The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 1243369385.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Gifford Miller <gmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: 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>
<x-flowed>
Darrell (from AGU Toronto):
Great news from Science!
A quick comment on Amplification and signal to noise issues (comment
1 below). It think you meant that the referee felt that Arctic
amplificaton did not translate to a more robust signal because the
noise would be equally amplified. I don't know that we can challenge
the "climate noise" but we can make the case that the "proxy noise",
that is, the uncertainty in proxy calibration, is, as far as I know,
the same in the Arctic as in lower latitudes. Consequently, the
larger temperature signal expected in the Arctic can be more reliably
detected by our proxies because it is more likely to exceed the
sensitivity limits of our proxies. If we assume the "climate noise"
is more or less gaussian, then we should be better able to detect the
relatively subtle temp changes of the Holocene in the Arctic than
elsewhere.
Giff
>Co-authors:
>I just received the reviewers' comments and editor's decision on our
>SCIENCE manuscript (attached). The decision isn't final, but it
>looks like good news, with very reasonable revisions. Reviewer #1
>had nothing substantial to suggest. Reviewer #2 was rather thorough.
>I think I can address his/her suggestions but could use some help
>with three:
>
>(1) The reviewer challenged our assertion that, because climate
>change is amplified in the Arctic, the signal:noise ratio should be
>higher too. We don't have more than 1 sentence to expand on the
>assertion in the text. We could plead the case to editor and hope
>that it doesn't trip up the final acceptance, or we could omit it
>from the text. Suggestions?
>
>(2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about outliers
>influencing the mean values of the composite record, we should
>attempt a so-called "robust" regression procedure, such as median
>absolute deviation regression. Does anyone have experience with this?
>
>(3) The reviewer was concerned that we overestimated the strength of
>the relation between temperature and insolation in the long CCSM
>simulation. Namely s/he criticized the leveraging effect of the one
>outlier in the model-generated insolation vs temperature plot (Fig.
>4b), and suggested that we use 10-year means instead of 50 year.
>Dave: you up for this, please?
>
>Please forward any input to me and I'll compile them, and let you
>all have a look before I submit the final revisions. I'm hoping we
>can turn this around this week.
>
>Thanks.
>Darrell
>
--
Gifford H. Miller, Professor
INSTAAR and Geological Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1243432634.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AR5
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:57:14 +0200
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
Nice to hear from you, and sorry to hear about your mother.
Contrary to what I heard a few days ago, I received yesterday the
invitation to the Scoping meeting in July and look forward to be
joining Peck in providing the paleo-input to the scoping of the report.
On the issue of a separate chapter I agree that this option is most
practical, yet I don
Original Filename: 1243527777.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Darrell et al - got a chance to read the paper and comments enroute to Atlanta. Here's
some feedback..
General - comments are modest and should be easy to accommodate. That said, I think we have
to take the comments of Rev 2 seriously. I'm guessing that its Francis Zwiers and in any
case, he knows what he's talking about regarding stats.
Also - IMPORTANT - I'd make sure we check and recheck every single calculation and dataset.
This paper is going to get the attention of the skeptics and they are going to get all the
data and work hard to show were we messed up. We don't want this - especially you, since it
could take way more of your time than you'd like, and it'll look bad. VERY much worth the
effort in advance.
Ok Rev 1 - wow - never had it so good.
Rev 2
General comment - we should take this one seriously. Get Caspar and Bette's help. The new
synthesis could be telling us (especially when the outlier in Fig 4B is discounted - see
below) that the Arctic is, in reality, more sensitive to changes in radiative forcing than
reflected in the model. Are there other experiments or reasons to think this is true? If
so, let's make this point and back it up with these other pieces of evidence. For example,
does the CCSM get Arctic warming from the earl/mid Holocene to present correctly? Does the
model underestimate the Arctic change obs over the last 100 years. Since the reviewer
raised this, you could add some refs and prose if needed to respond. Not a lot, but some.
And, we need to respond one way or the other.
Specific comments
1. agree, in the abstract, I suggest changing the sentence to read "This trend likely
reflects a steady orbitally-driven reduction in summer insolation, as confirmed by a
1000-year transient climate simulation." Note that this removes more than enough words
to meet the
eds requirement too.
2. for this one, I'd simply state that the forcing is stronger in the Arctic than at lower
lats (double check how much) and also add what Giff suggested.
3. agree, make the suggested clarification
4. important (!) and hopefully easy. I leave to whomever did the calculation to make sure
any serial correlation bias was taken into account. Make sure all p values are thus
corrected.
5. ditto, makes sense too
6. clarify
7. this reviewer knows what he/she is talking about - do what they suggest, and double
check it's done well.
8. Don't delete the para. Instead point out that you've strengthened it and that it is
important to place the new synthesis in a longer term Holocene context. It also clarifies
to interdisciplinary readers why the Arctic is so sensitive (perhaps more sensitive than in
models? - see above). That said, I would cite Kerwin et al 99 - I've attached it. It
provides added detail and balance. Also, since you're responding to a reviewer comment and
strengthening the ms, you can add the ref w/o hassle (or so I'm guessing on recent
experience).
9. yep, delete all "attribution"s in the ms. On p 6, lone 129, can say "...support the
connection between the Arctic summer cooling trend and a orbitally-driven reduction..."
10) reviewer is correct - see my response above for the general comment, and see if you can
work with his/her ideas to improve. The outlier has to be just that?! Need an explanation
before you can remove from any analysis, however.
11) makes sense - do it
12) yep - change text as suggested
13) agree, change p 7, line 153 to read "...1980s appears to have been the single..."
14) agree, change line 167 on p 8 to read "...trend. Our new synthesis suggests that the
most recent 10-year..."
Other suggested changes....
P. 3 line 69 - change region to read regional
P 6 line 128 - "xxx xxxx xxxxto -1600AD) isn't going to make sense to readers. Please provide
some context - SOM or ??
P 7 line 145 - insert "Arctic" before "summer"
P. 11 line 234 change to read "...century. Ten-year means (bold lines) were used..."
Because you don't really say what the bold and unbold lines are - this will help the reader
make sure they have it right.
Fig 4 and caption - need to explain why the isolation axes are labeled differently - the
numbers, and that both are still cover the same number of Wm-2.
Didn't look at SOM, but make sure it's all bomber too, since there is a good chance it will
get PICKED apart, and any errors thrown back in our face in a counter productive manner.
Thanks! Nice job. Best, Peck (probably w/o email for a while in the Amazon, although one
never knows...)
On 5/26/09 1:08 PM, "Darrell Kaufman" <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Co-authors:
I just received the reviewers' comments and editor's decision on our SCIENCE manuscript
(attached). The decision isn't final, but it looks like good news, with very reasonable
revisions. Reviewer #1 had nothing substantial to suggest. Reviewer #2 was rather
thorough. I think I can address his/her suggestions but could use some help with three:
(1) The reviewer challenged our assertion that, because climate change is amplified in
the Arctic, the signal:noise ratio should be higher too. We don't have more than 1
sentence to expand on the assertion in the text. We could plead the case to editor and
hope that it doesn't trip up the final acceptance, or we could omit it from the text.
Suggestions?
(2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about outliers influencing the mean
values of the composite record, we should attempt a so-called "robust" regression
procedure, such as median absolute deviation regression. Does anyone have experience
with this?
(3) The reviewer was concerned that we overestimated the strength of the relation
between temperature and insolation in the long CCSM simulation. Namely s/he criticized
the leveraging effect of the one outlier in the model-generated insolation vs
temperature plot (Fig. 4b), and suggested that we use 10-year means instead of 50 year.
Dave: you up for this, please?
Please forward any input to me and I'll compile them, and let you all have a look before
I submit the final revisions. I'm hoping we can turn this around this week.
Thanks.
Darrell
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lisa Johnson <[2]ljohnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: May 26, 2009 12:25:40 PM GMT-07:00
To: Darrell S Kaufman <[3]Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision
26 May 2009
Dr. Darrell S Kaufman
Department of Geology
Frier Hall Knoles Dr
Northern Arizona University
Box 4099
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
UserID: 1173983
Password: 307923
Dear Dr. Kaufman:
Thank you for sending us your manuscript "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic
Cooling." We are interested in publishing the paper as a Report, but we cannot accept
it in its present form. Please revise your manuscript in accord with the referees'
comments (pasted below) and as indicated on the attached editorial checklist and marked
manuscript. I have also made some suggestions regarding shortening and clarification
directly on the manuscript. Because of the nature of the reviewers' comments and
revisions required, we may send the revised manuscript back for further review.
Please return your revised manuscript with a cover letter describing your response to
the referees' comments. We prefer to receive your revision electronically via our WWW
site ([4]http://www.submit2science.org/revisionupload/) using the User information
above. In your letter, please also include your travel schedule for the next several
weeks so we can contact you if necessary. The revised manuscript must reach us within
four weeks if we are to preserve your original submission date; if you cannot meet this
deadline, please let us know as soon as possible when we can expect the revision.
The cost of color illustrations is $650 for the first color figure and $450 for each
additional color figure. In addition there is a comparable charge for use of color in
reprints. We ask that you submit your payment with your reprint order, which you will
receive with your galley proofs. We also now provide a free electronic reprint service;
information will be sent by email immediately after your paper is published in Science
Online.
Science allows authors to retain copyright of their work. You will be asked to grant
Science an exclusive license to publish your paper when you return your manuscript via
our revision WWW site. We must have your acceptance of this publication agreement in
order to accept your paper. Additional information regarding the publication license is
available in the instructions for authors on our www site.
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Please let me know if I can be of
assistance.
Please let me know that you have received this email and can read the attached files.
Sincerely,
Jesse Smith, Ph.D.
Senior Editor
___________________________________________________________________________________
[cid:3326358178_1079548]
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
[cid:3326358178_1100494]
___________________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute of the Environment
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: [5]jto@u.arizona.edu
PA Lou Regalado xxx xxxx xxxx
[6]regalado@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Embedded Content: image.png: 00000001,3e910253,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content:
image1.png: 00000001,35902c45,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachkerwin_et_al&role&1999.pdf"
References
1. file://localhost/tmp/Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. file://localhost/tmp/ljohnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. file://localhost/tmp/Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.submit2science.org/revisionupload/
5. file://localhost/tmp/jto@u.arizona.edu
6. file://localhost/tmp/regalado@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1244067818.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: David Schneider <dschneid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: spatial pattern
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: 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>, Bo Vinther <bo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
I don't think we should go there. Any PC analysis on proxy data will be picked apart by the
skeptics, even if it yields some useful insight, and I don't recall there being anything
too exciting in the pattern given the limited amount of data.
Dave
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Darrell Kaufman <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Dave and Nick:
I've been thinking about the remaining holes in the manuscript. Spatial patterns are
important. At one point we explored the spatial pattern of the PC scores. I think it
would be good to bring this up in the SOM. I could make a dot map showing the site
locations and their correlations with PC1. The upshot would be that the proxy types are
not uniformly distributed, and there are too few records to discern any spatial patterns
from any geographical or proxy-type bias (e.g., high-elevation ice cores).
Thoughts?
Darrell
References
1. mailto:Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1245773909.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: adrian.simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Dick Dee <Dick.Dee@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: 2009JD012442 (Editor - Steve Ghan): Decision Letter]
Date: Tue Jun 23 12:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Willett, Kate" <kate.willett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Thorne <peter.w.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Adrian,
Emails to Kate yesterday were returned by the ECMWF server (for your email
address) but not for Dick's?
I also found the two emails you sent last night in my spam list. No idea why
this is happening. I found some other semi-important emails in my spam as well!
Anyway - hope you get this email!
All three reviewers are positive, which is good, but there is still a lot of to do as
you say.
Here are some initial thoughts. Before I begin - it seems as though Rev 2 comments have
ended abruptly during #13. I'd suggest you ask if there is any more?
Rev 1
I would have thought that the second point (larger trends in full ERA-INTERIM fields) was
just an interesting aside, and not as important as the RH decline.
I'll need to go back to see if sections 5 and 6 can be reordered/restructured?
Both Reviewers 1 and 2 (they appear to be Kevin and Aiguo, but odd to have two people
who only live a few rooms apart!) make quite a few statements about GPCC. We're
doing updating work on the higher resolution CRU-TS (0.5 by 0.5 degree lat/long)
datasets. We're doing comparisons with GPCC and for the Giorgi type regions (as in
Fig 3.14 of Ch 3 of AR4) and the agreement is amazingly good. Maybe all you
need to point to is this Figure and the previous one (Fig 3.12) to say that for land
regions at the continental scale, it doesn't matter which datasets are used (for the
period
from the 1970s). The key thing is that they just use gauges, with no satellites.
My view is that bringing in satellites as in CMAP and GPCP products can lead to
problems, and some circularity with ERA results - as you'll be using some of the same
satellite data products. The point to emphasize for precip is that GPCC is totally
independent from any ERA (40 or Interim) input.
I've come across these issues about GPCC before. I've been haranguing Bruno Rudolf
and now Tobias Fuchs of GPCC to write something up for a number of years within AOPC!
I think their QC is likely the best of all the centres, but they will continue to get
these
doubts if they don't write anything up. They should at least explain how they do their
interpolation - it can certainly be done better.
GPCC is using so much more data that is has to be better than any other product.
They can't release the raw station data, and it seems they can't release the numbers
in each grid box.
There will be an HC paper on the buoy/ship SST issue, but this isn't yet used
operationally.
It will come, but not before your paper goes back.
I hope it is fairly straightforward to do RMSs as well as correlations. We had SDs in the
2004 paper. I don't think RMSs would show anything untoward, but would take up some
more space.
WRT Rev 2, I'm not that convinced by some of Aiguo's arguments. Between us, I'm
not that convinced by some of his data analyses. The ones involving PDSI leave a
lot to be desired (this is coming to light in other work we are doing).
Rev 2 #6 Obviously not read the paper(s). CRUTEM3 is a simple average of stations
within a grid box. There is no interpolation! If there are no stations, then there is no
value!
I think this is the same for HadCRUH as well.
Rev 2 #13 Comment seems to end abruptly. I'd like to know what I might
have said! I don't think I've ever said I doubt GPCP!
I am around all the time except for the week of July 12-17, when I'll
be at the IPCC Scoping meeting in Venice. Kevin will be there as well.
Aiguo will be in CRU the first few days of the week after (July 20/21)
Cheers
Phil
At 22:53 22/06/2009, Adrian Simmons wrote:
Dick
It's a bit irritating getting a review one wants to nail just before leaving for
Brussels for three days of EC-related meetings.
I'm sure now that reviewer 2's comments on SYNOP numbers is easily answered. The number
of GTS SYNOPs went up a lot, but that's not because there were a lot more stations
installed - the existing one just started having their data transmitted more frequently
than 6-hourly. But this should hardly have effected the RH2m analysis as it uses only
the 0, 6 , 12 and 18UTC obs that have been there pretty well all the time. It only uses
off-time obs if the value for the main synoptic hour is missing. The 4D-Var does
assimilate more data over time, but here we appeal to fig 8 and argue that the increment
does not shift over time. We already argue in the Appendix that the extra obs over North
America may well be part of the difficulty HadCRUHext has for that region.
Anyway I'd like to confirm that the number of used SYNOPs does not change much over time
for the OI RH2m analysis. I know how to find the number in the job output, but I don't
know how to retrieve the job output from the logfiles stored in ECFS. I would only look
at a few samples. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know how to do this.
In any case even if there was a problem with the numbers increasing sharply around 2000,
this would manifest itself in a sudden drop in the RH time series, not a steady decline
over the last few years.
After a bit of thinking I can find several things wrong with reviewer 2's argument why q
over land is insensitive to variations in q over sea (think coastal mountain ranges,
deserts, drought regions - moisture does not simply build up everywhere over land via
onshore winds from the boundary-layer until it rains), and the response can draw
attention to other points made in the paper, such as the coherence of changes in the
vertical, and the similarity (but lag) of the q series over land and sea. Hard to
believe the latter is all coincidence.
Also, there is a relationship between q and precip, not generally strong, but there's a
high correlation for Australia.
Better stop for now.
Adrian
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 2009JD012442 (Editor - Steve Ghan): Decision Letter
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:42:51 UT
From: jgr-atmospheres@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Reply-To: jgr-atmospheres@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: adrian.simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Manuscript Number: 2009JD012442
Manuscript Title: Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature
and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational datasets
Dear Dr. Simmons:
Attached below please find 3 reviews on your above-referenced paper. One of the
Reviewers has raised questions and made suggestions for important revisions, mostly
involving organization and presentation. Please consider the Reviewer reports carefully,
make the necessary changes in your manuscript and respond to me, explaining how you have
addressed these comments. In your Response to Reviewer letter, please include a
statement confirming that all authors listed on the manuscript concur with submission in
its revised form.
The due date for your revised paper is July 20, 2009. If you will be unable to submit a
revised manuscript by July 20, 2009, please notify my office and arrange for an
extension (maximum two weeks). If we do not hear from you by the revision due date, your
manuscript will be considered as withdrawn.
When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below.
*The link below will begin the resubmission of your manuscript, please Do Not click on
the link until you are ready to upload your revised files. Any partial submission that
sits for 3 days without files will be deleted.
<[1]http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A5Bc4EasP6A2oLJ3I6A9jNWgL
zbgfWly58nFGPxNeQZ>
(NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to
share this link with co-authors or colleagues, please be aware that they will have
access to your entire account for this journal.)
**In order to save time upon acceptance, it would be helpful if files in the correct
format are uploaded at revision. Article and table files may be in Word, WordPerfect or
LaTeX and figure files should be separately uploaded as .eps, .tif or pdf files. If you
have color figures, please go to the site below to select a color option. Please put
your color option in the cover letter.
[2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/e_publishing/AGU-publication-fees.pdf
Sincerely,
Steve Ghan
Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres
-----------Important JGR-Atmospheres Information------------------------------
Submission, Review and Publication Stages Chart
Text Preparation and Formatting
Manuscript Preparation
Acceptable Electronic File Formats
Editorial Style Guide for Authors
Auxiliary Materials (Electronic Supplements)
Artwork Preparation
Guidelines for Preparing Graphics Files
Figure FAQ
Prices for Color in AGU Journals
AGU Copyright Transfer Form
Manuscript Status Tool (for manuscripts recently accepted)
If you need assistance with file formats and/or color charges please e-mail
jgr-atmospheres@xxxxxxxxx.xxx and quote your manuscript number.
If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to download the forms, it is available, free, on the
internet at: [3]http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer #2 (Comments):
Review of JGR Manuscript entitled
Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation:
inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational data sets
by A.J. Simmons, K.M. Willett, P.D. Jones, P.W. Thorne, and D. Dee
General comments:
This paper provides a nice and useful summary on how the ERA-40 and ERA-Interim surface
analysis products of temperature and humidity were derived, and a fairly comprehensive
evaluation/comparison with the HadCRU surface data sets derived purely from surface
observations, as well as with three other precipitation products. They found that in
general the ERA surface temperature and humidity data from 1973 onward are in close
agreement with the HadCRU data sets and that ERA precipitation also follows closely with
gauge-based products, although long-term changes differ. Furthermore, the study reports
a significant and steady decline in surface relative humidity (RH) over land from
~1xxx xxxx xxxxand suggested that the recent steady SSTs might be responsible for this land
RH decrease. The manuscript is well written, the analysis appears to be comprehensive,
and the results are of interest to many readers in the climate community. I think the
paper should be published after some relat
ively
minor revisions.
My main concern is the interpretation of the recent RH decline over land. To me, the RH
decreases shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 look a bit spurious (non-climatic, e.g., lack of
variations in Fig. 4 and stepwise changes in Fig.7) rather than realistic changes. They
are also inconsistent with the RH changes during recent decades (up to 2004) reported in
Dai (2006, JC), and this is not pointed out in the paper. As shown in Dai (2006), there
was a 3-fold increase around the late 1990s in the number of surface humidity reports
(mostly in North America but also over some other regions) included in the WMO SYNOP GTS
reports. Furthermore, I personally found that there were other (undocumented) changes in
the SYNOP reports around that time that led to shifts in derived precipitation and cloud
frequencies over Euroasia and other places. Thus, there are reasons to suspect some
non-climatic changes in the SYNOP reports around the late 1990s that might alter the RH
trend over land.
I also was not convinced by the physical explanation of the RH decline (p.23). Even if
the surface q stayed the same over the oceans during the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod when land air
temperature has been increasing, this can not explain the RH decrease over land. This is
because as long as the marine air contains more water vapor than continental surface air
(which is still true even if marine sfc. q did not increase), advection of marine air
onto land should cause land q to accumulate and RH to increase until the land q and RH
reach certain levels so that precipitation kicks in to remove the moisture over land.
Remember that the atmospheric moisture storage (PW) is very small compared with the
annual P and E fluxes, thus any perturbation in RH is quickly (within days) restored
through surface E, vertical mixing, or lateral advection/mixing. If the RH in the marine
air had decreased, then land RH would likely to decease too. Dai (2006) did not show RH
decreases over oceans since the
1980s. I wish the authors of this paper would also show RH series over ocean, at least
since the middle 1980s.
For the ERA humidity data, the large well-known inhomogeneities in radiosonde humidity
records will certainly propagate into the ERA background forecast and its analysis
fields, making them not really suitable for long-term trend analyses. For example, all
U.S.-operated radiosonde records (including many in the Pacific) before about Oct. 1993
report a dew point depression (DPD) of 30deg.C or a RH of 20% for any cases where RH is
below 20%, which resulted in an abnormally higher frequency of reports of DPD=30deg.C
and few reports below and no reports above DPD=30deg.C. This practice is also found in
some Mexican, Canadian, Australian, and few other places (but stopped at different times
from the late 1980s to the 1990s). In general, the newer humidity sensors during the
last xxx xxxx xxxxyears report more low RH or large DPD cases, whereas earlier ones had no
measurements or incorrect values for these cases. One can see this shift in the
histograms of daily DPD made by different humi
dity
sensors. Thus, one needs to be very cautious when radiosonde humidity data are used in
assessing trends, even if they are used indirectly (as in the ERA surface humidity
analysis).
Some other comments:
1. Abstract: it gives the impression that even the long-term mean values for surface T,
q and RH are the same between ERA and HadCRU data sets, which appears to be not the case
as the respective means are removed in all plots. Please mention that the climatological
mean may differ (if this is the case) even though the anomaly variations are similar.
2. Abstract, at the end: Please note that the mean precipitation amount and its change
rate are not controlled by atmospheric water vapor amount (q), although higher q is
often associated with higher P (e.g., tropical vs. high latitudes). Locally, you can
have moist air passing by without any rain. Globally, annual P is controlled by how much
moisture gets evaporated from ocean and land surfaces (i.e., P=E), and this surface E is
primarily controlled by surface energy terms. In essence, P and E are water fluxes, and
PW (or q) is the water storage in the atmosphere. People often link P to q because of
the associated mentioned above (through low-level moisture convergence in a storm,
etc.), and think that P change rates somehow should follow that of q or PW. However, and
P (or E) and q are controlled by different processes and in general the flux terms are
not coupled with the storage terms in a cycling system (e.g., no one would think P or E
is controlled by water storage in t
he
ocean).
3. p. 3, top: the net radiative effect of clouds is relatively small, when their effect
on solar radiation is included. To include clouds in the natural greenhouse warmth is a
bit misleading because the higher surface temperature is maintained primarily by the
greenhouse effect of water vapor and CO2.
4. p. 4, middle: Again, any sampling/reporting biases in WMO SYNOP reports could affect
both ERA and HadCRUH humidity data. Thus caution is still needed.
5. pp.5-6, section 2a: So in essence, ERA-40 and ERA-Interim surface T, q, and RH are
another analysis product based on surface observations, just like the HadCRU and other
climate data sets. The only difference is in the analysis methodology (IO interpolation
with the use of the ERA background forecast fields vs. other more conventional analysis
methods). Like most users, I thought the ERA surface fields are more tightly coupled
with the reanalysis model system. I think it would be helpful to point out the above at
the beginning of this section or in the Introduction.
6. p. 7, top: Please briefly mention how the station anomalies were aggregated onto
5deg. grid in CRUTEMP3, e.g., by simply averaging station values within the grid box, or
making use of correlated, nearby station data outside the box when sampling inside the
box is sparse? I think most people would use the later to increase the coverage in the
gridded products.
7. p. 7, bottom: Have any adjustments/corrections done for the most recent decades
(1xxx xxxx xxxx) in HadCRUH+ext? This is the period when RH decreases. Are there any
homogeneity issues in combining the extended records with the homogenized HadCRUH?
8. p. 9, top: How could the fit of the ERA background forecasts capture multiple shifts
induced by instrumental changes or reporting practices, especially when the future
changes are needed to determine the timing and the size of a shift. Many statistical
methods specifically designed to do these two tasks by analyzing the whole historical
series still have difficulties in reliably detecting the locations of shifts and can
only make a best guess regarding the real shift size. I wonder how one can do this in a
reanalysis system when future records are not used yet, or nearby station series are
combined together to form a grid box series that contain shifts from multiple stations
(i.e., the stepwise patterns become very complex and look more like real variations).
9. p. 9, middle: I can't believe the GPCC people are still gridding precipitation total,
not anomalies. This makes their products useless for long-term change analyses. Another
land precipitation product from 1948-present that is derived from gauge records and the
OI method is the PRECL from the NCEP Climate Prediction Center (CPC, ref: Chen et al.
2002, J. Hydrometorol.). I think that is a better products for assessing long-term
changes in land precipitation, although the gauge coverage for recent years (after 1997)
may be not as good as that of the GPCC.
10. p. 11, middle and bottom: need to point out in Abstract or Summary that differences
in the mean exist between the ERA and HadCRU T and humidity data.
11. Fig. 1 and other Figures: I suspect that different mean values were removed in
computing the difference series. If that's the case, then need to point out this (i.e.,
the difference is between the anomalies relative to their respective mean).
12. Fig. 4: also show RH over the oceans for the last 25 years?
13. Fig. 11: with the changing gauge coverage and gridding precipitation total, one can
not trust the low-frequency variations in the GPCC products. Phil Jones and other have
Reviewer #3 (Comments):
Review of the paper entitled "Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity,
temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded
observational dataset" by A.J. Simmons, K. M. Willett, P. D. Thorne and D. Dee.
Recommendation: Accept with minor changes.
Summary of the paper:
This is an elaborate study examining trends in temperature, humidity and precipitation
from the latest ECMWF reanalysis, comparing with independent gridded analyses, which are
also performed with utmost care. The paper revealed that the commonly accepted
assumption that the relative humidity stays the same under global warming condition does
not necessarily holds over land. This is an important finding and should be of interest
to wide climate communities. There are several other important contributions, such as
the sensitivity of observation coverage on long term trend, which can only be studied by
the use of reanalysis that has full global coverage. This paper also presents that the
ERA-40 and ERA-Interim are of very high quality and useable for low frequency climate
studies.
Major comments:
1. I am particularly impressed with the way the work is performed. This is a very
elaborate work using a variety of datasets to present that there is a strong long time
trend in temperature and humidity. This thorough work made it possible to convince
readers these observed facts. Although the finding of the decrease in relative humidity
over land is credible, it may be more meteorologically interesting and convincing if
additional analysis is made to present the possible mechanisms of the absence of
increase in specific humidity over land. If reanalysis is used, it is not impossible to
estimate the change in the moisture transport into land areas (although this may involve
considerable amount of work). It may also possible to examine the change in large scale
mean land-ocean circulation that contributes to the transport of moisture. From
heuristic point of view, stronger heating over land tends to strengthen upper level high
and subsidence, which may prevent moisture to be
transported inland, and such trend may be detectable from large scale reanalysis. In
terms of the change in precipitation, moisture availability and relative humidity are
important, but static stability and large scale convergence should also play an
important role. If any of these additional analyses can be performed, or even discussed
in qualitative manner, it will enhance the paper.
2. It is not very clear how the diurnal variations of temperature and humidity are
handled in this study. It is helpful to state the time frequency of reanalysis output
that is used to compute daily mean, and the way observed daily mean are obtained.
3. Are there any reason that the relative humidity or dew point depression is analyzed
and not the specific humidity itself?
4. The paper is a little too long. One way to shorten it is to separating it into two
parts by adding analysis suggested above, or separating the analysis of precipitation.
This is just a suggestion and decision is up to the authors.
Minor comments:
1. Page 6 & 11. The authors claim that the use of anomaly will reduce the influence of
surface elevation differences. Can this be true even the relation between elevation and
relative humidity/specific humidity is very nonlinear?
2. It may be friendlier to the reader why relative humidity and specific humidity are
both examined. Some introductory remarks on the different impact of relative and
specific humidity will help.
3. Page 13. Lines xxx xxxx xxxx. These lines just present why the ERA-40 and Interim are
different but not the reason for the ERA-Interim worse than ERA-40 over Africa.
4. Page 14. Lines xxx xxxx xxxx. Is it possible to separate the actual reduction in the number
of observations and the reduction in data used by CRUTEM?
5. Page 15. Line 364. It seems that the difference in analysis between ERA-40 and
ERA-Interim seems to be used as a measure of the reanalysis accuracy. Is this a good
assumption?
6. Page 17. Lines xxx xxxx xxxx. Can it be possible to mathematically estimate the relation
between the correlation of specific humidity and relative humidity? Since relative
humidity is a function of specific humidity, temperature and pressure, it seems natural
that the correlation for relative humidity should be lower. However, this will depend on
which parameters are analyzed in the first place.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Adrian Simmons
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A5Bc4EasP6A2oLJ3I6A9jNWgLzbgfWly58nFGPxNeQZ
2. http://www.agu.org/pubs/e_publishing/AGU-publication-fees.pdf
3. http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
Original Filename: 1245941966.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Nick Pepin" <nicholas.pepin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: CRU surface temperature dataset
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:59:26 +0100
Phil
Thanks for this great detail. I am thinking that probably a raw radiosonde dataset may be better (I tried this before using the LKS dataset but station density was an issue and only ended up with around 20 station pairs) - it sounds as though things have improved dramatically in that area and will look at the sources you suggest. My hope is that at least I can find hundreds/thousands of stations near to my high elevation surface ones for comparison. If not I could interpolate spatially maybe between radiosondes to my surface sites since free-air climate (not meteorology) should be relatively smooth in space. I cannot interpolate between surface stations.
I agree that reanalyses can be a can of worms (esp NCEP/NCAR)!
As for the surface I'll also look at the site you suggest and get back if I have any Q/problems. I appreciate the time you have taken to answer some of my Q!
Best wishes
Nick
>>> Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 24/06/2009 13:09 >>>
Nick,
I don't want to put off, but there is an awful lot of things
wrong with NCEP/NCAR.
They are probably OK for month-to-month variability, but if you look at some
of the figures in Simmons et al (2004) you'll see that for trends they are
practically useless before 1979.
There is just so much wrong with the sondes which together with the
introduction of satellite data in 1978/9 makes reanalyses awful.
The Simmons paper is about how much better ERA-40 is than NCEP/NCAR.
It is also telling you that you shouldn't be using NCEP/NCAR for
trends - and ERA-40
is only OK in Europe and North America.
A group of us are hopeful of getting an EU project funded to go
through the
Reanalysis input - surface and sonde. The aim is to put in all the
homogenised
surface and sonde data, so giving reanalysis better data input -
and putting back all the
data that missed the real-time cut. I'm not sure you're aware that
no back data have
ever got into the reanalyses. If data doesn't make the cut in real
time, it can never get
in later. The reanalysis source input doesn't collect back data!
You'd be better off getting one of the newer sonde datasets.
HadAT2 although developed
in 2005 is beyond it's sell-by date. Have a look at the attached
and this web site
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/leoweb/index.html
Ra-ob core version 1.4 is the latest.
The drop off in surface data isn't the fault of GHCNv2. The
folks in Asheville are doing all
they can to get additional datasets. Currently about 2000 sites are
exchanged in real time.
If the sites you want are not exchanged by Met Services in real
time we can't get access
to them except by asking each Met Service and/or waiting till the
next volumes of the 10-year
books (for 2xxx xxxx xxxx) get released.
CRUTEM3 has some additional station data going in for Australia
and Canada, but apart
from this we will have nothing more than GHCNv2. We could get a
load more from the US
quite easily, but coverage is reasonable there compared to the rest
of the world.
GHCNv2 and ourselves have lots of historic series, but these
aren't updatable in real
time, without continuous effort. Lots of projects were funded in
the US and Europe in the
1980s and 1990s to get loads of data digitized, homogenized and accessible.
It is possible to do things with daily data (SYNOPS) but these are
only generally good enough for the good countries.
http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/bvbw/dwdwwwDesktop/?_nfpb=true&switchLang=en&_pageLabel=_dwdwww_klima_umwelt_datenzentren_gsnmc
This site has what is available in real time - since 2001. This
site can be very annoying.
There is a link back to NCDC.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 17:48 23/06/2009, you wrote:
>Phil
>
>Many thanks for your reply. This is very helpful, esp the Simmons paper.
>I am aware there are issues with reanalyses although I do want to
>try and use data representative of free air (and not contaminated
>with surface obs)- hence NCEP/NCAR rather than ERA-40 maybe, and use
>of pressure level data rather than 2 m or surface reanalysis temps
>(which I think the Simmons paper is about). I don't want the
>reanalysis to respond to surface issues and want it to be
>independent (purely based on radiosonde and satellite coupled with modelling).
>Of course this doesn't make the points irrelevant and I am looking
>at these while deciding what to use.
>
>As regards surface data, I am interested in the Tmean you mention
>used for CRUTEM3. Is this available and for how many stations?
>GHCNv2 is not good after 1990 since many stations stop! It is
>particularly dire after 2005 as you may realise? Please let me know
>what you think?
>
>Best wishes and thanks for your help re this.
>
>Nick
>
> >>> Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 22/06/2009 10:38 >>>
>
> Nick,
> I was away when your earlier message can in March, and I must have
> forgotten it when I got back to Norwich.
> We generally only put the gridded data on the web site. The
>station data that
> goes into CRUTEM3 is only monthly mean temperature. It is only
>since the mid-1990s
> that countries have routinely exchanged monthly mean Tx and Tn
>data. Many countries
> don't use these data to calculate mean T, instead using their
>historical methods based
> on fixed hours.
> We do have an archive of historic Tx and Tn (monthly) but this
>is almost entirely
> based on GHCNv2 sources. We use these data in products like this paper
>
>
>Mitchell, T.D. and Jones, P.D., 2005: An improved method of
>constructing a database of monthly climate observations and
>associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
> When you compare with Reanalysis trends you want to consider
>looking at ERA-INTERIM
> available from 1xxx xxxx xxxx. There are also longer reanalysis products
>developed by NOAA
> (Gil Compo) from surface station data only (i.e. no sondes and no
>satellites, so
> consistent through time).
>
> Are you aware of this paper? Basically reanalyses will be wrong
>before 1979 - except possibly
> in Europe and North America. This paper has the reasons why
>reanalyses will be wrong.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>At 15:06 17/06/2009, you wrote:
> >Dear Prof. Jones
> >You maybe had forgotten that I e-mailed you a while ago (March)
> >asking about access to data for surface stations for work on
> >temperature trends in complex topography (original e-mail and
> details below).
> >Since then I have been awarded a Royal Society Travel Grant to do
> >some work on this in the U.S. and I will be examining the GHCNv2
> >dataset in detail (which I have). I would really like to be able to
> >include a CRU dataset as well, since I did this in my original
> >research and these datasets are highly regarded.
> >If you are not the correct person to ask, maybe you could guide me
> >to the right person!
> >Many thanks for your reply.
> >Best wishes
> >Nick Pepin
> >
> >
> > >>> Nick Pepin 09/03/2009 16:43 >>>
> >Dear Prof. Jones
> >You may remember that a few years ago (2005) I published a paper
> >with Dian Seidel looking at temperature trends at high elevation
> >surface stations and comparing them with reanalysis trends. I wish
> >to update this work as part of another project, and was looking on
> >the UEA website to see if any of the original stations have been
> >updated. It is important that they are homogeneity adjusted as much
> >as possible.
> >
> >It appears that nearly all of the datasets available on the web are
> >gridded and therefore interpolated (which I don't want since
> >interpolation influences what I am examining). Are any of the 3000
> >approx original stations available (mean monthly maxima and minima
> >are good enough) which are used to create CRUTEM3 etc?
> >
> >In my original analysis I combined data from the CRU station dataset
> >and GHCN (some stations were in both) and I would like to do the
> >same again if possible. This is part of work looking at the effect
> >of topography on temperature trend patterns on a global scale (it
> >will be more detailed than preliminary work on this in the attached paper).
> >
> >Many thanks for your help
> >Best wishes
> >Nick Pepin
> >
> >
> >
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1245943185.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: Skeptics
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Phil,
well put, it is a parallel universe. irony is as you note, often the contrarian arguments
are such a scientific straw man, that an effort to address them isn't even worthy of the
peer-reviewed literature!
mike
On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Just spent 5 minutes looking at Watts up. Couldn't bear it any longer - had to
stop!. Is there really such a parallel universe out there? I could understand all of
the words some commenters wrote - but not in the context they used them.
It is a mixed blessing. I encouraged Tom Peterson to do the analysis with the
limited number of USHCN stations. Still hoping they will write it up for a full journal
article.
Problem might be though - they get a decent reviewer who will say there is nothing
new in the paper, and they'd be right!
Cheers
Phil
At 15:53 24/06/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Phil--thanks for the update on this. I think your read on this is absolutely correct. By
the way, "Watts up" has mostly put "ClimateAudit" out of business. a mixed blessing I
suppose.
talk to you later,
mike
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin,
Good to see you, if briefly, at NCAR on Friday. The day went well, as did the
dinner in the evening.
It must be my week on Climate Audit! Been looking a bit and Mc said he
has no interest in developing an alternative global T series. He'd also said earlier
it would be easy to do. I'm 100% confident he knows how robust the land component
is.
I also came across this on another thread. He obviously likes doing these
sorts of things, as opposed to real science. They are going to have a real go
at procedures when it comes to the AR5. They have lost on the science, now they
are going for the process.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [1]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<McIntyre_Submission_to_EPA.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: [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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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
Original Filename: 1246458696.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Luterbacher J
Original Filename: 1246479448.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: haozx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: =?gb2312?B?Rnc6IFRpbXMgQW5zd2Vy?=
Date: Wed Jul 1 16:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Luterbacher J
Original Filename: 1246479579.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: haozx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: =?gb2312?B?Rnc6IFRpbXMgQW5zd2Vy?=
Date: Wed Jul 1 16:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Luterbacher J
Original Filename: 1247199598.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: I.Harris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: cruts tmp to 2008
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:19:58 +0100 (BST)
Reply-to: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Harry,
finally had time to take a look at the latest cruts3 run through to 2008
for tmp, picked up from /cru/cruts/
Two PDFs showing seasonal national means are attached.
Look at ...2008a_vs_2008b.pdf first. Black is your previous update to
2008, pink is the latest one. Many very similar, some small differences
(presumably due to outlier 3/4 SD removal... note that as these are
national/seasonal means, outliers might be quite large, yet only show up
small in the means if many other stations contribute).
page 4. The hot spike in Guatemala SON has been removed in the new
version. That looks much better.
page 6 & page 9: the hot spikes in France, Italy and Austria in JJA in
2003 have been reduce slightly too. Not sure if this is right or not,
could ask Phil what he thinks. Could Jul & Aug 2003 have been so hot that
some observations validly did exceed the +3SD outlier check? Or do you
use a +4SD check for TMP? Anyway, this is one to ask Phil about.
There are various other erroneous hot spikes that have now been correctly
removed, I won't list them all here.
However, there are some cold spikes in both previous and latest 2008
updates... see e.g. Mali SON on page 12. Have you turned on only outlier
checking for +3SD, and not for -3SD? Some wrong-looking cold spikes are
still present.
Now look at ...2005_vs_2008b.pdf. Black is last years CRUTS3 through to
2005 (I know the files went to mid 2006, but I stopped at last complete
year). Note this isn't CRUTS2.1! :-) Pink is again the newest version of
the update to 2008.
There are some early 20th century differences that I'm not too bothered
about, though it would be nice to know why they arise. One concern is
that the mean level is different between the versions... see e.g. JJA for
various countries on pages 7 and 8. Seems to be a constant offset. It's
too big to be a simple rounding error in my calculations (I may have
changed from 1 dec. place to 2 dec. place, but some differences are about
0.5 deg C), and these are absolute values so there's no dependency on any
anomalisation/reference period meaning as I'm not doing any.
Intriguing. Perhaps some normals have change in some regions/seasons?
So:
(1) hot spikes have been corrected.
(2) cold spikes still there.
(3) some odd differences in mean level.
Progress!
Tim
--
Dr. Tim Osborn
RCUK Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachidl_cruts3_2008a_vs_2008b.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachidl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf"
Original Filename: 1248785856.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
The leads and lags are analyzed in detail in this paper
Trenberth, K. E., J. M. Caron, D. P. Stepaniak, and S. Worley 2002: [1]The evolution of
ENSO and global atmospheric surface temperatures J. Geophys. Res., 107, D8,
10.1029/2000JD000298.
and we were not able to reproduce Tom Wigley's result (we tried). It may depend in indices
used. In this paper we also document the extent to which ENSO contributes to warming
overall.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
See below for instructions.
Also, just because IPCC (2007, Ch 3) didn't point out the 6/7-month lag
between the SOI and global temperatures doesn't mean it hasn't been
known for years. IPCC is an assessment and not a review of everything
done. If they had even read Wigley (2001) they would have seen this
lag pointed out. I wasn't the first to do this in 1989 either. I don't
think Walker was either. I think the first was Hildebrandsson in the
1890s. Why does it always go back to a Swede!
file is at [2]ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk
login anonymously with emails as pw
then go to people/philjones
and you should find santeretal2001.pdf
Cheers
Phil
At 14:08 28/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Phil,
this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of
the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. I've
taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues who have
been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a
response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some
time ago, and has been doing a number of analyses aimed at
demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al.
I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is
ready to the broader group of people who have been included in these
exchanges for feedback and potential co-authorship,
mike
p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup
message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be downloaded?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there
are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of
reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing
the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to
concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the
paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be
just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they
smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980
from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this
removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is
possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also
enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without
the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These
clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI
doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30
are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events
occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say
what is purported - in fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies
the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it
is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen,
J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and
Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO
in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did
something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I
added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual
timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [3]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [4]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to
do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking
here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to
write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if
it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [5]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor
was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high
pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all
the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets
that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[6]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et- tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--
papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an
algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the
IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left
(the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at
all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface
temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in
every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the
oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [8]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place
and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter,
and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[9]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [11]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [15]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[16]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[17]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [21]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [22]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this,
I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading
a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff
on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [24]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at
Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [25]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been
on travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to
do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking
here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to
write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if
it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [26]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor
was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high
pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got
a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all
the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped
through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets
that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer
MSU data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were
a series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[27]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an
algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions
of the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the
IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left
(the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at
all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to
estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on
the surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface
temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the
mid 1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO,
volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little
less than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in
every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen
for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[28]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is
intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader
of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the
oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [29]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place
and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter,
and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently
published paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[30]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[31]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [32]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [33]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[34]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [35]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [36]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[37]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[38]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [39]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [40]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[41]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [42]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [43]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[44]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 [45]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Parker-on-Pielke-2009.pdf><Jones_ENSO_1990.pdf><wigley2001.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: [46]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [47]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[48]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
thanks Phil,
this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of the main points that
need to be covered in a formal response. I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple
other colleagues who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a
response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some time ago, and has
been doing a number of analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et
al.
I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is ready to the
broader group of people who have been included in these exchanges for feedback and
potential co-authorship,
mike
p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup message. Can you post
in on ftp where it can be downloaded?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after
volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported -
in fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D.,
Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the
effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature
trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 28xxx xxxx xxxx.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[49]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[50]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[51]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[52]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[53]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[54]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[55]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[56]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [57]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [58]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[59]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [60]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [61]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[62]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[63]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [64]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [65]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[66]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [67]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [68]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[69]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a
similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email
asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible
strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is
great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is
preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who
wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry
24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[70]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just
linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope
would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same
Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this
would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[71]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[72]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[73]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[74]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[75]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[76]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[77]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [78]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [79]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[80]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [81]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [82]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[83]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[84]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [85]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [86]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[87]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [88]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [89]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann
Original Filename: 1248790545.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Tue Jul 28 10:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported - in
fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D.,
Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects
of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [6]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[7]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[8]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a
similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email
asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible
strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is
great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is
preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who
wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry
24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[13]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just
linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope
would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same
Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this
would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[15]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[16]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[17]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[18]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[19]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[20]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [21]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [22]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [24]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [25]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[26]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[27]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [28]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [29]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[30]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
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: [31]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [32]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[33]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://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu
2. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
6. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
7. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
8. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
9. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
10. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
13. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
17. mailto:sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
20. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
21. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
23. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
24. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
26. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
27. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
28. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
29. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
30. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
31. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
32. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
33. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Original Filename: 1248862973.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:22:53 +1200
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Good morning all from tomorrowland (Wednesday!)
Gosh, you have all been very busy overnight here. Thank you, and Mike
& I will start wordsmithing our section. We now have (in IPCC terms) a
nice bunch of LA's and CAs for this commentary!
'Talk' to you later!
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> Phil
> see also this:
> Trenberth, K. E., and L. Smith, 2009: Variations in the three
> dimensional structure of the atmospheric circulation with different
> flavors of El Ni
Original Filename: 1248877389.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning
experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and
reviewers need to to also be taken to task here. I agree with Mike Mann that a couple of
other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper. Making sure that the important
relationships and role of ENSO on interannual variability of global temperatures should
also be pointed out with some select references (as in recent emails and the refs
therein). In terms of the paper, I recommend consolidating the figures to keep them fewer
in number if this is a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 , and 6 with 7. Make sure the plots
of spectra have period prominently displayed as well as frequency and maybe even highlight
with stipple some bands like >10 years. Glad to sign on: I would need an acknowledgment
that NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
Regards
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Grant, the paper is starting to shape up well now. Jim and I (well, mostly Jim,
w/ some input from me) are iterating on a blurb about past studies on ENSO/temperature
relationships and should have something for you soon on that,
As James has pointed out, its important to stick to the key points and not get sidetracked
with nonsense. I would avoid any commentary on their ignorant ramblings about the Hadley
Cell, etc. We want to cut straight to the deep flaws in their analysis which are, in order
of importance in my view,
1. indefensible use of a differencing filter, which has the effect of selectively damping
low-frequency variability and renders any conclusions about factors underlying long-term
trends completely spurious.
2. ignoring the fact that the influence of ENSO on global temperature has been known for
decades, and much better quantified in past studies than in the current deeply flawed
analysis.
3. the selective use of a flawed temperature data and curious splicing in of inappropriate
recent data (UAH TMT) to further suppress trends. A bit of overkill given that they
already eliminated the trends anyway. Guess they wanted to play it extra cautious just in
case some bit of warming trend tried to sneak in.
The other stuff is just a distraction.
mike
On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Grant Foster wrote:
Gentlemen,
Attached is a zip file with LaTeX and pdf for a first draft. I've included everybody's
name (in alphabetical order after mine), but of course it should only include in submission
those who give explicit consent.
There are a few other issues. One is that MFC have recently removed the pdf version of
their paper from the "New Zealand Climate Coalition" website. They've replaced it with
this:
[1]http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=1
which refers to a graph showing only part of figure 7, and suggests that there's not trend
in GTTA so "nothing to worry about." Yet the plotted GTTA is from UAH TMT (*not* TLT) so
of course it shows no trend, and the MT channel is contaminated by stratospheric cooling.
In figure 7 of the paper itself they compare the 50-year record of SOI and GTTA, but their
graph of GTTA is made of RATPAC-A data until 1980 grafted onto UAH TMT data afterward --
hence the lack of an obvious trend. I think this too should be mentioned, especially as
the entire RATPAC-A record shows a very pronounced trend.
One last thing: there's a lot of stuff in the paper about Hadley cells and heat transport
and so forth. I suspect this is really a bunch of gobbledygook -- but I don't know. But
I'll bet you guys do. Comments?
Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Windows Live(TM) Hotmail
Original Filename: 1248902393.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: This and that
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
Good idea with that BAMS paper. There is also the KNMI web site,
which tells that they have restricted data from Europe - on the ECA part.
Both despite WMO-Res40!
On IPCC, I suggested Thomas to not get too many hangers on amongst the LAs.
Chs 2 and 14 are prime candidates for upping the geographic spread. We had
about half of ours not doing that much last time.
Isn't Tom Karl on the US nominating committee?
Away all day tomorrow - CRU barbecue - so will pour down.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:07 29/07/2009, you wrote:
Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but
I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday morning
and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way
home.
Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,
Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don't
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.
But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those
workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be
released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South
America, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data,
Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric
again for central Africa, etc. The point being that such agreements are
common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights
into climate change in many parts of the world. Many countries don't
mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what role
would be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs in my
old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I get an
opportunity, I would say yes.
But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would be or
even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on extremes and
impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the details).
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1248916539.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:15:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Jim Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "James Renwick" <j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Brett Mullan" <b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id n6U3Feqd018708
See some suggested mods
BTW the T et al 2002 paper was one that got horribly caught up in the JGR
transition to electronic publication and the doi etc was not properly set.
It was not published on time but delayed by some 6 months when about 10
issues came out all at once, and no one read it!
Kevin
> dear all,
>
> here's a revised intro based on a few iterations between Jim and me.
> Grant--please incorporate this into your next revision of the m.s.,
>
> others feel free to suggest changes/additions/etc.
>
> thanks,
>
> mike
>
> On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
>
>> Kia ora all and Austral Jim
>>
>> Don't get sacked now (lol).....well you must be famous if he is
>> making a complaint...I guess he can't get at me here. Mike and I are
>> just putting some wee finishing touches to the intro bit then Mike
>> will circulate it more widely later.
>>
>> It seems that Hildebrandsson was the real originator of atmospheric
>> centres of action (see attached), and that Walker was just using his
>> ideas...interesting stuff - and perhaps it is time for a review by
>> someone....Kevin???
>>
>> I concur with Phil and Mike in that we don't critique their rather
>> bad knowledge of Hadley Cell and stuff and just cut to the chase.
>> Interesting that they are EVEN cherry picking their own paper. They
>> have whipped up a storm through farmers in NZ who are using this to
>> vehemently deny climate change, and therefore not address on farm
>> emissions from CH4 and N2O and leave it to all the rest of us (when
>> 60-70% of our electricity is renewable!) so I guess we all will be
>> walking and cycling very quickly as farmers keep their animals
>> burping out methane...that's my little sermon for this morning!
>>
>> Adios for now
>>
>> Not quite so Austral Jim
>>
>>
>> James Renwick wrote:
>>> Dear all:
>>> Great stuff, while I've sat back and watched... For info, I've just
>>> heard that Bob Carter has sent a formal complaint to NIWA, about
>>> comments I made, to a local reporter, on the paper. I'll be talking
>>> to
>>> our comms people tomorrow about a response (and I haven't actually
>>> seen
>>> the complaint yet).
>>> Regards,
>>> Jim R
>>> -----------------
>>> Dr James Renwick
>>> Principal Scientist, Climate Variability & Change
>>> NIWA
>>> Private Bag 14901, Wellington
>>> xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 07/30/09 6:22 AM >>>
>>> Kia ora All from the Land of the Long White Cloud and Thursday
>>> Thanks all...Phil I found reference to the Hildrebrandsson stuff
>>> ibn 'Recent Researches on Climate by N N Dickson in The
>>> goegraphical Journal 10 xxx xxxx xxxx. Good fun! Mike and I
>>> will finish iterating our bit this morning and then it can be
>>> added in to Grant's fine work!
>>> Talk to you later
>>> Jim
>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
>>>> Hi all
>>>> Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is
>>>> turn this into a learning experience for everyone: there is often
>>>> misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and reviewers need to
>>>> to also be taken to task here. I agree with Mike Mann that a
>>>> couple of other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper.
>>>> Making sure that the important relationships and role of ENSO on
>>>> interannual variability of global temperatures should also be
>>>> pointed out with some select references (as in recent emails and
>>>> the refs therein). In terms of the paper, I recommend
>>>> consolidating the figures to keep them fewer in number if this is
>>>> a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 , and 6 with 7. Make sure the
>>>> plots of spectra have period prominently displayed as well as
>>>> frequency and maybe even highlight with stipple some bands like
>>>> >10 years. Glad to sign on: I would need an acknowledgment that
>>>> NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
>>>> Regards
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>>> thanks Grant, the paper is starting to shape up well now. Jim and
>>>>> I (well, mostly Jim, w/ some input from me) are iterating on a
>>>>> blurb about past studies on ENSO/temperature relationships and
>>>>> should have something for you soon on that,
>>>>>
>>>>> As James has pointed out, its important to stick to the key
>>>>> points and not get sidetracked with nonsense. I would avoid any
>>>>> commentary on their ignorant ramblings about the Hadley Cell,
>>>>> etc. We want to cut straight to the deep flaws in their
>>>>> analysis which are, in order of importance in my view,
>>>>> 1. indefensible use of a differencing filter, which has the
>>>>> effect of selectively damping low-frequency variability and
>>>>> renders any conclusions about factors underlying long-term
>>>>> trends completely spurious.
>>>>> 2. ignoring the fact that the influence of ENSO on global
>>>>> temperature has been known for decades, and much better
>>>>> quantified in past studies than in the current deeply flawed
>>>>> analysis. 3. the selective use of a flawed temperature data and
>>>>> curious splicing in of inappropriate recent data (UAH TMT) to
>>>>> further suppress trends. A bit of overkill given that they
>>>>> already eliminated the trends anyway. Guess they wanted to play
>>>>> it extra cautious just in case some bit of warming trend tried
>>>>> to sneak in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other stuff is just a distraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Grant Foster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached is a zip file with LaTeX and pdf for a first draft.
>>>>>> I've included everybody's name (in alphabetical order after
>>>>>> mine), but of course it should only include in submission those
>>>>>> who give explicit consent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few other issues. One is that MFC have recently
>>>>>> removed the pdf version of their paper from the "New Zealand
>>>>>> Climate Coalition" website. They've replaced it with this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=1
>>>
>>>>>> which refers to a graph showing only part of figure 7, and
>>>>>> suggests that there's not trend in GTTA so "nothing to worry
>>>>>> about." Yet the plotted GTTA is from UAH TMT (*not* TLT) so of
>>>>>> course it shows no trend, and the MT channel is contaminated by
>>>>>> stratospheric cooling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In figure 7 of the paper itself they compare the 50-year record
>>>>>> of SOI and GTTA, but their graph of GTTA is made of RATPAC-A
>>>>>> data until 1980 grafted onto UAH TMT data afterward -- hence
>>>>>> the lack of an obvious trend. I think this too should be
>>>>>> mentioned, especially as the entire RATPAC-A record shows a
>>>>>> very pronounced trend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One last thing: there's a lot of stuff in the paper about
>>>>>> Hadley cells and heat transport and so forth. I suspect this
>>>>>> is really a bunch of gobbledygook -- but I don't know. But
>>>>>> I'll bet you guys do. Comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Grant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Windows Live
Original Filename: 1248979991.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:53:11 +0000
Cc: James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gentlemen,
I've combined everything (I hope!) into the latest revision. I've probably made some
glaring mistake somewhere, so read it critically.
It's also necessary to ensure that it all fits together coherently, and that anything we
claim we'll do is actually done. I want this to be airtight, let's not leave them any
"wiggle room."
Referring to the inappropriate application of filters, I have a feeling that saying
"perhaps not an uncommon error" is too easy on them. I have no motivation to go easy on
them. Perhaps I'm being too aggressive; I defer to the majority opinion.
On a few technical details, I need altaffils and authoraddresses for everybody. And make
sure I've got your name right!
Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. [1]Try it now. Attachment
Converted: "c:eudoraattachcomment.zip"
References
1. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1
Original Filename: 1248993704.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thomas R. Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter]]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:41:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Virginia Burkett <virginia_burkett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Wehner <mfwehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Tom,
Thanks for forwarding the message from John Christy. Excuse me for being
so blunt, but John's message is just a load of utter garbage.
I got a laugh out of John's claim that Santer et al. (2008) was "poorly
done". This was kind of ironic coming from a co-author of the Douglass
et al. (2007) paper, which used a fundamentally flawed statistical test
to compare modeled and observed tropospheric temperature trends. To my
knowledge, John has NEVER acknowledged that Douglass et al. used a
flawed statistical test to reach incorrect conclusions - despite
unequivocal evidence from the "synthetic data" experiments in Santer et
al. (2008) that the Douglass et al. "robust consistency" test was simply
wrong. Unbelievably, Christy continues to assert that the results of
Douglass et al. (2007) "still stand". I can only shake my head in
amazement at such intellectual dishonesty. I guess the best form of
defense is a "robust" attack.
So how does John support his contention that Santer et al. (2008) was
"poorly done"? He begins by stating that:
"Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been
changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there".
Maybe you or Tom Peterson or Dick Reynolds can enlighten me on this one.
How exactly have NOAA ERSST surface data changed? Recall that Santer et
al. (2008) actually used two different versions of the ERSST data
(version 2 and version 3). We also used HadISST sea-surface temperature
data, and combined SSTs and land 2m temperature data from HadCRUT3v. In
other words, we used four different observational estimates of surface
temperature changes. Our bottom-line conclusion (no significant
discrepancy between modeled and observed lower-tropospheric lapse-rate
trends) was not sensitive to our choice of observed surface temperature
dataset.
John next assets that:
"Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 (of the radiosonde data) are clearly spurious due
to the error in ECMWF as published many places".
I'll let Leo Haimberger respond to that one. And if v1.2 of Leo's data
is "clearly spurious", why did John Christy agree to be a co-author on
the Douglass et al. paper which uses upper-air data from v1.2?
Santer et al. (2008) comprehensively examined structural uncertainties
in the observed upper-air datasets. They looked at two different
satellite and seven different radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. As in the case of the surface temperature data,
getting the statistical test right was much more important (in terms of
the bottom-line conclusions) than the choice of observational upper-air
dataset.
Christy's next criticism of our IJoC paper is even more absurd. He
states that:
"Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different question...than we did. Our
question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data
(including RSS)?" Answer - No. Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC
model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference.
Actually, we asked and answered BOTH of these questions. "Tests with
individual model realizations" are described in Section 4.1 of Santer et
al. (2008), while Section 4.2 covers "Tests with multi-model
ensemble-mean trend". As should be obvious - even to John Christy - we
did NOT just compare observations with results from individual models.
For both types of test ("individual model" and "multi-model average"),
we found that, if one applied appropriate statistical tests (which
Douglass et al. failed to do), there was no longer a serious discrepancy
between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates or in
tropical tropospheric temperatures.
Again, I find myself shaking my head in amazement. How can John make
such patently false claims about our paper? The kindest interpretation
is that he is a complete idiot, and has not even bothered to read Santer
et al. (2008) before making erroneous criticisms of it. The less kind
interpretation is that he is deliberately lying.
A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the errors he or she commits
(such as applying an inappropriate statistical test). John Christy is
not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to
thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the
"gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.
I hope you don't mind, Tom, but I'm copying this email to some of the
other co-authors of the Santer et al. (2008) IJoC paper. They deserve to
know about the kind of disinformation Christy is spreading.
With best regards,
Ben
Thomas R. Karl wrote:
> FYI
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter]
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
> From: John Christy <john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> References: <4A534CF9.9080700@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
> Tom:
>
> I've been on a heavy travel schedule and just now getting to emails I've
> delayed. I was in Asheville briefly Thursday for a taping for the CDMP
> project at the Biltmore estates (don't know why that was the backdrop)
> while traveling between meetings in Chapel Hill, Atlanta and here.
>
> We disagree on the use of available climate information regarding the
> many things related to climate/climate change as I see by your responses
> below - that is not unexpected as climate is an ugly, ambiguous, and
> complex system studied by a bunch of prima donnas (me included) and
> which defies authoritative declarations. I base my views on hard-core,
> published literature (some of it mine, but most of it not), so saying
> otherwise is not helpful or true. The simple fact is that the opinions
> expressed in the CCSP report do not represent the real range of
> scientific literature (the IPCC fell into the same trap - so running to
> the IPCC's corner doesn't move things forward).
>
> I think I can boil my objections to the CCSP Impacts report to this one
> idea for the SE (and US): The changes in weather variables (measured in
> a systematic settings) of the past 30 years are within the range of
> natural variability. That's the statement that should have been front
> and center of this whole document because it is
> mathematically/scientifically defensible. And, it carries more weight
> with planners so you can say to them, "If it happened before, it will
> happen again - so get ready now." By the way, my State Climatologist
> response to the CCSP was well-received by legislators and stakeholders
> (including many in the federal government) and still gets hits at
> http://*vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/.
>
> There also was a page or so on the tropical troposphere-surface issue
> that I didn't talk about on my response. It was wrong because it did
> not include all the latest research (i.e. since 2006) on the continuing
> and significant difference between the two trends. Someone was acting
> as a fierce gatekeeper on that one - citing only things that agreed with
> the opinion shown even if poorly done (e.g. Santer et al. 2008 used
> ERSST data which I understand has now been changed in a way that
> discredits the conclusion there, and Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 are clearly
> spurious due to the error in ECMWF as published many places, but
> analyzed in detail in Sakamoto and Christy 2009). The results of
> Douglass et al. 2007 (not cited by CCSP) still stand since Santer et al.
> 2008 asked a very different question (and used bad data to boot) than we
> did. Our question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best
> Data (including RSS)?" Answer - No. Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC
> model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference.
> The fact my 2007 tropical paper (the follow-on papers in 2009 were
> probably too late, but they substantiate the 2007 paper) was not cited
> indicates how biased this section was. Christy et al. 2007 assessed the
> accuracy of the datasets (Santer et al. did not - they assumed all
> datasets were equal without looking at the published problems) and we
> came up with a result that defied the "consensus" of the CCSP report -
> so, it was doomed to not be mentioned since it would disrupt the
> storyline. (And, as soon as RSS fixes their spurious jump in 1992, our
> MSU datasets will be almost indistinguishable.)
>
> This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the
> consensus of those who agree with the consensus. The
> government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest
> brokers of information. That is a real tragedy, because when someone
> becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a gatekeeper - and
> begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus scientists are just nuts
> (... it's more comfortable that way rather than giving them credit for
> being skeptical in the face of a paradigm).
>
> Take care.
>
> John C.
>
> p.s. a few quick notes are interspersed below.
>
>
> Thomas C Peterson wrote:
>> Hi, John,
>> I didn't want this to catch you by surprise.
>> Tom
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: concerns about the Southeast chapter
>> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> From: Thomas C Peterson <thomas.c.peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: jim.obrien@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> CC: Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jim,
>>
>>
>> First off and most importantly, congratulations on your recent
>> marriage. Anthony said it was the most touching wedding he has ever
>> been to. I wish you and your bride all the best.
>>
>> Thank you for your comments and for passing on John Christy's detailed
>> concerns about the Southeast chapter of our report, /Global Climate
>> Change Impacts in the United States/. Please let me respond to the key
>> points he raised.
>>
>> In Dr. John Christy's June 23, 2009 document "Alabama climatologist
>> responds to U.S. government report on regional impacts of global
>> climate change", he primarily focused on 4 prime concerns:
>>
>> 1. Assessing changes since 1970.
>>
>> 2. Statements on hurricanes.
>>
>> 3. Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section).
>>
>> 4. Using models to assess the future.
>>
>>
>>
>> /1. Assessing changes since 1970./
>>
>> The Southeast section has 5 figures and one table. One figure is on
>> changes in precipitation patterns from 1xxx xxxx xxxx. The next figure is
>> on patterns of days per year over 90F with two maps, one 1xxx xxxx xxxx,
>> the other 2xxx xxxx xxxx. One figure is on the change in freezing days per
>> year, 1xxx xxxx xxxx. The next figure is on changes to a barrier island
>> land from 2002 to 2005. And the last figure was on Sea Surface
>> Temperature from 1900 to the present. The table indicates trends in
>> temperature and precipitation over two periods, 1xxx xxxx xxxxand
>> 1xxx xxxx xxxx. As Dr. Christy indicates in his paper, the full period and
>> the period since 1970 are behaving differently. To help explain this,
>> the table shows them both. Of the 5 figures, only one shows the
>> changes over this shorter period.
>>
>> Since, as the IPCC has indicated, the human impact on climate isn't
>> distinguishable from natural variability until about 1950, describing
>> the changes experienced in the majority of the time since 1950 would
>> be a more logical link to future anthropogenic climate change. In
>> most of the report, maps have shown the changes over the last 50
>> years. Because of the distinct behavior of time series of
>> precipitation and temperature in the Southeast, discussing the period
>> since 1970 seemed more appropriate. Though as the figures and table
>> indicate, this shorter period is not the sole or even major focus.
>
> See crux of the matter in email above - looking at the whole time series
> is demanded by science. Any 30 or 50-year period will give changes -
> blaming the most recent on humans ignores the similar (or even more
> rapid) changes that occurred before industrialization (e.g. western
> drought in 12th century). The period since 1970 WAS the major focus in
> the SE section (mentioned 6 times in two pages). And, OF COURSE any
> 30-year sub-period will have different characteristics than the 100-year
> population from which it is extracted ... that doesn't prove anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> /2. Statements on hurricanes./
>>
>> Dr. Christy takes issue with the report's statements about hurricanes
>> and quotes a line from the report and quotes an individual hurricane
>> expert who says that he disagrees with the conclusions. The line in
>> the report that Dr. Christy quotes comes almost word for word out of
>> CCSP SAP 3.3. While individual scientists may disagree with the
>> report's conclusions, this conclusion came directly out of the
>> peer-reviewed literature and assessments. Dr. Christy also complains
>> that "the report did not include a plot of the actual hurricane
>> landfalls". However, the section in the Southeast chapter discussing
>> landfalling hurricanes states "see /National Climate Change/ section
>> for a discussion of past trends and future projections" and sure
>> enough on page 35 there is a figure showing land falling hurricanes
>> along with a more in depth discussion of hurricanes.
>>
> You didn't read my State Climatologist response carefully - I mentioned
> page 35 and noted again it talked about the most recent decades (and
> even then, the graph still didn't go back to 1850). This hurricane
> storyline was hit hard by many scientists - hence is further evidence
> the report was generated by a gatekeeper mentality.
>>
>>
>> /3. Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section)./
>>
>> Moving out of the Southeast, Dr. Christy complains about one figure in
>> the Energy Chapter. Citing a climate skeptic's blog which cites an
>> individual described as the keeper of the data for the Energy
>> Information Administration (EIA), John writes that the rise in weather
>> related outages is largely a function of better reporting. Yet the
>> insert of weather versus non-weather-related outages shows a much
>> greater increase in weather-related outages than non-weather-related
>> outages. If all the increases were solely due to better reporting,
>> the differences between weather- and non-weather-related outages would
>> indicate a dramatic decrease over this time period in non-weather
>> related problems such as transmission equipment failures, earthquakes,
>> faults in line, faults at substations, relaying malfunctions, and
>> vandalism.
>>
>> Thanks to the efforts of EIA, after they took over the responsibility
>> of running the Department of Energy (DOE) data-collection process
>> around 1997, data collection became more effective. Efforts were made
>> in subsequent years to increase the response rate and upgrade the
>> reporting form. It was not until EIA's improvement of the data
>> collection that the important decoupling of weather- and
>> non-weather-related events (and a corresponding increase in the
>> proportion of all events due to weather extremes) became visible.
>>
>> To adjust for potential response-rate biases, we have separated
>> weather- and non-weather-related trends into indices and found an
>> upward trend only in the weather-related time series.
>>
>> As confirmed by EIA, *if there were a systematic bias one would expect
>> it to be reflected in both data series (especially since any given
>> reporting site would report both types of events).*
>>
>> As an additional precaution, we focused on trends in the number of
>> events (rather than customers affected) to avoid fortuitous
>> differences caused by the population density where events occur. This,
>> however, has the effect of understating the weather impacts because of
>> EIA definitions (see survey methodology notes below).
>>
>> More details are available at:
>> http://*eetd.lbl.gov/emills/pubs/grid-disruptions.html
>
> The data were not systematically taken and should not have been shown
> .. basic rule of climate.
>>
>>
>>
>> /4. Using models to assess the future./
>>
>> Can anyone say anything about the future of the Southeast's climate?
>> Evidently according to John Christy, the answer is no. The basic
>> physics of the greenhouse effect and why increasing greenhouse gases
>> are warming and should be expected to continue to warm the planet are
>> well known and explained in the /Global Climate Change/ section of the
>> report. Climate models are used around the world to both diagnose the
>> observed changes in climate and to provide projections for the
>> future. There is a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, including a
>> large number of peer-reviewed climate change assessments, supporting
>> this use. But in Dr. Christy's "view," models should not be used for
>> projections of the future, especially for the Southeast. The report
>> based, and indeed must base, its results on the huge body of
>> peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than the view of one
>> individual scientist.
>
> No one has proven models are capable of long-range forecasting.
> Modelers write and review their own literature - there are millions of
> dollars going into these enterprises, so what would you expect?
> Publication volume shouldn't impress anyone. The simple fact is we
> demonstrated in a straightforward and reproducible way that the actual
> trends over the past 30, 20, and 10 years are outside of the envelop of
> model predictions ... no one has disputed that finding with an
> alternative analysis - even when presented before congressional hearings
> where the opportunity for disagreement was openly available.
>>
>> I hope this helps relieve some of your concerns.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tom Peterson
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ************************************************************
> John R. Christy
> Director, Earth System Science Center voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Alabama State Climatologist
> University of Alabama in Huntsville
> http://*www.*nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
>
> Mail: ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville AL 35899
> Express: Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.*
>
> Director, NOAA
Original Filename: 1248998466.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Grant Foster" <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:01:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Mike Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "James Annan" <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Gavin Schmidt" <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
You have a go from me. By all means clean up. I think you should argue
that it should be expedited for the reasons of interest by the press. Key
question is who was the editor who handled the original, because this is
an implicit criticism of that person. May need to point this out and
ensure that someone else handles it.
Thanks
Kevin
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor
> changes myself. Here's the latest version. Enjoy!
>
> Sincerely,
> Grant
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live
Original Filename: 1249007192.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Grant Foster" <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "James Annan" <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Gavin Schmidt" <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
folks, I was thinking exactly the same thing. the problems are so unusually fundamental and
obvious, as we lay them out, that it does immediately call into suspicion the integrity of
the review process.
We probably need to take this directly to the chief editor at JGR, asking that this not be
handled by the editor who presided over the original paper, as this would represent a
conflict of interest. if we are told that is not possible, then we would at least want the
chief editor himself to closely monitor the handling of the paper.
I too am happy to sign of at this point,
mike
On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
You have a go from me. By all means clean up. I think you should argue
that it should be expedited for the reasons of interest by the press. Key
question is who was the editor who handled the original, because this is
an implicit criticism of that person. May need to point this out and
ensure that someone else handles it.
Thanks
Kevin
Gentlemen,
I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor
changes myself. Here's the latest version. Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live SkyDrive: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
[1]http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
--
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: [3]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
1. http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
2. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
6. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1249042511.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Susan Parham <sp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Karen Dyson <kd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mick Denness <m.denness@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Andrew Gouldson <a.gouldson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cara Busfield <C.L.Busfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Adger Neil Prof ((ENV))" <N.Adger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, c.l.busfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom MacInnes <tom.macinnes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Niall Machin <nm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Kenway <peter.kenway@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emma Cranidge <ec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Denny Gray <dg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Niamh Carey <ncarey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mary Anderson <ma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, amanda@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Helen Chalmers <hc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: JRF social impacts CC - proposal and supporting documents - final versions
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:15:11 +0100
Dear All My colleague Emma and I are submitting everything this morning. I'm doing the
email version, Emma the 4 hard copies to the office in York before 2pm. Peter provided a
very useful edit yesterday which has got the proposal down under 4,000 words. Please find
attached: 1. Proposal registration form (I have just put in CAG details as main proposer
but flagged up its a partnership bid) 2. Summary (just under 600 words as required) 3.
Proposal 4. Budget form (their's and an extra one they agreed I could do to show who does
what days - don't worry about days shown - its provisional - we can revise and rearrange it
if we get the job!) 5. Staff Costs forms (attached to the budget form but not filled in as
they agreed we didn't have to submit these - they don't work with day rates) 6. Full CVs
for all Proposers (Emma is adding in some final material she has but coudnt access
yesterday - we will send round the very final version for your records once done this
morning) 7. Three appendices as one Word document (to go with the proposal but separately
so as not to increase the word count of the proposal) 8. A rather long covering letter to
go with email and hard copy versions. If you notice I've missed something please email me!
Thanks to everyone for the their work on this. Very much appreciated. I will let you know
as soon as I hear anything. best wishes Susan ???????? Dr Susan Parham
Director - CAG Consultants Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxMob: 07xxx xxxx xxxxsp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
www.cagconsult.co.uk Office: 30 Aberdeen Road, London, N5 2UH HQ: Gordon House, 6 Lissenden
Gardens, London, NW5 1LX Dear All
My colleague Emma and I are submitting everything this morning. I'm doing the email
version, Emma the 4 hard copies to the office in York before 2pm.
Peter provided a very useful edit yesterday which has got the proposal down under 4,000
words.
Please find attached:
1. Proposal registration form (I have just put in CAG details as main proposer but flagged
up its a partnership bid)
2. Summary (just under 600 words as required)
3. Proposal
4. Budget form (their's and an extra one they agreed I could do to show who does what days
- don't worry about days shown - its provisional - we can revise and rearrange it if we get
the job!)
5. Staff Costs forms (attached to the budget form but not filled in as they agreed we
didn't have to submit these - they don't work with day rates)
6. Full CVs for all Proposers (Emma is adding in some final material she has but coudnt
access yesterday - we will send round the very final version for your records once done
this morning)
7. Three appendices as one Word document (to go with the proposal but separately so as not
to increase the word count of the proposal)
8. A rather long covering letter to go with email and hard copy versions.
If you notice I've missed something please email me!
Thanks to everyone for the their work on this. Very much appreciated. I will let you know
as soon as I hear anything.
best wishes
Susan
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644;
x-mac-creator=4D535744; name=CAG and Partners Application Registration Form.doc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG and Partners Application Registration
Form.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCAG and Partners Application Registration
Form.doc" Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644;
x-mac-creator=4D535744; name=Application summary CAG and partners.doc Content-Disposition:
attachment; filename="Application summary CAG and partners.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachApplication summary CAG and partners.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners Application Final.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG
and Partners Application Final.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCAG and
Partners Application Final.doc" Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
x-mac-type=584C5338; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=5843454C; name=CAG and Partners Budget
Form.xls Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG and Partners Budget Form.xls"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCAG and Partners Budget Form.xls" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners Additional Budget Form and Explanatory Notes.doc Content-Disposition:
attachment; filename*0="CAG and Partners Additional Budget Form and Explanatory Notes.do";
filename*1=c Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCAG.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners CVs.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG and Partners
CVs.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCAG and Partners CVs.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners Application Appendices.doc Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="CAG and Partners Application Appendices.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachCAG and Partners Application Appendices.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners covering letter final.doc Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="CAG and Partners covering letter final.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachCAG and Partners covering letter final.doc"
Dr Susan Parham
Director - CAG Consultants
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxMob: 07xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]sp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
www.cagconsult.co.uk
Office: 30 Aberdeen Road,
London, N5 2UH
HQ: Gordon House, 6 Lissenden Gardens, London, NW5 1LX
References
1. mailto:sp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1249045162.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: See below
Date: Fri Jul 31 08:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Peter,
Don't know if you got this. There is a link below to something Tom P said.
Keith is fine - seems as though there nothing malignant or cancerous
in the post op tests. Just needs to ensure the scar heals OK, then
he can come back to the madhouse.
Cheers
Phil
X-Failed-Recipients: peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:08 +0100
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk [139.222.131.184]:
554 5.7.1 Message rejected because of unacceptable content. For help, please quote
incident ID 3442835.
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from [139.222.104.75] (helo=crupdj2.uea.ac.uk)
by ueams02.uea.ac.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>)
id 1MWmaxxx xxxx xxxxwd-KH
for peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:07 +0100
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:19 +0100
To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: did you get a chance to see
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_1878687==.ALT"
--=====================_1878687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>From: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: did you get a chance to see
>To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug xxx xxxx xxxx)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Priority: normal
>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
>X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
>APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983xxx xxxx xxxxdc0798c114f
>X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
>[1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=f
>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
>[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=n
>X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
>[3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=s
>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
>
>[4]http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you
-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
>Subject: Re: This and that
>
> > Hi, Phil,
> >
> > Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> > interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of
> > sympathy, but
> > I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> > morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> > airport on my way
> > home.
> >
> > Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> > Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> > violate agreements
> > and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> > don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
> >
> > But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
> > Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All
> > thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> > peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> > would be
> > released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> > agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> > data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> > SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> > data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> > Enricagain for central Africa, etc. The point being that such
> > agreements are
> > common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> > insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world. Many
> > countries don't
> > mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> > Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> > data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
> >
> > Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what
> > rolewould be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> > in my
> > old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> > different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> > job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> > delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> > the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> > get an
> > opportunity, I would say yes.
> >
> > But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> > be or
> > even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> > extremes and
> > impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> > nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> > notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
> > asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> > details).
> > Regards,
> > Tom
> >
>
>> Tom,
> If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
> Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
> a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
> for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
> quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
> went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
> Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
> going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
> wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
> I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
> The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
> containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in
> GHCN). Presumably
> this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
> data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
> have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
>
> On something positive - attached is the outlines for the
> proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
> Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
> only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between
> some of the
> data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
> I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2
> if I decide. At the
> moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
> from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you
> considering
> getting involved?
> I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
> the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
> is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last
> time, and others in
> the US have had.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--=====================_1878687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:= xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: did you get a chance to see
To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug xxx xxxx xxxx)
X-Accept-Language: en
Priority: normal
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983xxx xxxx xxxxdc0798c114f
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Df
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Dn
X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
[7]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Ds
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
[8]http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-=
want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
----- Original Message -----
From: <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: This and that
> Hi, Phil,
>
> Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of
> sympathy, but
> I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> airport on my way
> home.
>
> Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> violate agreements
> and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
>
> But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
> Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All
> thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> would be
> released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> Enricagain for central Africa, etc. The point being that such
> agreements are
> common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world. Many
> countries don't
> mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
>
> Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what
> rolewould be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> in my
> old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> get an
> opportunity, I would say yes.
>
> But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> be or
> even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> extremes and
> impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
> asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> details).
> Regards,
> Tom
>
Tom,
If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At
the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia &nbs=
p;
Norwich &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia &nbs=
p;
Norwich &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
--=====================_1878687==.ALT--
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. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=f
2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=n
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=s
4. http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
5. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
6. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
7. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
8. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
Original Filename: 1249052097.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:54:57 +0000
Cc: <j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gentlemen,
We're very close to being ready for submission; here's the latest version. I suggest a
close reading, and don't forget to point out all the typos you notice.
James, since you can cover the page charges I suggest you handle the actual submission
(when the time comes). Would you be willing to write the cover letter? Any other
volunteers?
So far I've produced versions in 2-column format with graphs inline (so we can all see what
it'll look like), but when we're ready I'll create a draft version with all the figures at
the end (or if you really want to James, you can do this as well). The 2-column version
takes jpg files as input, but I've already created eps files for all the figures.
I *think* I've got everybody's suggestions in here, but if I've missed anything or you have
further suggestions send 'em along. We're still waiting for explicit consent (and
afilliation info) from B. Mullan and G. Schmidt! If either of you fellas would rather opt
out that's OK -- as far as I'm concerned you're completely welcome to join or to decline.
If we're as close as I think, we may be ready by Monday.
Thanks, Phil, for the link to the video; a good laugh! Maybe the most amusing blog post
I've seen about MFC09 is this one:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/
What amuses me most is that "in its original news item on the paper, the International
Climate Science Coalition had actually substituted the title of the first press release for
for the actual title in its link to the paper ... Thats right according to the ICSC, the
papers title was Nature, not Man, is responsible for global warming. Stop the presses!
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/icsc-july-26-short-2.jpg
Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. [1]Try it now. Attachment
Converted: "c:eudoraattachcomment2.zip"
References
1. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1
Original Filename: 1249052848.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:07:28 +1200
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Grant el al
All good to me apart from adding in the IPCC 2007 WG1 Chap 3 reference.
I checked with IJC chief editor here (Glenn McGregor) and editors
usually like to publish comments asap, and send them only to the
original authors to respond to as soon as possible.
So once the USA contingent has signed it off 'today' (Friday) and
submitted it, I will send a copy to our Australian colleagues for
information.
All good stuff
Best
Auckland Jim
Grant Foster wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor
> changes myself. Here's the latest version. Enjoy!
>
> Sincerely,
> Grant
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Windows Live