
> Anyway - I do need to come down to see Ian. Possibilities would be coming
> mid week, say Feb 25/26 or March 4/5. How do these dates suit? I'd need to
> spend the night - maybe that Travel-lodge near you, it is only one night!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 16:04 30/01/2009, David Parker wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Thanks. I hope the GCOS meeting goes well: Roger Saunders will be there.
> >We look forward to your thoughts on the Antarctic data, and to your
> >visit whenever that may be convenient for you,
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 15:56 +0000, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> > > David,
> > > The Swiss extremes workshop has afternoons off for skiing.
> > > As I don't, I've been on 60 or 90 mins walks along snow covered
> > > trails. Snow is 1m deep off the trails.
> > > Anyway back now. So looking at emails. As the sun drops,
> > > the temperature plummets. I'm at the GCOS Imp Plan meeting
> > > next week in Geneva. Back in CRU on Feb 6.
> > > I've been reading the Steig et al paper. I've looked
> > > at homogeneity issues with the Antarctic data in the past.
> > > Difficult to do much except in the Peninsula. Anyway,
> > > I'll give your proposal some thought. Will talk to others
> > > like Kevin T next week as well about the paper.
> > > Glad to hear Ian is settling. It would be a good idea
> > > to do two things on the visit. I'm sure we can think of more!
> > > Glad also you're helping out Brian. I just couldn't
> > > rearrange my UEA teaching again - already done this so I can
> > > be here now and Geneva next week.
> > >
> > > Have a good weekend - if a little cold!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > Peter Thorne and others have suggested that you visit us in the near
> > > > future to set up a project in which CRU would homogenise the "Reader"
> > > > surface temperature data for Antarctica. This subject arose in
> > > > connection with Steig et al.'s paper on Antarctic temperatures in last
> > > > week's NATURE, and is also relevant to the possibility that we may
> > > > include interpolations over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica in our
> > > > analyses for IPCC AR5. Peter challenges the results of Steig et al. on
> > > > the grounds that the in situ surface temperatures may not be
> > > > homogeneous. Maybe you could even give a seminar on e.g. Antarctic
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know when a visit would be convenient for you. You could,
> > > > of course, combine it with a review of Ian's progress. Ian is now well-
> > > > settled into using our computing systems, and has started to calculate
> > > > r-bar from the daily precipitation fields for the UK regions, with a
> > > > view to estimating uncertainties in the regionally-averaged daily
> > > > values. As a cross-check, and to gain a deeper appreciation of this
> > > > myself, I have independently written some software to calculate r-bar.
> > > > This is leading to some ideas which I will send to you when I have had
> > > > more time to think them through.
> > > >
> > > > I understand you're busy as I am expecting to attend the Malaria meeting
> > > > at Imperial on xxx xxxx xxxxFeb when you aren't available.
> > > >
> > > > Hope you've had good meetings in Geneva
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> > > > E-mail: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > > Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhttp:www.metoffice.gov.uk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >--
> >David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> >E-mail: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhttp:www.metoffice.gov.uk
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax xxx xxxx xxxx
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

Original Filename: 1234302123.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: David Parker <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Visit to Met Office
Date: Tue Feb 10 16:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Simpson, Ian.R" <ian.r.simpson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

David, Peter, Ian,
Let's go for the week with Feb 25/26 in it. I could come down
for late on the 25th then spend most of the 26th discussing
Ian's work and also the Antarctic ideas. Presumably John Prior
and others will be available at some point on the 26th.
The Antarctic surface T data that are in CRUTEM3 have come
from my searches over the years and also from READER. Much of the
early stuff in READER has come from the archives here, except
where BAS have got the original digitized data from the Antarctic
Institutes in all the countries.
I also have some files of when some of the manned stations on the
ice have moved. These are forced moves, as the station moves, but they
have never been accounted for. Halley and Casey are affected.
There are issues to discuss about the AWSs and also, as David knows
from AOPC, work that Wisconsin are doing in putting together all
the historic US series. I've talked to them about this - mainly to try and
stop them calculating mean T a different way. If they do this it will
screw their series up. It all relates to them saying that the mean of
min and max is not a great way in the Antarctic to calculate mean T.
They say they can now do the mean of every 3 hours, but it needs the
historic series and the routine updating to change at the same
time - which is unlikely to happen.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:13 09/02/2009, David Parker wrote:

Phil
Thanks. I think Feb xxx xxxx xxxxis better as Peter, who suggested the Reader-
data project, will be away in the first week of March. Ian will be here
except, I think, on Feb 27th when he is going to a chess tournament. The
hotel next to the Met Office should be OK but I haven't checked
availability - that can be done when the date is chosen.
David
On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 16:53 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
> David,
> I think I misinterpreted your email when in Switzerland. I think I thought
> you wanted a talk and a possible project. Now I read it and it is just a
> possible project.
> I've done a lot with the Antarctic temperature data - I also have an
> archive of MSLP data for most sites (for some it is station level pressure).
> With regards homogeneity it is difficult to do much beyond the Peninsula
> (and be confident about anything) as the stations are too far apart. There is
> an issue I could ask Adrian - whether ERA-INTERIM is good enough since
> 1988? This could also assess the AVHRR, but this may be circular.
> I've read Steig et al now, and I can see all the comments on the CA and
> RC sites about some of the data. It seems that BAS have made some mistakes
> with some of the AWS sites. The only AWS site used in CRUTEM3 is the one
> at Byrd, as this is at one of the manned sites. The issue with the AWS's is
> getting reasonable data in real time. Whilst I was away the checked monthly
> data arrived for 2002! I will add Byrd's data in. The problem is
> that some sites
> get buried, but still seem to transmit.
> What Steig et al have done is a paleo-type reconstruction of the
> full field
> from the AVHRR for a recent period and extended it back to 1957. If the
> data are OK, all you're assuming is that covariance structure
> remains the same.
>
> I did this paper (attached) ages ago, but it doesn't seem all
> that relevant.
>
> Anyway - I do need to come down to see Ian. Possibilities would be coming
> mid week, say Feb 25/26 or March 4/5. How do these dates suit? I'd need to
> spend the night - maybe that Travel-lodge near you, it is only one night!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 16:04 30/01/2009, David Parker wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Thanks. I hope the GCOS meeting goes well: Roger Saunders will be there.
> >We look forward to your thoughts on the Antarctic data, and to your
> >visit whenever that may be convenient for you,
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 15:56 +0000, P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> > > David,
> > > The Swiss extremes workshop has afternoons off for skiing.
> > > As I don't, I've been on 60 or 90 mins walks along snow covered
> > > trails. Snow is 1m deep off the trails.
> > > Anyway back now. So looking at emails. As the sun drops,
> > > the temperature plummets. I'm at the GCOS Imp Plan meeting
> > > next week in Geneva. Back in CRU on Feb 6.
> > > I've been reading the Steig et al paper. I've looked
> > > at homogeneity issues with the Antarctic data in the past.
> > > Difficult to do much except in the Peninsula. Anyway,
> > > I'll give your proposal some thought. Will talk to others
> > > like Kevin T next week as well about the paper.
> > > Glad to hear Ian is settling. It would be a good idea
> > > to do two things on the visit. I'm sure we can think of more!
> > > Glad also you're helping out Brian. I just couldn't
> > > rearrange my UEA teaching again - already done this so I can
> > > be here now and Geneva next week.
> > >
> > > Have a good weekend - if a little cold!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > Peter Thorne and others have suggested that you visit us in the near
> > > > future to set up a project in which CRU would homogenise the "Reader"
> > > > surface temperature data for Antarctica. This subject arose in
> > > > connection with Steig et al.'s paper on Antarctic temperatures in last
> > > > week's NATURE, and is also relevant to the possibility that we may
> > > > include interpolations over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica in our
> > > > analyses for IPCC AR5. Peter challenges the results of Steig et al. on
> > > > the grounds that the in situ surface temperatures may not be
> > > > homogeneous. Maybe you could even give a seminar on e.g. Antarctic
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know when a visit would be convenient for you. You could,
> > > > of course, combine it with a review of Ian's progress. Ian is now well-
> > > > settled into using our computing systems, and has started to calculate
> > > > r-bar from the daily precipitation fields for the UK regions, with a
> > > > view to estimating uncertainties in the regionally-averaged daily
> > > > values. As a cross-check, and to gain a deeper appreciation of this
> > > > myself, I have independently written some software to calculate r-bar.
> > > > This is leading to some ideas which I will send to you when I have had
> > > > more time to think them through.
> > > >
> > > > I understand you're busy as I am expecting to attend the Malaria meeting
> > > > at Imperial on xxx xxxx xxxxFeb when you aren't available.
> > > >
> > > > Hope you've had good meetings in Geneva
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> > > > E-mail: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > > Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhttp:[1]www.metoffice.gov.uk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >--
> >David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> >E-mail: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhttp:www.metoffice.gov.uk
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

References

1. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

Original Filename: 1234821995.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jean Jouzel <jean.jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EGU2009 - Presentation Selection
Date: Mon Feb 16 17:06:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
It would be good to get some fresh blood.
Caspar and Pascal would be good choices. Discuss
with Jean in Hawaii.
The meeting in Il Ciocco was a very good one - but so was the one in Wengen.
It is just a matter of getting the right people and the right venue. The EGU and
AGU meetings don't really work.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:41 15/02/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

thanks Jean,
yes, I've heard much about the legendary Il Ciocco meeting, sadly it was before I got
into this field. I understand how you might want to discontinue being a co-convener of
this session, since its somewhat disconnected from the recent directions of your
research. In fact, perhaps we should consider recruiting entirely new, more junior
scientist conveners to take this over. Perhaps e.g. Caspar and Pascal.
Phil--interested in your thoughts on this.
Jean--looking forward to seeing you in Hawaii!
mike
On Feb 15, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Jean Jouzel wrote:

Dear mike and Phil,
This looks quite good (including poster presentations).
I confirm that I will be unable to attend this year (IPCC plenary in Turkey this same
week). I hope that it will be better next year.
As you can see, I'am less and less involved in studies dealing with the last millenium.
Obviously, I have still a lot of interest since the NATO meeting we organized at Il
Ciocco with Ray Bradley and Phil about the climate of the 2000 years (and a great
pleasure to interact with both of you). But, as far as our session, it may be wise to
think of someone more directly invoved for the coming years.
You certainly have names in mind and this would be very welcome (one of my suggestion
could be Pascal Yiou).
I'am sorry not to be with you in Vienna but I will be in Hawaii (Mike I feel that you
will be there too).
Cheers Jean
At 9:07 +0000 13/02/09, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, Jean,
I won't be in Hawaii. I did register, but I've just been travelling too much
and have more meetings coming up in late March and April. I've decided not
to go to the AGU in Toronto, partly as I couldn't find a replacement for a keynote
talk I've been down to give at a meeting in Finland on the same day. Apparently
about 5 of the 30 AGU Fellows listed can't make it either.
As for the EGU, the session looks good. Pity you have got Friday - numbers
will be quite low for the poster session in the late afternoon. The one thing to
add in would be Chairpersons for the two oral sessions. I managed to get them
in last year, but can't recall how. If I recall correctly Jean said he had an IPCC
meeting,
so maybe put Gene down as chairing the first morning slot. Nick would be another
option. Assume you'll do the second morning slot.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:09 13/02/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Phil, Jean,
I've attached the final version of our session program. They allowed
us a half day or oral sessions xxx xxxx xxxxminute talks, 4 were solicited),
and the rest are in poster.
Please let me know if you see any problems. I think its still possible
to make changes if absolutely necessary.
thanks,
mike
p.s. will I see either of you at the IPCC meeting in Hawaii in March?
On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Jean,
I think he is as well.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:07 09/02/2009, Jean Jouzel wrote:

Dear Michael
I think that you rae taking care Cheers Jean

MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1234782259.34667@KQFMks6eL6kkqBwrCA/5pQ
X-Ids: 166
To: [1]jean.jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: EGU2009 - Presentation Selection
Reply-to: [2]egu2009@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: [3]egu2009@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Co-Tag: aa43ed727bfee453a8c3def9b6ff53b8
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:04:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed
by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Mon,
09 Feb 2009 12:04:16 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 49900DAF.00D by Joe's j- chkmail (http : //
j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 49900DAF.00D/132.166.172.107/sainfoin-
out.extra.cea.fr/sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr/<[4]egu2009@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 49900DAF.00D on jchkmail.jussieu.fr : j- chkmail score : . :
R=. U=. O=# B=0.086 -> S=0.108
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
X-IPSL-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-IPSL-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.149,
required 5, BAYES_05 -1.11, NO_REAL_NAME 0.96)
X-IPSL-From: [5]egu2009@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr Jouzel,
The Programme Group Chairs of the EGU2009 scheduled your following
Session:
CL10
Climate of the last millennium: reconstructions, analyses and
explanation of regional and seasonal changes
Now you are kindly asked to finalize the actual programme of your
Session from 10 Feb 2009 to 14 Feb 2009. Please enter the tool
SOIII - Presentation Selection at
[6]http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/sessionmodification/218 by using your
Copernicus Office User ID 100391.
The following tasks should be taken into account:
1) subdivide your Abstracts into Oral and Poster presentations;
2) define the sequence and the length of the different Oral
presentations;
3) define the sequence of the Poster presentations;
4) define chairpersons.
In addition, you are able to include subtitles. These may
structure your programme, or define events without a corresponding
contribution, e.g. 5 min. "Introduction" or "Discussion".
Your entries generate the draft programme which will be finally
approved by the Programme Group Chairs and published online
afterwards. The authors will then receive the Letter of Schedule,
informing them about the details of their presentation.
We thank you very much in advance for your cooperation, and please
do not hesitate to contact us in case that any questions may arise!
With kind regards,
Katja G

Original Filename: 1236358770.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 2k Arctic synthesis
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:59:xxx xxxx xxxx

<x-flowed>
Great. I'll play with both the composite series and the three
individuals. I was hoping to get some spatially distributed
information, so might include all three. I will also subdivide by
proxy time and use PCA to examine spatial patterns. I'll take a stab
at revising the text to include a few sentences about how we chose
the tree-ring series. Then maybe you can take a look on Monday.
Have a good weekend. Darrell


On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:54 AM, K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

> Darell
> the short answer is yes - you need to give the appropriate weight
> to the
> Eurasian aggregate series though ie this one series should count as
> 3 in
> an average of all high -latitude (e.g. compared to Rosanne D'Arrigo
> west
> N. American series) unless you use the 3 separate
> series(Fennoscania,Yamal, Taimyr) individually. I would use my single
> average series as is though. While you are doing this work , I
> suggest you
> also produce separate proxy type series (ice, lakes, trees) - for
> explicit
> comparison and perhaps separate half-hemisphere (US side and Eurasian
> side) though not sure if Greenland ice should go in either. Cheers
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> directlty> Keith:
>> Thanks for the update. I'd like to revise the composite proxy record
>> over the weekend (my only spare time). Can I assume that I need to
>> omit the three tree-ring series that I took from Mann et al. (2008)
>> because they were not processed to retain the low frequency signal,
>> and that I should replace the Euraisan series with the three from
>> your recent Phil Trans paper (using the data on your website)?
>>
>> If you agree, I can work on revising all of the calculations and
>> figures and we can modify the text early next week.
>>
>> Would that work?
>> Darrell
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Darrell
>>> REALLY sorry - have not done this yet - had back
>>> to back meetings for 2 days and am due to leave
>>> now for the weekend - couple of days away from
>>> computer - my comments are nothing earth
>>> shattering or voluminous but I would still like
>>> to make them for your consideration. I will try
>>> to do this on Monday now - if too late - just ignore me . Sorry
>>> again
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> thanks for your consideration
>>> cheers
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> At 15:01 03/03/2009, you wrote:
>>>> Keith:
>>>> I appreciate your willingness to squeeze this in on such short
>>>> notice. If you could get your comments to me by the end of the
>>>> week,
>>>> that would be more than I had hoped for. Thank you. Darrell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Darrell
>>>>> I would like to make some comments but the
>>>>> earliest I can get to this is Thursday (we have
>>>>> visitors here all day tomorrow. In short I would
>>>>> like to be involved - but I would rather wait and
>>>>> see the basis of your reaction to my initial
>>>>> thoughts when I get a Tracked changes version
>>>>> back to you. You are correct that there are
>>>>> clear limitations in the preservation of trend
>>>>> over two millennia in SOME of the data Mann et al
>>>>> used - and in the current series you cite for
>>>>> Yamal (Hantemirov et al) . I do believe that the
>>>>> composite series in our Phil Trans paper is a
>>>>> convenient representation of the circum-western
>>>>> Eurasian Arctic tree-line data - though the Grudd
>>>>> and Nauzbaev papers are virtually similar to our
>>>>> data for their areas. However I have a few
>>>>> reservations/comments on other aspects of the
>>>>> manuscript that I believe any likely referee
>>>>> might pick up on . Is it ok to wait til Thursday
>>>>> or will this not be acceptable for getting
>>>>> comments back? I know how these time lines are crucial. Best
>>>>> wishes
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>> At 14:15 02/03/2009, you wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Keith:
>>>>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and Phil (via Ray), it's
>>>>>> clear that I should have come to you sooner. I am now well along
>>>>>> on a
>>>>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy temperature
>>>>>> records
>>>>>> from the Arctic (attached). The impetus for the paper is the new
>>>>>> compilation of high-resolution lake records that my group
>>>>>> recently
>>>>>> published in J Paleolimnology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that I should not
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> used the series from the Mann et al. compilation, and I hadn't
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> your 2008 Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as I can
>>>>>> tell, the only records that meet the criteria for this study are
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> three new RCS series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of Alaska
>>>>>> record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's series in Mann et al.
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> processed in a way that would preserve the millennial trend, and
>>>>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now need to substantially revamp the manuscript. Before I do, I
>>>>>> want to be sure that I get it right this time and hope that you
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help guide the tree-ring
>>>>>> component of the synthesis. I see that you have posted the Phil
>>>>>> Trans
>>>>>> data on your website, but would much prefer to have your
>>>>>> involvement
>>>>>> before using the data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an issue. I am
>>>>>> leading a
>>>>>> 12-PI proposal that is currently pending and would benefit
>>>>>> greatly if
>>>>>> this paper were accepted for publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I realize needs
>>>>>> substantial revisions, and let me know if you have time and
>>>>>> interest
>>>>>> in getting involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darrell S. Kaufman
>>>>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences
>>>>>> Northern Arizona University
>>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Keith:
>>>>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and
>>>>>> Phil (via Ray), it's clear that I should have
>>>>>> come to you sooner. I am now well along on a
>>>>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy
>>>>>> temperature records from the Arctic (attached).
>>>>>> The impetus for the paper is the new compilation
>>>>>> of high-resolution lake records that my group
>>>>>> recently published in J Paleolimnology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that
>>>>>> I should not have used the series from the Mann
>>>>>> et al. compilation, and I hadn't see your 2008
>>>>>> Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as
>>>>>> I can tell, the only records that meet the
>>>>>> criteria for this study are your three new RCS
>>>>>> series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of
>>>>>> Alaska record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's
>>>>>> series in Mann et al. were processed in a way
>>>>>> that would preserve the millennial trend, and
>>>>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now need to substantially revamp the
>>>>>> manuscript. Before I do, I want to be sure that
>>>>>> I get it right this time and hope that you will
>>>>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help
>>>>>> guide the tree-ring component of the synthesis.
>>>>>> I see that you have posted the Phil Trans data
>>>>>> on your website, but would much prefer to have
>>>>>> your involvement before using the data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an
>>>>>> issue. I am leading a 12-PI proposal that is
>>>>>> currently pending and would benefit greatly if
>>>>>> this paper were accepted for publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I
>>>>>> realize needs substantial revisions, and let me
>>>>>> know if you have time and interest in getting involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darrell S. Kaufman
>>>>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences
>>>>>> Northern Arizona University
>>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> <http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/>http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1236958090.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Melvin <t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: NERC Consortium Proposal
Date: Fri Mar 13 11:28:xxx xxxx xxxx

X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to
<turneychris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> using -f
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to
:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:cc:x-mailer;
bh=vzM4qpeBuZ3NQSBfkIPACp4rqI5xIH9tfL6OUhWjxcE=;
b=EAAG1b17JLng2YRgwSZWUqtdNH6FAbtHYku6HP2vIb37BakYy+nAI9oPe2vJmnlvkJ
NNnqybDof85G8yHA50MDKl4+VLRSz1W49oSH4z1YMaJMpW74/NwVRwySDSoyitHvoaeO
du0IYmPQvWXg+hHATrIfMR3WSPuzT+bsHby1M=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:from:to:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:cc
:x-mailer;
b=vshpN16BnkBlTzIbqZGkiKhZRrLDTy4h9YDrCcr1arlUpxQoFm7wGfUrAY9lINDGiv
rTtJrNYHwK42PcQotJXHe7XlhWBVuII6hxTU5X811ycdc4IcIxNIyRWDYYJGZMFSHdyj
IJjD59a4V+W1eHp2Kkv9yiXdaWSBeshQE2gvQ=
From: Chris Turney <turneychris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: NERC Consortium Proposal
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:42:53 +0100
Cc: Philip Brohan <philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Rob Allan <rob.allan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Peter Cox <P.M.Cox@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023)
X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(pass,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 18712xxx xxxx xxxxcabecf (trained as not-spam)
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18712069&m=127314cabecf&c=f
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18712069&m=127314cabecf&c=n
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18712069&m=127314cabecf&c=s
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Hi Keith, Phil and Tim,
Please find attached an outline bid for the NERC Consortium bid we
discussed at the end of last year. I must apologise for the delay in
getting back to you. Exeter has suddenly gone mad with appointments
of staff and postgrads. It's all good fun but it's taken up a lot of
my time over the past couple of months.
For a NERC Consortium we need to put in a 2 page document as an
expression of interest. If approved we can then go forward for
submission. The next deadline is 1 July.
Can you have a look at the attached and let me know what you think?
Could you let me know what sort of support you'd need if we go
forward. We have up to

Original Filename: 1236962118.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Tom's Symposium
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sarah Raper <S.Raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Keith,

I'm very sorry to hear that both you and Sarah have not been well. I
hope that both of you are feeling better soon. While I understand your
decision, it's very sad that you won't be there on June 19th. I was
really looking forward to a reunion of the "CRU gang". Despite its
relatively small size, CRU has had (and continues to have!) a rather
remarkable "fingerprint" in the world of climate science. The times we
spent together while Tom was Director of CRU were exciting and
extraordinary. It would have been fun to get together and celebrate
those times, and to celebrate CRU's achievements under Tom's leadership.

Once again, best wishes to you and Sarah. Get well soon, and please let
me know if you reconsider.

With best regards,

Ben

Keith Briffa wrote:
> Ben and Phil
> Sorry but I am going to decline the invitation. You will know the
> respect I have for Tom and the high personal regard I have for him. I
> will send him a personal message explaining my decision. Sorry for the
> time it has taken to come to this decision but I had to think hard about
> it . At this moment I do not know whether Sarah will make it. She like
> me has not been well over the Christmas/New Year period but she has not
> yet managed a single day back at work yet. I will have to leave it to
> her to let you know her thoughts on this.
> Best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 17:58 30/01/2009, you wrote:
>> Dear Keith,
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> Phil and I would like to send out a general announcement in the next
>> few weeks, so that folks can put the Symposium on their calendars. It
>> would be nice if we could send out a list of confirmed speakers
>> together with the general announcement. So I'd be very grateful if you
>> could get back to me in the next week or two.
>>
>> Once again, just let me say that it would be great to see you and
>> Sarah in Boulder...
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>> Ben
>>> I can not confirm . Sorry. Everything you say is true. It didn't need
>>> saying, but things may not be straight forward. Will get back to you.
>>> I am not saying no for the present. I know you need to know one way
>>> or the other. Best wishes
>>> Keith
>>> At 22:30 29/01/2009, you wrote:
>>>> Dear Keith,
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to check with you regarding your availability for
>>>> Tom's Symposium on June 19th. I'm really hoping that you'll be able
>>>> to attend. It would be great to see you in Boulder, and I know that
>>>> Tom would be delighted if both you and Sarah could make it.
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it, Tom had a big impact on the scientific careers of
>>>> many people, but particularly on the scientific lives of you, me,
>>>> Phil, and Sarah.
>>>>
>>>> Tom and I may not have seen eye-to-eye on everything - but Tom
>>>> taught me how to be a scientist, and the lessons I learned at CRU
>>>> have helped me through subsequent difficult times. I view the
>>>> Symposium as a means of saying "thanks". It would be nice to say
>>>> thanks in the company of Tom's friends and colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great to share a few beers in Boulder, and reminisce
>>>> about our infrequent "play 'til you drop" squash games at UEA...
>>>>
>>>> Hope you and Sarah and Amy and Kerstie are all well.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>> -- Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> http:// www. cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> http:// www. cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1237289045.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Support letter request
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Phil, Thanks for this. Here is a support letter from Matt Collins that you can use as a
guide on what to say. It was forwarded to me by Lowell. Cheers, Ed
================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director,
Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email:
drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
================================== On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Phil Jones wrote: > > Ed, >
I can do this. Do you have any details of what you'd like me to > say? > Does Lowell have
any in yet? > Away all next week. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 03:09 17/03/2009, you wrote:
>> Hi Phil, >> >> I wonder if you would be willing to write a letter of support for a >>
fairly massive NSF Science and Technology Center (STC) proposal that >> will be submitted
in mid-April. The STC would be the Center for >> Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This
is a 5-year, $25 million >> dollar, effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of Earth
>> Science, University of Southern California). It is multi- >> institutional >> with both
climate modelers and palaeoclimatologists (including me) >> involved in an effort to
develop skillful climate prediction >> capability on decadal time scales. See the attached
project summary >> from the pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF for a full >>
proposal >> to be submitted. If you are willing to write a letter of support, it >> is
probably best that it be written to Lowell: >> >> Dr. Lowell Stott >> Department of Earth
Science >> University of Southern California >> Los Angeles, CA 90089 >> >> However, you
should send the letter to me for forwarding on to >> Lowell. >> The letter emailed to me as
a pdf with electronic signature works >> fine. Thanks for any help you can give me. I am
happy to answer any >> questions you might have as well. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ed >> >>
================================== >> Dr. Edward R. Cook >> Doherty Senior Scholar and >>
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory >> Palisades, New York
10964 USA >> Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> ================================== >> >> >> >> Hi Phil, >> >> I wonder if you would be
willing to write a letter of support for a >> fairly massive NSF Science and Technology
Center (STC) proposal >> that will be submitted in mid-April. The STC would be the Center
>> for Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This is a 5-year, $25 >> million dollar,
effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of >> Earth Science, University of Southern
California). It is multi- >> institutional with both climate modelers and
palaeoclimatologists >> (including me) involved in an effort to develop skillful climate >>
prediction capability on decadal time scales. See the attached >> project summary from the
pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF >> for a full proposal to be submitted. If you
are willing to write a >> letter of support, it is probably best that it be written to
Lowell: >> >> Dr. Lowell Stott >> Department of Earth Science >> University of Southern
California >> Los Angeles, CA 90089 >> >> However, you should send the letter to me for
forwarding on to >> Lowell. The letter emailed to me as a pdf with electronic signature >>
works fine. Thanks for any help you can give me. I am happy to >> answer any questions you
might have as well. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ed >> >> >> ================================== >>
Dr. Edward R. Cook >> Doherty Senior Scholar and >> Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >>
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory >> Palisades, New York 10964 USA >> Email:
drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx>>
================================== > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone
+44 xxx xxxx xxxx> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx> University
of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > NR4 7TJ > UK >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Phil,

Thanks for this. Here is a support letter from Matt Collins that you can use as a guide on
what to say. It was forwarded to me by Lowell.

Cheers,

Ed

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachAxel_support.doc"

==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: [1]drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================
On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Ed,
I can do this. Do you have any details of what you'd like me to say?
Does Lowell have any in yet?
Away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:09 17/03/2009, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
I wonder if you would be willing to write a letter of support for a
fairly massive NSF Science and Technology Center (STC) proposal that
will be submitted in mid-April. The STC would be the Center for
Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This is a 5-year, $25 million
dollar, effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of Earth
Science, University of Southern California). It is multi-institutional
with both climate modelers and palaeoclimatologists (including me)
involved in an effort to develop skillful climate prediction
capability on decadal time scales. See the attached project summary
from the pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF for a full proposal
to be submitted. If you are willing to write a letter of support, it
is probably best that it be written to Lowell:
Dr. Lowell Stott
Department of Earth Science
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089
However, you should send the letter to me for forwarding on to Lowell.
The letter emailed to me as a pdf with electronic signature works
fine. Thanks for any help you can give me. I am happy to answer any
questions you might have as well.
Cheers,
Ed
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: [2]drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================
Hi Phil,
I wonder if you would be willing to write a letter of support for a fairly massive NSF
Science and Technology Center (STC) proposal that will be submitted in mid-April. The
STC would be the Center for Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This is a 5-year, $25
million dollar, effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of Earth Science,
University of Southern California). It is multi-institutional with both climate modelers
and palaeoclimatologists (including me) involved in an effort to develop skillful
climate prediction capability on decadal time scales. See the attached project summary
from the pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF for a full proposal to be submitted.
If you are willing to write a letter of support, it is probably best that it be written
to Lowell:
Dr. Lowell Stott
Department of Earth Science
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089
However, you should send the letter to me for forwarding on to Lowell. The letter
emailed to me as a pdf with electronic signature works fine. Thanks for any help you can
give me. I am happy to answer any questions you might have as well.
Cheers,
Ed

==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: [3]drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [4]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. mailto:drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1237474374.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: FYI
Date: Thu Mar 19 10:52:xxx xxxx xxxx

Gavin, Mike,
See the link below! Don't alert anyone up to this for a while. See if they figure it
out for themselves.
I've sent this to the Chief Exec of the RMS, who said he was considering
changing data policy with the RMS journals. He's away till next week. I just
wanted him to see what a load of plonkers he's dealing with! I'm hoping
someone will pick this up and put it somewhere more prominently.
The responses are even worse than you get on CA.
I've written up the London paper for the RMS journal Weather,
but having trouble with their new editor. He's coming up with the same
naive comments that these responders are. He can't understand
that London has a UHI of X, but that X has got no bigger since 1900.
I'm away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
[1]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-
by-a-major-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."
--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

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://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/

Original Filename: 1237480766.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Thu Mar 19 12:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike,
I want to get the more extensive London paper in first.
I hope my missive to the Chief Exec of the RMS does something next week.
By the way the HC doesn't have a Director.
John Mitchell is Head of Climate Science
Chris Gordon is Deputy Director of the HC.
It has never had a Director with that particular title.
It is impossible for anyone to find this on their web site. Only if you
were on the HC Scientific Review Group would you be aware.

Cheers
Phil
At 12:24 19/03/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

HI Phil,
thanks, we've already seen numerous comments about this at RealClimate. Its a paper that
is easily misunderstood and/or intentionally misrepresented by contrarians (or both).
One possibility is that you might consider writing a guest article for RC placing this
in proper perspective. What do you think?
mike
On Mar 19, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Gavin, Mike,
See the link below! Don't alert anyone up to this for a while. See if they figure it
out for themselves.
I've sent this to the Chief Exec of the RMS, who said he was considering
changing data policy with the RMS journals. He's away till next week. I just
wanted him to see what a load of plonkers he's dealing with! I'm hoping
someone will pick this up and put it somewhere more prominently.
The responses are even worse than you get on CA.
I've written up the London paper for the RMS journal Weather,
but having trouble with their new editor. He's coming up with the same
naive comments that these responders are. He can't understand
that London has a UHI of X, but that X has got no bigger since 1900.
I'm away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
[1]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warmi
ng-by-a-major-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."
--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [2]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [3]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[4]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 p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
4. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Original Filename: 1237496573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: See the link below
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:xxx xxxx xxxx

Ben,
I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would
send something to their Chief Exec.
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI
and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy
to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park),
but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit
of a UHI and it has go bigger.
I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained
about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't
be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.
The paper is about London and its UHI!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:

Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with
that kind of crap.
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.
Cheers,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:

Paul,

I sent you this last night, but in another email. I should have sent you two
emails - apologies. The issues were not linked. This email is to bring your
attention to the link at the end.
The next few sentences repeat what I said last might.
I had been meaning to email you about the RMS and IJC issue of data availability
for numbers and data used in papers that appear in RMS journals. This results from
the issue that arose with the paper by Ben Santer et al in IJC last year. Ben has made
the data available that this complainant wanted. The issue is that this is intermediate
data. The raw data that Ben had used to derive the intermediate data was all fully
available. If you're going to consider asking authors to make some or all of the
data available, then they had done already. The complainant didn't want to have
to go to the trouble of doing all the work that Ben had done.
I hope this is clear.
Another issue that should be considered as well is this.
With many papers, we're using Met Office observations. We've abstracted these
from BADC to use them in the papers. We're not allowed to make these available
to others. We'd need to get the Met Office's permission in all cases.
This email came overnight - from Tom Peterson, who works at NCDC in Asheville.

[1]http://
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-ma
jor-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."

We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in JGR
last year. The paper is
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale
temperature records, with an emphasis on China. /J. Geophys. Res/. *113*, D16122,
doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
The paper clearly states where I work - CRU at UEA. There is no mention of the Hadley
Centre!
There is also no about face as stated on the web page.
Sending this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you are dealing
with when you might be considering changes to data policies at the RMS.
Several years ago I decided there was no point in responding to issues raised
on blog sites. Ben has made the same decision as well.
There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more main stream
in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider. I just think you should
be aware of some of the background. CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the
beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, NCDC and GISS have had as well - many
related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes and the way we do things changes,
but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not have an influence
on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century.

Cheers
Phil

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

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 1237805013.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: David Schneider <dschneid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick McKay <nmckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bradley Ray <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Miller Giff <gmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Otto-Bleisner Bette <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Overpeck Jonathan <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Submitted!
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:43:xxx xxxx xxxx

With thanks to all. I'll let you know when I hear anything. Darrell ? Darrell S. Kaufman
Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences Northern Arizona University xxx xxxx xxxx
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/

With thanks to all.

I'll let you know when I hear anything.

Darrell

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach2k synthesis submitted.pdf"

Darrell S. Kaufman
Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences
Northern Arizona University
xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/

References

1. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/

Original Filename: 1239572061.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dominique Raynaud <raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jean-claude.duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rramesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric W Wolff <ewwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, fatima.abrantes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.dearing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jerome@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jose_carriquiry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, moha_umero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Schulz <mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp, Bette Otto-Bliesner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter.kershaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pfrancus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scolman@d.umn.edu, whitlock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, zlding@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:34:21 +0200
Cc: Laurent Labeyrie <Laurent.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear friends,

The scoping of IPCC AR5 will happen in July this year. In the
community there have been opinions raised regarding paleo-science in
the next report, e.g. whether to have paleo-science dispersed into
various topical chapters, e.g. forcing, model-evaluation, sea level
etc., or whether it might be best to do as in AR4 to have a separate
Paleo-chapter.

There are good arguments for both options, and it is not the intent of
this email to voice a specific opinion. Rather it is important to let
the scoping process be aware of all the relevant new paleo-science
which whould be assessed in AR5, thereby leading to the need for a
strong presence of paleoclimate scientists in the LA-team of AR5,
particularly in WG1, but also in WG2.

In order to make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly
relevant for IPCC, Peck and I have agreed to be the editors of a Slide-
series (ppt style) which can be used to make the case in the scoping,
and which of course could be a useful product for various outreach
activities of PAGES and the paleoclimate community at large.
The PAGES office will asssist in producing the slides

We therefore send this email to you who worked as LAs in AR4 or who
are on SSC or other relevant PAGES panels and ask for your input.
What we hope you can help with is the following:

1. Provide your best examples of key new IPCC (Policy) relevant new
results post AR4, i.e. accepted after July 2006, that provide
compelling arguments for paleoclimate science as a key contributor to
IPCC. Please limit this to the results which are clearly IPCC-relevant
2. Ongoing projects or programmes that are likely to deliver such
results in the next 2-3 years can also be included. The information
must, however, be specific and compelling to a non-paleo audience.
3. Send PDF of the paper or other material (like ppt slide) to Peck (jto@u.arizona.edu
), Myself and Thorsten Kiefer (thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) at
PAGES, preferably by May 2.

We think this might become a very useful service to our community and
to the climate change communities at large, and will be very rewarding.
Hoping to hear back from many of you.

Best wishes

Peck and Eystein


__________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
All

Original Filename: 1240254197.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dominique Raynaud <raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jean-claude.duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rramesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric W Wolff <ewwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.dearing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jerome@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jose_carriquiry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, moha_umero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Schulz <mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp, Bette Otto-Bliesner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter.kershaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pfrancus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scolman@d.umn.edu, whitlock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, zlding@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Laurent Labeyrie <Laurent.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Eystein and Jonathan,

With respect to the question of a separate paleo-climate chapter: if paleoclimate is an
adjunct to all of the other chapters, what would happen - would there be a paleo-climate
person on each of those chapters, just for that component? If so, the person would not
carry much influence - and if chapters had to be trimmed (which we know always happens),
there's a chance that a lot of the paleoclimate aspect would be the first to go. I'm afraid
that little in-depth discussion would survive.

On the other hand: now that there's been a paleoclimate chapter, a lot of the
'introductory' material would not really be needed - just the 'updates', which make for
much fewer pages. Perhaps, then, paleoclimate observations could be part of the climate
observation chapter; and paleoclimate modeling, part of the modeling chapter. That way, at
least several people with paleoclimate heritage could be part of each of these chapters,
and allow for a proper representation of the state of our understanding in these areas. It
would also allow for better integration of paleoclimates with the current climate. As in
the case of present climate, care would have to be taken to ensure that the observations
and modeling chapters have strong linkages.

Concerning what new topic should be addressed: there should be a discussion about the use
of paleoclimates as analogs for the future. Some scientists (including at least one at
GISS) are certain of their utility in this regard. I think the topic should be addressed
from all sides.

And as for 'new' paleoclimate work: we have an article about to come out in GRL on
stratospheric ozone during the LGM; here's the link:

[1]http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/papersinpress.shtml#id2009GL037617

David

--

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

References

1. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/papersinpress.shtml#id2009GL037617

Original Filename: 1240398230.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Pierre Francus <pfrancus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Steve Colman <scolman@d.umn.edu>, Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <Jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dominique Raynaud <raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "jean-claude.duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <jean-claude.duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "rramesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <rramesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric W Wolff <ewwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "fatima.abrantes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <fatima.abrantes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.dearing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <j.dearing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "jose_carriquiry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <jose_carriquiry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "moha_umero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <moha_umero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Schulz <mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp" <nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp>, Bette Otto-Bliesner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.kershaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <peter.kershaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Francus Pierre <Pierre.Francus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Whitlock Cathy <whitlock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "zlding@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <zlding@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurent Labeyrie <Laurent.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear all,

I guess one point that can be outlined for the next IPCC report is about the regional
differences in climate change and variability.

We can see that in the paleo record, and it is very clear from the work of the PAGES "last
2k regional groups".

There is for instance a new Arctic 2k summary in Journal of Paleolimnology (Kauffman et al
2009), and another paper in prep (I guess you are co-author Peck).

All the best

Pierre

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Francus
Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement
490 rue de la couronne, Québec, QC G1K 9A9, CANADA
Membre du GEOTOP, Membre associé du CEN, PAGES SSC member
[1]pfrancus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1241415427.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueacanitdb01.uea.ac.uk id n457EfQ5005459

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are ...

"Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for
nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997)
explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report
was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program."

and

"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information
Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.
I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it,
under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang
had committed fraud."

You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide
Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records
for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was
not possible to select stations on the basis of ...

"... station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
[THIS IS ITEM "X"]

Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations
that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if
some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above
selection method could not have been applied (but see belowxxx xxxx xxxxunless
there are other "hard copy" station history data not in the DOE report
(but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says
is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.

What is the answer here?

The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information
available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much
trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist -- if it
did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems
that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data
do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?

Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But
ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers -- so where does it
come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?

(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.

(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been ...

"Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"

Of course the real get out is the final "or". A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few "changes in instrumentation"
OR "changes in location" OR "changes in observation times". Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here -- it would be better to have all three -- but this is not what
the statement says.

Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it's not too late?

-----

I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so
I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I
*am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of
CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.

Best wishes,
Tom

P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make
him happier about his own parallel experiences.



</x-flowed>
Return-Path: <b.j.peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Original-To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivered-To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by post2.cgd.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB38C3803F;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDD3230C024;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 12674-01; Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
X-SMTP-Auth: no
X-SMTP-Auth: no
Received: from exch4.jmu.ac.uk (exch4.jmu.ac.uk [150.204.37.14])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B970230C00B;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Subject: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 15:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <08927B60D87D374DB001D814D5D2250F01663F4F@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Thread-Index: AcnIu0OvOgPY3fShTXip0PBdcf9mWwAAWuOQAGIoisAAbhWS4A==
From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu

CCNet Xtra - 3 May 2xxx xxxx xxxxAudiatur et altera pars

CLIMATE SCIENCE FRAUD AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY?
-------------------------------------------


The University at Albany is in a difficult position. If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers. If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct. If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.

"Investigations" of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don't want to investigate things properly.
-- Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009



(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE
Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009

(2) THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG
Douglas J. Keenan, Informath, April 2009

(3) KAFKA AT ALBANY
Peter Risdon, Freeborn John, 15 March 2009


=====
(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE

Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html

Aubrey Blumsohn

Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.

I have no inclination to "weigh in" on the topic of climate change. However the case involves issues of integrity that are at the very core of proper science. These issues are the same whether they are raised in a pharmaceutical clinical trial, in a basic science laboratory, by a climate change "denialist" or a "warmist". The case involves the hiding of data, access to data, and the proper description of "method" in science.

The case is also of interest because it provides yet another example of how *not* to create trust in a scientific misconduct investigation. It adds to the litany of cases suggesting that Universities cannot be allowed to investigate misconduct of their own star academics. The University response has so far been incoherent on its face.

Doug Keenan, the mathematician who raised the case of Wang is on the "denialist" side of the climate change debate. He maintains that "almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists".

Below is my own summary of the straightforward substance of this case. I wrote to Wei-Chyung Wang, to Lynn Videka (VP at Albany, responsible for the investigation), and to John H. Reilly (a lawyer at Albany) asking for any correction or comments on the details presented below. My request was acknowledged prior to publication, but no factual correction was suggested.

Case Summary

The allegations concern two publications. These are:

Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169

Original Filename: 1242132884.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "peter.thorne" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: CRUTEM4
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:54:44 +0100

Phil,

there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are
casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going
to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of
recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could
contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) for doing a CRUTEM4 which I
would maintain had two aims ...

1. Rescue and incorporation of recent data (I'm pinging NCDC too to see
what they could do vis-a-vis collating and sending the non-wmo US
stations and other data you may not have ... their bi-lats may have sig.
extra stations for Iran, Aus, Canada etc.)

2. A more robust error model that led to production of a set of equi-
probable potential gridded products (HadSST3 will do simnilarly so we
could combine to form HadCRUT4 equi-probable). This error model
determination would ideally be modular so that we could assess how wrong
our assumptions about the error would have to be to "matter" and what
error sources are important for our ability to characterise the long-
term trend (trivially these will be the red noise I know but then most
people seem blind to the trivial sadly ...). The HadCRUT3 paper clearly
started well down that path but a recent paper I had the displeasure of
reviewing on my way back from WMO shows its poorly understood
(deliberately so in this particular case ...).

We have a meeting Thursday. If it passes muster there we'll put it to
DECC and see what happens. No promises.

This would mean we'd have HadCRUT4 which would be HadSST3 + CRUTEM4 each
with more data and better error models well before AR5 which seems
sensible ...

Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we
don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al
comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit?

Peter
--
Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax xxx xxxx xxxx
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

Original Filename: 1242136391.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "peter.thorne" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: CRUTEM4
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:53:11 +0100

Phil,

I can't believe that people think it remotely reasonable behaviour to
send that sort of crud. They'd never say that to your face. I guess
their home is just that much more cosy and impersonal.

Cash would need spending in FY09/10 as I understand it, but someone for
six months (assuming they could start this Sept.) could be a route
forwards. It would be a good paper for them career-wise.

HadSST3 is in first draft form. I'm not sure what papers you assume will
arise. I think we were thinking of developing HadSST3 and CRUTEM4
seperately (but in a joined up way) and publishing as separate papers
and then doing a paper that covers combination to HadCRUT4 and perhaps,
for example, a d&a sensitivity to error model assumptions.

Peter

On Tue, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 09:43 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
> Peter,
> Below is one of three emails I got last night following a new thread on CA.
> I'll ignore them and wait for the FOI requests, which we have dealt
> with before.
> I did send an email to Thomas Stocker alerting him up to comment #17.
> These are all about who changed what in various chapters of AR4. I
> expect these
> to get worse with AR5.
>
> Anyway back to the matter in hand.
>
> I'm planning to come down to see Ian Simpson (probably on June
> 1). I'll get back
> to David on this later today.
> We've done some of what you aim for. We've sorted out the new Canadian
> WMO numbers and have extra data for Australia and NZ in. Australia comes in
> by email once a month. I'll have to find a new contact in NZ now
> Jim Salinger has
> been sacked - but it's only a small country. Iran is pretty good.
> The US is the large bit of work. The US already has better
> station density than
> almost anywhere else, so the effort won't make much difference. But
> it is probably
> worth doing, as it would reduce errors - even if no-one understands
> them. Glad
> you got the poor paper to review!
> Soon we will be adding data for the Greater Alpine Region (32 sites) which
> go back to 1760. These data all have adjustments for screen issues prior to
> about 1880. This makes summers cooler by about 0.4 deg C and winters about
> the same. Similarly, we will also add a load of stations for Spain
> (again with Screen
> biases in). There is probably more we could add for European countries,
> but again it is likely to make little difference, except to lower errors.
> The real issue is South America and Africa. We have the whole
> Argentine network,
> but this is only digitized back to 1959 and the data we had wasn't
> that bad anyway.
> Problem in South America is Brazil. Africa is OK in a few
> countries, but poor in many.
> We could add loads in China.
> Issue with all this is that most of the additions wouldn't be
> available from whenever
> we stop. We can probably do the US in real time like Australia.
> We've also been trying to add in the precip for many of these
> extra stations (not
> the Alpine countries and Spain).
> There is a timing issue. As I understand HadSST3 won't be
> available to be merged
> with until it is successfully reviewed. So need to consider this as well.
>
> A final issue is people here. We're OK for most of 2010 for all.
> We have a good
> student finishing a PhD by Sept who wants to stay, so couldn't
> really do anything
> till then.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> Dear Mr Jones
>
> As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please
> explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using
> tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is
> to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of
> enviromental information.
>
> For reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your
> absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in
> an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do
> you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
>
> At 08:54 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote:
> >Phil,
> >
> >there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are
> >casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going
> >to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of
> >recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could
> >contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) for doing a CRUTEM4 which I
> >would maintain had two aims ...
> >
> >1. Rescue and incorporation of recent data (I'm pinging NCDC too to see
> >what they could do vis-a-vis collating and sending the non-wmo US
> >stations and other data you may not have ... their bi-lats may have sig.
> >extra stations for Iran, Aus, Canada etc.)
> >
> >2. A more robust error model that led to production of a set of equi-
> >probable potential gridded products (HadSST3 will do simnilarly so we
> >could combine to form HadCRUT4 equi-probable). This error model
> >determination would ideally be modular so that we could assess how wrong
> >our assumptions about the error would have to be to "matter" and what
> >error sources are important for our ability to characterise the long-
> >term trend (trivially these will be the red noise I know but then most
> >people seem blind to the trivial sadly ...). The HadCRUT3 paper clearly
> >started well down that path but a recent paper I had the displeasure of
> >reviewing on my way back from WMO shows its poorly understood
> >(deliberately so in this particular case ...).
> >
> >We have a meeting Thursday. If it passes muster there we'll put it to
> >DECC and see what happens. No promises.
> >
> >This would mean we'd have HadCRUT4 which would be HadSST3 + CRUTEM4 each
> >with more data and better error models well before AR5 which seems
> >sensible ...
> >
> >Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we
> >don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al
> >comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit?
> >
> >Peter
> >--
> >Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist
> >Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
> >tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax xxx xxxx xxxx
> >www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax xxx xxxx xxxx
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

Original Filename: 1242749575.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: nomination: materials needed!
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:12:xxx xxxx xxxx

thanks much Phil,

that sounds good. So why don't we wait until next round (June '10) on this then. That will
give everyone an opportunity to get their ducks in a row. Plus I'll have one more Nature
and one more Science paper on my resume by then (more about that soon!). I'll be sure to
send you a reminder sometime next may or so!

Thanks for sending that paper. It takes some work to get a paper rejected by IJC. Want to
take a bet that some version of this appears in "Energy and Environment"? Of course, any
paper that appears there is not taken seriously anyway, its almost a joke.

The contrarians attacks certainly have not abated. The only hope is that they'll
increasingly be ignored.

talk to you later,

mike

On May 19, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Have gotten replies - the're both happy to write supporting letters,
but both are too busy to take it on this year. One suggested waiting till
next year. Malcolm is supporting one other person this year. I'd be
happy to do it next year, so I can pace it over a longer period. Malcom
also said that Singer had an AGU Fellowship!!
Apart from my meetings I have skeptics on my back - still, can't
seem to get rid of them. Also the new UK climate scenarios are giving
govt ministers the jitters as they don't want to appear stupid when they
introduce them (late June?).
Talking of skeptics - the attached was rejected by IJC. He put it up on
something xarchiv. Easy to see why it was rejected. Parts appear quite
well written, but they always go too far. Obviously have no idea how to write
a paper.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:35 18/05/2009, you wrote:

thanks much Phil,
hopefully will see you before Vienna, but if not, I look forward to seeing you there
next year,
talk to you later,
mike
On May 18, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I'll email Ray and Malcolm. I'd be happy to contribute. Away all next week
and another couple of weeks in June.
EGU will be in Vienna again. It is set for May 2-7, 2010.
It will also be Vienna in 2011.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:31 16/05/2009, you wrote:

Hey Phil,
I hope all is well w/ you these days. Been a while since I've actually seen you. Perhaps
can convince you to make it to EGU next year? Looks like it will be in Vienna again. I
rather enjoyed this one, and I think I may go back next year.
On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the
other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year ;)
I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are
quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who
aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.
anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to
help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or
Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year.
looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of
Henry's choosing ;)
mike

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [1]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [2]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [3]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[4]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 [5]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

<0905.0445.pdf>

--
Michael E. Mann
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: [6]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References

Visible links
1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
4. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
5. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Hidden links:
9. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm