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: 1254259645.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Andrew Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest....
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks.
Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
thanks heaps.
tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?
I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
made over at climateaudit.org.....
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
building happens, would you agree?
p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) is probably the best person to contact for
further details, in Keith's absence,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Andy,
I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and
is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I
have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some
of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of
these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),
let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming
is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith's absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his
comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't
submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will
be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you
are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is
no
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxMob: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
--
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
--
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
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxMob: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
--
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: [10]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
References
Visible links
1. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
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
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
9. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
14. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1254323180.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: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a very
long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly
intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw
it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan,
we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed
congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E
paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain
Lieberman climate bill in '05.
we're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways to
exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect over
the next month.
thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I'd overlooked. We'd already
asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you point out
he's really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as
it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was
essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith's Yamal series was not what
we used in Mann and Jones '03 (we reference Briffa et al '01)?
thanks for the help! We're hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any
updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case,
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
The short note may not say much. As you're aware Kaufman et al have a plot without
trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately.
Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode. Science
ought to work through the peer-review system..... sure you've said all these things
before.
We're getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other blog
sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used. Keith
had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far too much
into his off ill message.
Even though I've had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have been
the worst yet. I'm realizing more what those working on animal experiments must have gone
through.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for
tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment
of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and
defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues,
i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate
reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has
been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
of course. we're preparing a 'bigger picture' response and will link directly to CRU and
maybe quote from it directly.
=============
Gavin Schmidt
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: (2xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: [1]gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx URL: [2]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely
outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
Cheers
Tim
At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.
thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off
almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that
I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result"
is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently
been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: <[3]mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >[4]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: <[5] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >[6] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: <[7] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >[8]
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
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: <[9]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >[10]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: <[11] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html >[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 >[14]
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: [15]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [17]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
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: [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
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [21]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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: [22]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [23]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[24]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
3. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
7. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
8. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
15. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
17. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
24. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
25. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1254345174.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed Sep 30 17:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike,
I realized you'd have many more bad emails!
As for MJ2003 what we used was an average of Fennoscan, Yamal and Taymir (as one of the
series).
Briffa et al (2001) was just referred to in that as a ref to RCS. The paper also talks
about N Eurasia, so the sites get a mention.
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a
very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and
highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack
campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat
Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap &
trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original
McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S.
senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in '05.
we're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways
to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect
over the next month.
thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I'd overlooked. We'd
already asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you
point out he's really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to
this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the
result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith's Yamal series was not
what we used in Mann and Jones '03 (we reference Briffa et al '01)?
thanks for the help! We're hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any
updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case,
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
The short note may not say much. As you're aware Kaufman et al have a plot without
trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately.
Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode.
Science ought to work through the peer-review system..... sure you've said all these
things before.
We're getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other
blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used.
Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far
too much into his off ill message.
Even though I've had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have
been the worst yet. I'm realizing more what those working on animal experiments must
have gone through.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for
tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment
of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and
defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues,
i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate
reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has
been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
of course. we're preparing a 'bigger picture' response and will link directly to CRU and
maybe quote from it directly.
=============
Gavin Schmidt
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: (2xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: [1]gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx URL: [2]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely
outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
Cheers
Tim
At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.
thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off
almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that
I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result"
is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently
been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: <[3]mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >[4]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: < [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: < [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >
[8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
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: <[9]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >[10]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: < [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html >
[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 >
[14]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: [15]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [17]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
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: [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
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [21]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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: [22]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [23]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[24]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
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
3. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
7. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
8. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
15. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
17. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
24. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
25. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
26. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
27. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
28. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Original Filename: 1254345329.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed Sep 30 17:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination
of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say
this Tim?).
Mike,
yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results
leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's
attached.
I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3
out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly
in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern
results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100.
Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary
information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we
have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science
agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!
:-)).
But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is
100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than MWP.
So, yes, it should be possible to find some subsets of data where MWP and Modern are
comparable and similarly for some seasons and regions. And as you've pointed out before,
if any season/region is comparable (or even has MWP>Modern) then it will probably be the
northern high latitudes in summer time (I think you published on this, suggesting that
combination of orbital forcing, land-use change and sulphate aerosols could cause this for
that season/region, is that right?).
So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B
(2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive.
Cheers
Tim
Original Filename: 1254364959.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcom Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: draft of Yamal RealClimate post
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm, I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online
w/ tomorrow (attached as a word file--unfortunately this distorts the post relative to the
way it will actually look on the website, but it was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks
and figures intact). Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either
erroneous, unclear, etc. in the piece. we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon
as a link is available. thanks in advance for your help, mike -- Michael E. Mann Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email:
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxwebsite:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site:
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm,
I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online w/ tomorrow (attached as
a word file--unfortunately this distorts the post relative to the way it will actually look
on the website, but it was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks and figures intact).
Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either erroneous, unclear, etc.
in the piece.
we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon as a link is available.
thanks in advance for your help,
mike
--
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: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [2]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[3]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachHeyYa.doc"
References
Visible links
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
3. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
4. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1254409004.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcom Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: draft of Yamal RealClimate post
Date: Thu Oct 1 10:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike, Gavin,
Here are a few important mods to your piece. Don't mention Keith has been off ill.
Remove the bit about provenance and about access to more data. We'll go into the latter in
the longer bit next week.
We'll send the piece we're putting up later - or give you the link.
Rest of your piece is great - especially the bit on how science should be done. Keith has
also picked up in the bit we'll post that McIntyre has put in the caveats but lets others
say the outrageous things in comments or on other blogs.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:42 01/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm,
I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online w/
tomorrow (attached as a word file--unfortunately this distorts the
post relative to the way it will actually look on the website, but it
was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks and figures intact).
Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either
erroneous, unclear, etc. in the piece.
we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon as a link is
available.
thanks in advance for your help,
mike
--
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: [1]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[2]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm,
I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online w/ tomorrow (attached
as a word file--unfortunately this distorts the post relative to the way it will
actually look on the website, but it was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks and
figures intact).
Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either erroneous, unclear,
etc. in the piece.
we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon as a link is available.
thanks in advance for your help,
mike
--
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
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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
2. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.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
Original Filename: 1254501801.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: URGENT
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:43:21 +0100
<x-flowed>
>Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:43:50 +0200
>From: Anders Moberg <anders.moberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080720)
>To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: URGENT
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at smtp.su.se
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.202 tagged_above=-99 required=7 tests=[AWL=0.110,
> BAYES_00=-2.312]
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023)
>X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0)
>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from
>UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default)
>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32039xxx xxxx xxxxb9c79b71
>X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32039918&m=2186b9c79b71&c=f
>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32039918&m=2186b9c79b71&c=n
>X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32039918&m=2186b9c79b71&c=s
>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
>
>Yes, of course! It is attached here. As you might perhaps imagine,
>the little corrigendum in Nature 2006 which led me to produce this
>data file was a consequence of requests from McIntyre to get the data.
>
>Actually, Phil has already got the data from me (but he might have
>forgotten it). I don't have any raw data, just the data sent here.
>
>cheers,
>Anders
>
>
>
>Keith Briffa skrev:
>>Anders
>>now I must ask a favour - could you send me the data for the long
>>Russian chronology that was produced by Sidorova et al.
>>At the very least I need the numbers representing their final
>>chonology straight away - I need to include them in a reworking of
>>a recent science paper (rather than trying to digitise them from a
>>scan). I would also like the raw data but understand if you are not able
>>to release these .
>>thanks
>>Keith
>>
>>14:56 01/10/2009, you wrote:
>>>Dear Keith,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the support letter. It is perfect for our case!
>>>
>>>Anders
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>--
>
>Anders Moberg
>Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research
>Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
>Stockholm University, SE-xxx xxxx xxxxStockholm, Sweden
>
>Phone: +46 (xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax: +46 (xxx xxxx xxxx
>anders.moberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>www.ink.su.se www.bbcc.su.se
>http://people.su.se/~amobe
>
>
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachindigirka_moberg05.dat"
Original Filename: 1254505571.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Keith - is there a time in the next few days when you could stand
talking briefly about this on the phone? I think the fog about the
status of the Indigirka/Yakutua data could be cleared really quickly
that way. Once again, I'm really sorry it has been necessary to bother
you with this. Cheers, Malcolm
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Malcolm
> honestly just a cross thread between Tom and I. I had been asked by
> Darrell whether we should use the Sidorova chronology - because of
> hassle by you know who - so asked Tom a while ago to ask you. I did
> not see your answer - sorry if you cc'd me in as I have not been
> checking emails. I fully accept and would NEVER go behind your back to
> ask for the data. I understood that the chronology was published and
> so thought to compare our RCS version with it if we could produce it
> in time . We are being accused of not using that chronology in the
> Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am happy to send Darrell
> the single chronology if that is what Anders has sent. I am having to
> start thinking about the Yamal crap and then this Darrell stuff
> suddenly arises. I just wanted him to consider including the Polar
> Urals reconstruction and the Sidorova series in his analysis before
> publishing a correction in Science- apparently the selection criterion
> for inclusion of series was anything published north of 60 degrees and
> longer than 1000 years. I could do without all this now - don't really
> understand what Climate Audit are getting so hysterical about but feel
> that I can not ignore it this time - but don't feel up to getting
> involved. I fully admit to being out of the loop as regards all this
> and having trouble getting back to it.
>
> To restate - this was a confusion. I fully accept your point (as you
> know I would). Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your
> knowledge - TO BE HONEST ALSO - I actually was not really aware that
> the data you were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and the
> same. Best wishes hopefully all ok
> I assume that we are allowed to use the chronolgy as published - are
> we? I have not contacted Sidorova. Can you cc answer to Tom as I have
> no email at present. (this coming from someone elses computer)
> Keith
>
>
> At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
>> Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the
>> recent nonsense. I really have had no intention to bother you with
>> work stuff, and had strongly encouraged Mike and Gavin to contact
>> Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really reticent to
>> raise something else, but must.
>> What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that
>> contained the following para, among other more general discussion:
>> "Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and
>> not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did
>> not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make
>> proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
>> I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the
>> Esper article in question attached. The so-called Indigirka River
>> data set is not yet available because it has not been published. I
>> am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and was indeed
>> in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on
>> specifically this. All being well, there will be an accepted
>> manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make the data
>> freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know, of
>> course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
>> So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
>> This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you
>> had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours
>> before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To be sure
>> that you understand what that dataset is and is not, please read the
>> attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
>> Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been
>> discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large
>> proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so
>> you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as a
>> possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata
>> not available, please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year
>> reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and
>> all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
>> As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open,
>> but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the years of
>> work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with
>> Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>>
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm K Hughes
>> Regents' Professor
>> Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>> The University of Arizona
>> 105 W Stadium
>> Tucson, AZ 85721
>> USA
>>
>> tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>> mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>> http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1254517566.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE]
Date: Fri Oct 2 17:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Malcolm,
Keith should be reading emails. Probably been a misunderstanding. I've only glanced at
the nonsense but didn't see anything related to Indigirka. I see they are now getting at
the Taimyr site, so Keith/Tom having to look at that one too.
They have some extra data from Vlad which CA won't have, so whatever they say there
will get more emails about keeping hold of more data. All the issues seem to relate to
canopy closed sites like Fritz would have likely sampled and more open sites. They are
trying to contact the Russians to get site pictures or anything else.
Keith is on xxx xxxx xxxxif you fancy calling at the weekend.
They get at us for keeping hold of data, but they have no intention of publishing in the
peer-review literature!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:56 02/10/2009, you wrote:
Phil - just in case Keith is not opening email and Tom is helping him out by taking
initiative, here's an email I just sent Keith. Unfortunately, I really had to respond to
this. I hope all is going well for you. Cheers, Malcolm
--
Malcolm K Hughes
Regents' Professor
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
105 W Stadium
Tucson, AZ 85721
USA
tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[1]http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
Message-ID: <4AC6212D.7070401@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------090305040400060007010009"
Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the recent nonsense. I
really have had no intention to bother you with work stuff, and had strongly encouraged
Mike and Gavin to contact Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really
reticent to raise something else, but must.
What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that contained the following
para, among other more general discussion:
"Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and not using your
long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did not have the data. Please, could
we have the data? We will make proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the Esper article in
question attached. The so-called Indigirka River data set is not yet available because
it has not been published. I am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and
was indeed in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on specifically
this. All being well, there will be an accepted manuscript before next summer, and at
that point I will make the data freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let
you know, of course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you had asked him for
the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours before writing this email so as to
try to be constructive. To be sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not,
please read the attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been discussed in the
Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large proportion of the raw data are not yet in
the public domain, and so you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as
a possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata not available,
please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year reconstruction is available
(Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open, but I'm determined to
get some scientific value from all the years of work I've invested in the Yakutia work,
and in cooperation with Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
Cheers, Malcolm
--
Malcolm K Hughes
Regents' Professor
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
105 W Stadium
Tucson, AZ 85721
USA
tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[2]http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
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.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
2. http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
Original Filename: 1254518902.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:22 +0100
Cc: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Malcolm
honestly just a cross thread between Tom and I. I had been asked by
Darrell whether we should use the Sidorova chronology - because of
hassle by you know who - so asked Tom a while ago to ask you. I did
not see your answer - sorry if you cc'd me in as I have not been
checking emails. I fully accept and would NEVER go behind your back
to ask for the data. I understood that the chronology was published
and so thought to compare our RCS version with it if we could produce
it in time . We are being accused of not using that chronology in the
Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am happy to send
Darrell the single chronology if that is what Anders has sent. I am
having to start thinking about the Yamal crap and then this Darrell
stuff suddenly arises. I just wanted him to consider including the
Polar Urals reconstruction and the Sidorova series in his analysis
before publishing a correction in Science- apparently the selection
criterion for inclusion of series was anything published north of 60
degrees and longer than 1000 years. I could do without all this now -
don't really understand what Climate Audit are getting so hysterical
about but feel that I can not ignore it this time - but don't feel up
to getting involved. I fully admit to being out of the loop as
regards all this and having trouble getting back to it.
To restate - this was a confusion. I fully accept your point (as you
know I would). Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your
knowledge - TO BE HONEST ALSO - I actually was not really aware that
the data you were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and
the same. Best wishes hopefully all ok
I assume that we are allowed to use the chronolgy as published - are
we? I have not contacted Sidorova. Can you cc answer to Tom as I have
no email at present. (this coming from someone elses computer)
Keith
At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
>Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of
>the recent nonsense. I really have had no intention to bother you
>with work stuff, and had strongly encouraged Mike and Gavin to
>contact Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really
>reticent to raise something else, but must.
>What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that
>contained the following para, among other more general discussion:
>"Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking
>and not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because
>we did not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will
>make proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
>I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the
>Esper article in question attached. The so-called Indigirka River
>data set is not yet available because it has not been published. I
>am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and was indeed
>in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on
>specifically this. All being well, there will be an accepted
>manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make the
>data freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know,
>of course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
>So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
>This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you
>had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of
>hours before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To
>be sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not,
>please read the attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
>Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been
>discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large
>proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so
>you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as a
>possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata
>not available, please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year
>reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and
>all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
>As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open,
>but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the years
>of work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with
>Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
>Cheers, Malcolm
>
>
>--
>Malcolm K Hughes
>Regents' Professor
>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>The University of Arizona
>105 W Stadium
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>USA
>
>tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
>
>
>
>
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1254746802.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: thanks and one question
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
thanks Phil,
I wondered where this completely false claim was coming with. Are these people really so
clueless that they don't even understand that I have nothing to do with this whatsoever.
Pretty much tells you everything you need to do.
I never acknowledge emails from people I don't know, about topics that are in any way
sensitive. this is a perfect example of something that goes right to the trash bin,
mike
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike,
Thanks for this!
I assume you are both aware of this prat - Neil Craig, see below. Keith won't be
responding.
Checking facts doesn't seem important these days. As CA threads aren't publications this
is difficult for non scientists.
I am going further over one email I got at the weekend - see also below. Typical of Sonia
- although she now seems to only be an emeritus reader!
Cheers
Phil
Return-path: <[1]CrgN143@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: [2]CrgN143@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Full-name: CrgN143
Message-ID: <[3]d03.64b01875.37f87aa4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:00:04 EDT
Subject: Tree rings - accusation that you were solely responsible.
To: [4]k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1254564004"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5045
Professor Briffa,
I have written a couple of blogs on the current report by Steve
McIntyre that the data used by Mann to "prove" the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
following day's
[5]http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-warming-proven-deliberate-fraud.html
.
As a result I have received this email from somebody I am not aquainted with throwing
the entire blame on you. This seems improbable to me & possibly an alarmist damage
limitation exercise. If you wish to comment I would be happy for you to do so.
"Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
Cheers
Avisame"
I have posted this as an update with my reply:
"My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper,
chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming
trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that
this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed
Mr Briffa to see. "
Neil Craig
You may be interested in my political blog
[6]http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/
We received this through our enquiries desk. I assume that you are aware of this person,
including those copied on the message.
If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process. This confidence has proven to be well placed.
Roger
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen <[7]Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson <[8]stephanie.ferguson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Peiser, Benny" <[9]B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Patrick David Henderson
<[10]pdhenderson18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Christopher Monckton <[11]monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of scientific
'fraud' by CRU and Met Office
Dear Stephanie
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.
Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations made on to the
relevant people.
It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy policy debate. I know several
of the people involved personally and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour
as scientists, though I am also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy
positions.
I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross
McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business School and who is fully informed about
the relevant issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
Best wishes
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science ([12] www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1xxx xxxx xxxx/465385
Fax: (00xxx xxxx xxxx
TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
" Jennifer Marohasy <[13]jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
< <[14] http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists ->
[15]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists -
must-explain-or-resign/>
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 [16]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: [17]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [18]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[19]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
1. mailto:CrgN143@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:CrgN143@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:d03.64b01875.37f87aa4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-warming-proven-deliberate-fraud.html
6. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/
7. mailto:Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:stephanie.ferguson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:pdhenderson18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/
13. mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists
15. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists
16. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
19. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
20. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1254751382.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Date: Mon Oct 5 10:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people. Keith is still working on a
response. Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time.
Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out. Yamal is one site and isn't
in most of the millennial reconstructions. It isn't in MBH, Crowley, Moberg etc. Also
picking trees for a temperature response is not done either.
The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last
millennium from a few proxies, yet you can't do this from a few instrumental series for the
last 150 years! Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all.
[1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
This one is wrong as well. IPCC (1995) didn't use that silly curve that Chris Folland or
Geoff Jenkins put together.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 05/10/2009, you wrote:
David,
This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with
anyone. I hope you will respect this. This issue is not my problem,
and I await further developments.
However, Keith Briffa is in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and I was
Director of CRU for many years so I am quite familiar with Keith and
with his work. I have also done a lots of hands on tree ring work, both
in the field and in developing and applying computer programs for
climate reconstruction from tree rings. On the other hand, I have not
been involved in any of this work since I left CRU in 1993 to move to
NCAR. But I do think I can speak with some modicum of authority.
You say, re dendoclimatologists, "they rely on recent temperature data by which to
*select* recent tree data" (my emphasis). I don't know where you get this idea, but I
can assure you that it is entirely wrong.
Further, I do not know the basis for your claim that "Dendrochonology
is a bankrupt approach". It is one of the few proxy data areas where rigorous
multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested
on independent data.
Finally, the fact that scientists (in any field) do not willingly share their
hard-earned primary data implies that they have something to hide
has no logical basis.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Schnare wrote:
Tom:
Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection
procedure. Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to
do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually
enforced the practice.
More significantly, Briffa's analysis is irrelevant. Dendrochonology is a bankrupt
approach. They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree
ring size. Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree
data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data
explains the recent temperature data. If you can give a principled and reasoned defense
of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt's website) then go for it. I'd be fascinated, as
would a rather large number of others.
None of this, of course, detracts for the need to do research on geoengineering. David
Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
wrote:
Dear all,
I think it would be wise to let Briffa respond to these
accusations before compounding them with unwarranted
extrapolations.
With regard to the Hockey Stick, it is highly unlikely that
a single site can be very important. M&M have made similar
accusations in the past and they have been shown, in the
peer-reviewed literature, to be ill-founded.
Two recent papers you should read are those in the attached
Word document (first pages only).
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
David:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
-gene
/Eugene I. Gordon/
/(9xxx xxxx xxxx/
/euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx/ <[2]http://euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx/>
/[3]www.germgardlighting.com/ <[4]http://www.germgardlighting.com/>
*From:* geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[5]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[6]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[7]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon
<euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[8]mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[9]mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
wrote:
Alan:
Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.
Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar
behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell
Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly
perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I
am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and
thankfully there is a goodly share of those._
-gene
*From:* Alan White [mailto:adwhite99@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[10]mailto:adwhite99@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[11]mailto:adwhite99@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[12]mailto:adwhite99@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>]
*Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:28 PM
*To:* Gene Gordon
*Subject:* Fw: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
more of the same. what gives with these guys?
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Peiser, Benny <[13]mailto:B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[14]mailto:B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
*To:* CCNetMedia <[15]mailto:CCNetMedia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[16]mailto:CCNetMedia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
*Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 6:36 AM
*Subject:* CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
CCNet 153/2xxx xxxx xxxxOctober 2xxx xxxx xxxxAudiatur et altera pars
CRU'S HIDDEN DATA AND THE IPCC: A SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL UNFOLDS
------------------------------------------------------------
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious
implications for
public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the
science,
not create it. As the IPCC states, its duty is "assessing the
scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It
does not
carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related
data." But as
IPCC lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping the
assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that
refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more
general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review
fails -
as it did here?
--Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a
hockey
stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend
the Hockey
Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would
question the
Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top
journals
like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or
editors ever
required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were
ignored.
--Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged
stool that
is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global
warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4)
communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
--Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so
far. I'm
not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it
means or whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global
warming
supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The
reaction of
the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their
comment
threads - has been extraordinary.
--Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009
Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric
cars and
shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned
recession' to
avoid dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall
Centre for
Climate Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the
dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent
by 2020.
This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned
recession".
--Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016
Olympics
could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to
mankind. "It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics
in the
history of mankind," Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016
press event
ahead of the vote. "Global warming is getting worse. We have to
come up
with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long.
"Scientists have said we have passed the point of no return," said
Ishihara.
--Karolos Grohmann, Reuters, 30 September 2009
(1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
(2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED
Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
(3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER
Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
(4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS
George F. Will, The Washington Post, 1 October 2009
(5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS
Times of India, 2 October 2009
(6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER
Lenore Taylor, The Australian, 2 October 2009
(7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
Jennifer Marohasy <jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[17]mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[18]mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[19]mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
(8) COOLING?
Rodney Chilton <maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[20]mailto:maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[21]mailto:maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[22]mailto:maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
(9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES
Steven Zoraster <szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[23]mailto:szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[24]mailto:szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[25]mailto:szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
(10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT
ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING?
Peter Kidson <peterdkidson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[26]mailto:peterdkidson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[27]mailto:peterdkidson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[28]mailto:peterdkidson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>]
(11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM?
Robert Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[29]mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[30]mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[31]mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
(12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC
CLIMATE
CHANGE
Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
===========
(1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
The Register, 29 September 2009
<[32]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/>
By Andrew Orlowski
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical
temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant
implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the
IPCC's
assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the
British climate research centre CRU at the University East
Anglia. In
every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or
dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the
ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature
anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of
temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record
humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is
problematic, and a
dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In
dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of
creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a
choice open to a scientist's biases.
Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold
claims using tree ring data.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate
papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in
Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a
newer and
larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated
pronounced
and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the
measurement data
used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill
procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other
scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious
peer
reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to
demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical
Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's
mystery
is no more.
>From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees
from a
larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were
cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no
dramatic
recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which
ten were
alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the
mid-19th
century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.
Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper
by Keith
Briffa at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really
cold,
and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the
historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa
relied on
just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.
Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and
Hughes
based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar:
warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors
of the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this
distinctive
pattern became emblematic - the "Logo of Global Warming".
IPCC's Assessment Report from 2001 - with the error bars in grey
emphasised
Hokey hockey sticks
Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed
attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had
forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of
Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp
server in
a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)
Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical
technique,
which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which
became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise.
Similarly, all the papers that used the Yamal data have the same
point
to make. All suggest recent dramatic warming. Having scored a
global hit
with a combination of flawed statistics and dubious
dendrochronology,
the acts repeated the formula.
"Late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly
the past
two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere," wrote the two authors of
Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia published in
Geophysical Research Letters in 2003 - Mann, and Phil Jones of CRU.
For example, Briffa's 2008 paper concludes that: "The extent of
recent
widespread warming across northwest Eurasia, with respect to 100- to
200-year trends, is unprecedented in the last 2000 years."
The same authors in 2004:
It continues to this day. A study purporting to show the Arctic was
warmer now than for 2,000 years received front-page attention last
month. Led by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S
Kaufman,
and including dendro veteran Mann, this too relied heavily on
Yamal, and
produced the signature shape.
Now here's Yamal.
And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the
implications of the choice is striking:
A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red - as archived with
12 picked
cores; black - including Schweingruber's Khadyta River, Yamal
(russ035w)
archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year
gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units
centered on
1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).
"The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a
prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th
century," wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on
Sunday. "When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these
particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster
growth
- 8 sigma anomalies in some of them."
McIntyre's determination to reproduce the reconstructions has
resulted
in the Yamal data finally coming to light.
All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who
mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data.
What went wrong?
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in
science. The
IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.
As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific,
technical
and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of
the risk
of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new
research nor
does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author,
Briffa was a
key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment.
When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
here?
The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged
persistence of
a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
Steve
McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained
elusive
for almost a decade. (r)
Bootnote
The Royal Society's motto from the enlightenment era is Nullius in
verba. "On nobody's authority" or colloquially, "take nobody's
word for
it". In 2007, the Society's then president suggested this be
changed to
"respect the facts".
Copyright 2009, ElReg
==========
(2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED
Financial Post, 1 October 2009
<[33]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/r>
oss-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx>
By Ross McKitrick
Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a
famous
result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph.
Developed by
a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical
compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air
temperatures
had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the
20th
century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick,
scientists had
held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making
the scale
of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The
dramatic
revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's
publication made
it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured
prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless
review reports.
Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick
were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect
bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two
expert
panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to
investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media
followed
the story around the world.
The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey
Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed
bristlecone
pine data. One of the panels, however, argued that while the
Mann Hockey
Stick itself was flawed, a series of other studies published
since 1998
had similar shapes, thus providing support for the view that the
late
20th century is unusually warm. The IPCC also made this argument
in its
2007 report. But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward
Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent.
They are
written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in
different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy
series
over and over.
Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th
century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that
do have
a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the
National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the
studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring
curve from
the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith
Briffa.
Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval
period
actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this
claim
depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the
Polar
Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber
produced a
much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very
different
story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th
century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published
those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from
their
climate reconstruction papers.
In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated
from tree
ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced
Hockey
Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising
in the
20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an
undisclosed number
of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in
producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the
individual
tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw
data.
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a
hockey
stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend
the Hockey
Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would
question the
Yamal data.
Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like
Nature
and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required
Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
requests for
them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.
Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published
a paper
using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict
data-sharing
rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and
this time
an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to
release their
data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve
could
finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.
It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead
(partially
fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp
uptrend
in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees
alive as of
1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific
standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a
publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century
portion of
the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year.
But that
portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does
is the
late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a
dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least
reliable
portion of a dataset.
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve
searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree
ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been
used to
increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34
up-to-date
core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than
Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small
group the
20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely
unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual
step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a
different
composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were
gathered
more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the
primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with
as the
Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the
readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa
seek out
additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and
not for
the inadequate Yamal site?
Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been
invoked to
support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series,
depends on the
influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of
readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on
here, it
is not science.
I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a
decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have
consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what
lies at
the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The
surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a
significant warm
bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated
evidence in
its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross
disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing
with each
passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has
departed
from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and
low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a
member last
time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told:
Conflicts of
interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically
ignored and
there are no effective checks and balances against bias or
distortion.
I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to
know
better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without
bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific
discrepancies and
procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global
warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to
collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to
start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am
grateful for
those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who
continue to ask
the right questions and insist on scientific standards of
openness and
transparency.
Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the
University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
Copyright 2009, FP
EDITOR'S NOTE: More on the CRU's Yamal scandal and its impact, see:
<[34]http://www.climateaudit.org/>
<[35]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal>
-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/>
<[36]http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht>
ml>
<[37]http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/yamal-the-debate-conti>
nues.html>
============
(3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER
National Post, 1 October 2009
<[38]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01>
/terence-corcoran-climate-data-buster.aspx>
By Terence Corcoran
The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged
stool that
is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global
warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4)
communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
Over the past month, one of the IPCC's top climate scientists, Mojib
Latif, attempted to explain that even if global temperatures were to
cool over the next 10 to 20 years, that would not mean that man-made
global warming is no longer catastrophic. It was a tough case to
make,
and it is not clear Mr. Latif succeeded. In a presentation to a
world
climate conference in early September, Mr. Latif rambled
somewhat and
veered off into inscrutable language that is now embedded in a
million
blog posts attempting to prove one thing or another.
A sample: "It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even
two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative
to the
present level...And then, you know, I know what's going to
happen. You
know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know
-'What's
going on?' 'So is global warming disappearing, you know?' 'Have
you lied
on us, you know?' So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we
need to
address this decadal prediction issue."
The decadal prediction issue appears to be a combination of computer
model problems, the unpredictability of natural climate
variation, and
assorted uncertainties. Making all this clear to the average global
citizen will not be easy and climate scientists need to be able
to make
it clear, said Mr. Latif. "We have to ask the nasty questions
ourselves,
all right, or some other people will do it."
All this is still swirling around the global climate issue
today. But
now along comes another problem. Canadian data buster Steve
McIntyre has
spend most of the last three years deconstructing the IPCC's famous
claim that the last couple of decades of the 20th century were the
hottest in a thousand years. Using what was called The Hockey Stick
graph, the IPCC claimed to have the smoking gun that showed a
sharp run
up in global temperatures through to 1997. The validity of the
IPCC data
began to crumble when Mr. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Guelph
University found serious data problems that raised doubts about the
graph and the claims of record high temperatures.
As Ross McKitrick explains in his op-ed, Steve McIntyre has
uncovered
another data distortion that further undermines the original graphic
claim that the world has set temperature records in recent years. If
world temperatures may have been just as hot in the past as they
have
been recently, and if the the next two decades could be cooler
than they
have been recently, the theory of climate change becomes an even
tougher
case to make.
The IPCC is now on wobbly legs at all four corners. Its models are
inadequate and need overhaul, data integrity is at issue, the
climate is
not quite following the script, and the communication program
for the
whole campaign is a growing struggle.
Copyright 2009, NP
==========
(4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS
The Washington Post, 1 October 2009
<[39]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR20090>
93003569.html>
By George F. Will
"Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task Of Reaching a
Solution"
--New York Times, Sept. 23
In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties
confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word
"plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact
that
global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate
their apocalyptic warnings about it.
The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is
"building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global
temperatures have
been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the
next few
years." That was in the Times's first paragraph.
In the fifth paragraph, a "few years" became "the next decade or
so,"
according to Mojib Latif, a German "prize-winning climate and ocean
scientist" who campaigns constantly to promote policies
combating global
warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates "maybe even two"
decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times's
"decade or
so."
By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a
mere "plateau," not warming's apogee, the Times assures readers
who are
alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and
that
warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.
The Times reported that "scientists" -- all of them? -- say the
11 years
of temperature stability has "no bearing," none, on long-term
warming.
Some scientists say "cool stretches are inevitable." Others say
there
may be growth of Arctic sea ice, but the growth will be "temporary."
According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to
communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to
policymakers
-- can be frustrating."
The Times says "a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of
climate change." Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the
accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from
man-made
climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are
unfalsifiable, at least in the "short run." And the "short run" is
defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence
begins to
fit the hypotheses.
The Post recently reported the theory of a University of Virginia
professor emeritus who thinks that, many millennia ago, primitive
agriculture -- burning forests, creating methane-emitting rice
paddies,
etc. -- produced enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet at
least a
degree. The theory is interesting. Even more interesting is the
reaction
to it by people such as the Columbia University professor who
says it
makes him "really upset" because it might encourage opponents of
legislation combating global warming.
Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as
evidence of
warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United
Nations
Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit
increase
by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most
ambitious
pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal
is an 80
percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American
Enterprise
Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to
the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions
approximately equal to those in 1875.
That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try?
America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence
about climate change. Alarmists will fight this because the first
casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced
myth of
consensus -- the bald assertion that no reputable scientist
doubts the
gravity of the crisis, doubts being conclusive evidence of
disreputable
motives or intellectual qualifications. The president, however,
could
support such a commission because he is sure "there's finally
widespread
recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us." So he
announced
last week at the U.N. climate change summit, where he said the
threat is
so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly,
swiftly
and together" -- "time . . . is running out" -- we risk
"irreversible
catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago,
he said
humanity had 100 months -- until July 2xxx xxxx xxxxto prevent
"catastrophic
climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring."
Evidently humanity will prevent this.
Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince
said that
by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion
people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western
people now
do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their
predictions lest
they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable
faux pas of
denying that the world is coming to an end.
Copyright 2009, WP
==============
(5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS
Times of India, 2 October 2009
<[40]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/US-t>
hrows-spanner-into-climate-talks/articleshow/5079332.cms>
Nitin Sethi, TNN
NEW DELHI: The promise of a deal at Copenhagen seem to be
turning into a
pipedream as the US has refused to put down hard numbers for
mitigation
under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol at the ongoing climate
negotiations at Bangkok. EU too seems to be taking a deal-breaking
condition saying, "environmental integrity" was central to the
UN treaty
and "equity" of different countries' rights was just one element.
The negotiations at various levels seem to be grinding into a logjam
with US determined not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The US
negotiators fought hard at different forums within the UN talks
to block
any progress on industrialized countries' commitments to reduce
emissions in the mid-term under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol.
India stood steadfast in demanding that the rich countries put
up their
offers in terms of hard numbers for emission reductions over
2xxx xxxx xxxx
under the existing protocol. But, US and many other developed
countries
seemed determined to do away with the Kyoto Protocol entirely.
This is not the first time that US has voiced its opposition to the
Kyoto Protocol which demands quantified targets from rich
countries. US
had not signed on to Kyoto earlier and it continues to oppose
the only
tool the global treaty has for making measurable and comparable
reductions in the dangerous greenhouse gases.
The protocol is also seen by a select band of industrialized
countries
such as US and Japan as a wall of differentiation constructed in the
convention. The parent treaty -- UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change -- lays most of the burden of mitigation on the
industrialized
countries that caused it in the first place. The Kyoto Protocol
activates this principle of burden sharing into hard actions and
targets. The protocol in its first phase sets fixed percentages
by which
countries reduce their emissions by 2012 below 1990 levels.
Many of the industrialized countries have not moved on a
trajectory to
achieve the targets for 2012. Part of the discussions in the UN
talks
have been to set a higher level targets for the second phase of
Kyoto
Protocol between 2xxx xxxx xxxx.
But the US, not keen to take on any commitments in the mid-term, has
always shown interest in disbanding with Kyoto Protocol and instead
taking on a series of actions that are decided by countries on
their own
-- say energy efficiency targets -- and merely presented to the UN
forum. India and developing countries have pointed out that
would make
the targets incomparable and render it impossible to figure out
if any
significant reductions have been made in emissions to prevent a
climate
calamity.
Other industrialized countries too have so far shown little
interest in
offering credible and robust targets for the second phase of the
protocol. The offers so far on the table from the industrialized
countries, if implemented, would only bring in reductions in the
range
of 11-18% by 2020 below 1990 levels. India and other developing
countries have demanded that the industrialized countries follow the
recommendations of the UN climate science panel -- IPCC -- and
take cuts
in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 which would put the
world on a trajectory to avoid temperatures reaching dangerous
levels in
the decades to come.
Copyright 2009, TOI
=============
(6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER
The Australian, 2 October 2009
<[41]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153xxx xxxx xxxx,00.htm> l>
Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | October 02, 2009
MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back
bench after
staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change
strategy. Several MPs immediately refused to do so.
If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating
amendments
to the government's emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said
yesterday, the Coalition would "literally be a party with
nothing to say
... a party with no ideas", and that was "not the party I am
prepared to
lead".
Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull
said: "I
am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the
Leader of the Opposition."
"If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that
would
obviously be a leadership issue. That's perfectly plain, perfectly
clear," he told ABC Radio in Adelaide.
"I could not possibly lead a party that was on a
do-nothing-on-climate-change platform."
His critics were not cowed, despite the fact that both mooted
leadership
alternatives -- Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott -- support Mr Turnbull's
stance.
West Australian backbencher Wilson Tuckey said: "Mr Turnbull has
made
the ETS a leadership issue and we will now treat it as such." His
leader's ultimatum did not alter his "total opposition to an ETS
and to
the suggestion that we might amend it".
Victorian Liberal senator Julian McGauran said he stood by his
vow to
vote against the ETS in November, no matter what amendments were
negotiated.
Nationals senators also remain implacably opposed to the scheme. "He
hasn't got the partyroom with him on this one ... we are going
to stand
up for what we believe in," said senator Ron Boswell.
"This is not just another issue. This is not one we can let go
through
to the keeper," said senator Barnaby Joyce.
Mr Tuckey appeared to suggest Mr Turnbull's deputy, Julie
Bishop, as an
alternative leader, saying there were "many good potential
leaders in
the Liberal Party ... and perhaps some people who have had their
reputations tarnished by backgrounding from our side now deserve
reconsideration for the top job".
FULL STORY at
<[42]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153xxx xxxx xxxx,00.htm> l>
======== e-mails to the editor =====
(7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
Jennifer Marohasy <jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[43]mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[44]mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[45]mailto:jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer
Marohasy
<[46]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists->
must-explain-or-resign/>
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various
reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest
year of
the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered
over the
last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to
data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support
the idea
that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures
over the
last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking
for since
2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the
United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small
subset of the available data to make their claims that recent
years have
been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is
used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics
behind
the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research
Centre, in
particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the
upswing
in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an
artifact of
the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these
same
scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data.
Recently they
were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a
journal which
unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving
which it
enforces. This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists
associated with the
UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and
suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for
anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the
methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is
archived
at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that
spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while
complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from
scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre
associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr
McIntyre is
in error or resign.
[1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27
September 2009
[47]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
================
(8) COOLING?
Rodney Chilton <maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[48]mailto:maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
Dear Benny:
Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning the
slight
cooling of the earth's overall climate since about 2005. The
result of
the cooling has brought some scientists into the forefront to be
openly
critical of the still prominent view that climate changes over the
century or so have predominately been man caused. The proponents of
human initiated climate changes are of the opinion that the recent
cooling is but a temporary interruption in what soon again will be a
rapid climate warming.
I think one of the keys to alleviate some of this discussion is to
attempt to determine the triggers for two other climate shifts in
earlier times. The first of these, the "Little Ice Age" is generally
regarded by most scientists as resulting from a reduced output
of energy
from the sun. Coinciding as it did with an interval of very
little to
almost no sunspot activity, a time known as the "Maunder
Minimum", many
solar scientists suggest that as little as 0.25% decrease in solar
output initiated this cold climate period. Similarily, during
the mid
20th Century during the years from the end of the 1940's to
about the
mid 1970's, the sun was in one of its quiet modes (very few
sunspots).
The cause for what was a slightly cooler interval could logically be
linked to decreased energy from the sun. However, the quite recent
thirty year period is more commonly linked to increased dust in the
earth's atmosphere. Consistent with this view is the idea that
perhaps
the Little Ice Age too, was forced not by a decrease in the sun's
output, but by an increase in dust, not that produced by man, but by
extraterrestrial dust from a comet encounter. More details of this
particular scenario can be seen at the following website:
<[49]http://www.bcclimate.com <[50]http://www.bcclimate.com/>
<[51]http://www.bcclimate.com/>>
All of this raises the questions, what drove both the Little Ice
Age and
the thirty year interval in the middle of the last century? It is
possible that they were driven by the two different causes
outlined. It
is vital I think that the reason(s) for the two climate shifts be
determined. This would go along way to settle the recent debate
as to
the importance of solar minima in initiating climate changes
over more
than just a few years. Further to this, the picture of the
future will
be clarified. If for example, decreases in solar output is
proven to be
of less importance during the past, then surely the present climate
downturn will be likely only a temporary respite from the inexorable
upward trend in temperatures worldwide. If on the other hand the
solar
cycles accompanied by low sun activity over decades and even
longer can
be proven as significant, then I believe we must re-examine the
increased carbon dioxide scenario.
Rodney Chilton
============
(9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES
Steven Zoraster <szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[52]mailto:szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[53]mailto:szoraster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[54]mailto:szoraster@szo
Original Filename: 1254754536.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: thanks and one question
Date: Mon Oct 5 10:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gavin, Mike,
Thanks for this!
I assume you are both aware of this prat - Neil Craig, see below. Keith won't be
responding.
Checking facts doesn't seem important these days. As CA threads aren't publications this
is difficult for non scientists.
I am going further over one email I got at the weekend - see also below. Typical of Sonia
- although she now seems to only be an emeritus reader!
Cheers
Phil
Return-path: <CrgN143@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: CrgN143@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Full-name: CrgN143
Message-ID: <d03.64b01875.37f87aa4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:00:04 EDT
Subject: Tree rings - accusation that you were solely responsible.
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1254564004"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5045
Professor Briffa,
I have written a couple of blogs on the current report by Steve
McIntyre that the data used by Mann to "prove" the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
following day's
[1]http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-warming-proven-deliberate-fraud.html
.
As a result I have received this email from somebody I am not aquainted with throwing
the entire blame on you. This seems improbable to me & possibly an alarmist damage
limitation exercise. If you wish to comment I would be happy for you to do so.
"Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
Cheers
Avisame"
I have posted this as an update with my reply:
"My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper,
chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming
trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that
this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed
Mr Briffa to see. "
Neil Craig
You may be interested in my political blog
[2]http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/
We received this through our enquiries desk. I assume that you are aware of this person,
including those copied on the message.
If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process. This confidence has proven to be well placed.
Roger
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen <Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson <stephanie.ferguson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Patrick David Henderson
<pdhenderson18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Christopher Monckton <monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of scientific
'fraud' by CRU and Met Office
Dear Stephanie
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.
Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations made on to the
relevant people.
It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy policy debate. I know several
of the people involved personally and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour
as scientists, though I am also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy
positions.
I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross
McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business School and who is fully informed about
the relevant issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
Best wishes
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science ([3]www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1xxx xxxx xxxx/465385
Fax: (00xxx xxxx xxxx
TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
" Jennifer Marohasy <jennifermarohasy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
< <[4]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists->
[5]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-
must-explain-or-resign/>
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://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-warming-proven-deliberate-fraud.html
2. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/
3. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/
4. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists
5. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists
Original Filename: 1254756944.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Message from Tom Wigley
Date: Mon Oct 5 11:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith,
Here's a message from Tom. It might be worth sending anything you've got to him to have
a look through. Shorter responses are probably better. Detail can go in a poster.
Pointing out how often or not Yamal is used is useful. I don't think they have done
this. I think many people confuse this with the polar urals chronology. That is different
and it is based on density.
M&M rely on people not checking.
Cheers
Phil
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.30 () [Hold at 5.00] PORN_RP_NASTY,SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32219749 - e7f62debf1d6
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=f
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=n
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=s
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
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=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=f
2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=n
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=s
Original Filename: 1254760537.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: NCDC data
Date: Mon Oct 5 12:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tom,
I can't see why the data become ERSSTv3b. b seems all that you can download.
I reviewed the 2008 paper. The version that I reviewed had something in for the problem of
SST data now re drifters and ships, but they pulled that section. I recall saying it needed
to be watertight and they needed to explain the spatial pattern to the ship minus drifter
field. Maybe that version was a?
I was never that keen on their infilling. It biases the values before the 1920s when you
infill with anomalies that are nearer to zero. You can see this in their Fig6. This version
is better than their previous one.
I always assumed they still had gaps - as it would be impossible to infill the
Antarctic and some parts of the Southern Oceans. Have you tried looking at their Antarctic
average - 65-90S for example?
Their globe should be one domain, so not (NH+SH)/2 but for an infilled dataset this
shouldn't make any difference.
I wonder if they downweight the infilled values in some way? They have their error
field?
The 2008 paper doesn't say how they compute Global and NH and SH. Are NH and SH the same
as you get?
Cheers
Phil
At 06:56 05/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil, Ben,
Have you looked at the latest NCDC global data? It seems odd.
The data on their site is ERSSTv3 (Smith et al. 2008). As far
as I know, this is an infilled data set with no gaps. As such,
(NH+SH)/2 should be the same as their global mean. For monthly
data, this is not the case. There are actually some big
differences, even recently.
Any idea why?
Tom.
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: 1254832684.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Andrew Manning <a.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Co2 Data
Date: Tue Oct 6 08:38:xxx xxxx xxxx
Andrew,
Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.
You could point out several things to Martin.
1. Projections aren't made with observed data - instrumental or paleo. They are made with
climate models.
2. The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are
quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review,
the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones.
Here is what Stephen McIntyre says on Climate Audit.
"While there is much to criticise in the handling of this data by the authors and the
journals, the results do not in any way show that 'AGW is a fraud' nor that this particular
study was a 'fraud'.
McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC
won't be able to assess any of it unless he does.
You dad and Susan Solomon have had runs in with him and others
3. You might like to send him this pdf and its Figure 2. Three different groups get much
the same result.
Here are the two web pages we have put up so far. Keith is working on the tree one and
put much more later in the week.
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
So other groups around the world have also entered into agreements. I know this doesn't
make it right, but it is the way of the world with both instrumental and paleo data. I
frequently try and get data from other people without success, sometimes from people who
send me the pdf of their paper then tell me they can't send me the series in their plots.
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/
It is the right wing web sites doing all this, presumably in the build up to Copenhagen.
At 00:13 06/10/2009, Andrew Manning wrote:
Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I'm
in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here
in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
question (again) observed temperature increases - I thought we'd moved the debate beyond
this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:50:38 +0100
Subject: Co2 Data
From: Martin Lutyens <martinlutyens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Andrew Manning <a.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Andrew,
I just came across an article in The Week, called "The case of the vanishing data". It
writes in a rather wry and sceptical way about your UEA colleagues Phil Jones and Tom
Wigley , saying that only their "homogenised" or "adjusted" historical data is
available, and the original, raw data has gone missing. Apparently some other
environmental gurus now want to look at the original data and were "fobbed off".
According to the article, the adjusted data forms the basis for much of the climate
change debate and , because others now want to look at the source data, it is "at the
centre of an academic spat that could have major implications for the climate change
debate". The author of the original article is Patrick Michaels in The National Review,
who may just be stirring it.
The article concludes "In short, the data invoked to verify the most significant
forecasts about the world's future, have simply vanished." Could you comment on this
please, as someone (eg Siemens Corp.) may pick this up and I think we should all be
forearmed by knowing what really happened and what to say if asked.
Many thanks, Martin
--
Martin Lutyens
+44 xxx xxxx xxxx
+44 xxx xxxx xxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/
Original Filename: 1254850534.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: help please
Date: Tue Oct 6 13:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
Agreed that NCDC must have some data gaps - but this isn't very clear from the web
site.
GISS is inferior - not just because it doesn't use back data. They also impose some
urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don't think is
very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land
only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year
variability - when I last looked.
I assume NCDC should add the back data in - although there isn't the need if infilling
is going on OK.
I've never looked to see if NCDC changes from year to year.
I think you can say that GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3. In Ch 3 of AR4 I put the station
number counts in.
GISS and NCDC have more, but almost all of this is more data in the US. Their non-use of a
base period (GISS using something very odd and NCDC first differences) means they can use
very short series that we can't (as they don't have base periods) but with short series it
is impossible to assess for homogeneity. So some of their extra series may be very short
ones as well. As you know the more important thing is where the stations are (and in time).
The paper I sent you by Adrian Simmons shows great agreement with CRUTEM3 when
subsampled according to CRU grid boxes. Also shows that ERA-INTERIM is very good.
ERA-INTERIM's absolute is also within 0.2 deg C of the CRU 14 deg C value. It would give
about 13.8 for 1961-90. Sometime I should write this up as more and more people seem to be
using 15 deg C.
Away from tomorrow till next Tuesday.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:23 05/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Thanks again.
Re ENSO/volcs, it was me who did this first ...
Wigley, T.M.L., 2000: ENSO, volcanoes and record breaking temperatures.
Geophysical Research Letters 27, 41014104.
Then in a paper with Ben (with you as a co-author) ...
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.
I think my iterative method is better than Thompson's method. He has some weird volcano
results. Removing the dynamic bit is not much use
in my view.
So I have all these series with volc and ENSO removed (or just ENSO
removed, but accounting for volcano obfuscation). I also use running approx. 20-year
regressions usually -- as you know, the ENSO-globalT link breaks down in the 1930s, so
using a relationship that comes from
a (e.g.xxx xxxx xxxxyear regression would impose a spurious anti-ENSO signal
on the data in the 1930s. I think this is important -- ignored by
Thompson. The reason for this breakdown is obscure, but I think it is because, for some
reason, the N34/SOI link (i.e., really the SST/Walker circulation link) weakens in the
1930s. We need to look at this more fully in models.
I also have these series for different regions of the globe. I need
to revise and update these. It is tricky to get the regional volc
signal because of SNR problems at the smaller spatial scale.
I wrote all this up more than 10 years ago, but have not got around to finalizing it to
submit for publication. (I have a number of other papers like this. Once I get done with
an issue to a certain level I
get sidetracked on other issues.)
The amplification *does* work for warming and cooling. Theory says about
+30% for TLT/surface. This works for overall variability, and for RSS
trend. But oddly the ENSO and volc amplification seems to be greater than this. I've
asked Ben for his thoughts on why.
Re NCDC, it seems that there *must* be data gaps. This is the only
way that global can differ from (N+S)/2.
It also seems that the NCDC data must be ERSST3b. But their web site
is not clear on this. perhaps Ben knows.
Thanks for the GISS info. So this means that their series does not change from year to
year, whereas HadCRU does (albiet by only small
amounts). Does NCDC change each year? The GISS thing means that it
must be inferior to HadCRU and NCDC. Should I say this in my report
to EPRI?
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++
Phil Jones wrote:
Tom,
I don't think AR4 (Ch 3) went into the TLT/surface amplification issue. You can get
the pdf of the chapter from here [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html . This
amplification issue is only addressed in some recent papers - mainly Ben's.
The timescale argument is quite convincing. It is a pity that there is only Pinatubo
that you can test it on. El Chichon ought to work but it is confused by ENSO. Does the
amplification work well for the 1997/98 El Nino?
Did you pick up that Thompson et al paper due out in J. Climate soon? Factoring out
ENSO and volcanoes might help in isolating this.
[2]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/thompson.php
where there is a link to the paper and also the data
[3]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/
It seems as though you can get all the extraction parts. No need for the dynamic bit.
Anyway my thought is as Pinatubo gives the amplification then ENSO ought to as well.
A thought might be to take Dave Thompson's ENSO and volcanic subtraction series, then
scale them by thermodynamic theory value then subtract these from RSS and UAH. Small
issue of base periods to sort out
and assume there is no lag.
Need to do this with NCDC surface as well - have to use Dave T's numbers here. This
can't do the 20N-20S - just the globe.
It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong.
A couple of minor things in the paper
- the amplification should work for a cooling as well - not just warming trends?
In Fig 5 in your legend LOUAH should be UAHLO. This is in Fig 4 as well.
By the way - meant to add this to the earlier email.
NCDC ERSST3 side does talk about missing data, so any of this would mean the (NH+SH)/2
won't equal the global average that NCDC calculate.
I recall you asking about GISS. One thing I have learned about GISS is that they have a
cut off date of the 8th of each month. After this date nothing is changed for the
previous month and nothing earlier either. This means they never incorporate any back
data and they don't get the second tranche of CLIMAT data which comes about the 16th of
the following month. Countries like Paraguay and Bolivia mostly come in this way, plus
some in Africa.
I'll see Tom Peterson later in the week. I'll ask him about their cut offs. I think
they don't change a month later. This won't lose you much data though. It was Tom who
told me about the data they can't use.
Cheers
Phil
At 05:25 04/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Hi Phil,
I'm writing a report for EPRI where I have to discuss the
instrumental temperature record. What they are particularly
concerned with is/are the criticisms that have been leveled
at the surface record, especially differences from MSU data.
I think CCSP 1.1 does a good job on this -- not sure about
AR4 (which I need to re-check). But things have changed since
CCSP 1.1 and AR4, and I think I can make a better case against
UAH than either of these reports.
Could you please look at the attached and give me your opinion
and comments (tracked if that makes it easier)? In my view, the
evidence that the UAH data are flawed is overwhelming -- but I
want to make the case in a logical and balanced way. Have I
succeeded? The audience level for this is IPCC report level,
perhaps a bit lower. So I need to be relatively simple, but authoritative.
The MSU issue also comes up later in my report where I discuss
the IJOC Santer et al. paper -- which is only mentioned briefly
in the attached extract.
One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two
surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the
warmest year in the GISS record -- do you trust GISS? I've
not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest?
Thanks for your help.
By the way, this report was due to EPRI last week. I'm hoping
to get it to them by Friday (9 Oct.)
Best wishes,
Tom
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html%A0
2. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/thompson.php
3. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/
Original Filename: 1255027691.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Viva Banzon <Viva.Banzon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ERSST
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:48:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard.W.Reynolds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Derek.Arndt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hello, everyone,
Additional info provided below.-Viva
------------------------------------------------------------
ERSST refers only to the ocean temperature fields. Smith et al. (2008) described the
updates to create ERSST version 3. This included the use of in situ and satellite data.
The paper also presented updates to the Land Surface Temperature (LST) product and
culminated in the computation of the Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature product.
However, since ca. Nov 2008, satellite data was removed from the analysis, and was called
v3b, but the methodology is essentially the same as in the paper. The reason was that
there was a residual cold bias in the satellite data. This caused problems for users
concerned with rankings. We do not handle the page for the LST and Merged ST product, and
perhaps there should be more coordination among these webpages. We have noticed the
confusion about the ERSST v3 and v3b in several articles, are in the process of updating
the webpage.
The in situ data used for the ERSSTv3b is ICOADS. The current v3b was computed using
ICOADS release 2.4 (1xxx xxxx xxxx). In July 2009, a new release was made with additional data
pre-1900's and during the war years, but we have no plans yet to reprocess. It is during
such a reprocessing that we will include any missed data. Operationally, we run the code
on the 3rd of each month using the available GTS data.
The baseline for the ERSST anomalies is 1xxx xxxx xxxx. For the LST, the GHCN box averages are
provided to us as anomalies already, so I am not sure what the baseline is (I just started
3 months ago so I have not worked a lot on the Merged product codes yet). In the programs,
there is an adjustment of the LST anomaly to a 1xxx xxxx xxxxbase. So the final merged ST
anomaly has a 1xxx xxxx xxxxbase period. The best practice would be to reconstruct the
original ST by adding the 1xxx xxxx xxxxbase. Then compare or adjust or change baselines as
you please.
BTW, my last name is BANZON, no R. Alas I am not related to the 261st richest person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--
[NOTE: The opinions expressed in this email are those of the author alone, and do not
necessarily reflect official NOAA, Department of Commerce, or US government policy.]
Patria Viva F. Banzon
Physical Scientist, Remote Sensing & Applications Division
National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NESDIS)
151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC 28xxx xxxx xxxx
(8xxx xxxx xxxx(Tel.xxx xxxx xxxx(FAX)
[1]Viva.Banzon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[2]Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Dear Tom,
Phil Jones, who is sitting next to me here in southern Spain and
also checking email, explained what you are working on and it sounds
like a potentially very insightful analysis. I wish you luck.
Viva Branson (cc'd) is our new/improved keeper of ERSST. We
sometimes refer to her as Dick Reynolds version b (Dick is cc'd as
well). She will be able to answer your questions more accurately than
I. But if I recall correctly from talking to them Monday, to avoid
confusion they are trying to only make the latest (and therefore best)
version of ERSST available. So the version you downloaded should be 3b.
But Viva can verify this for you. I don't know which reference is
currently the recommended one to use.
A decade ago, NCDC did a global land analysis and a global ocean
analysis and then combined them with a weighting of 30/70. This could
also arguably be the most accurate way to combine spatially incomplete
data so that the world is not inappropriately weighted more towards the
ocean than land (which tends to have larger gaps). Once we used Tom
Smith's more spatially complete analysis, we went with a simple global
average. While the data are more spatially complete, they are not
complete. Data are set to missing over sea ice, much of the world north
of 75N and Antarctica (Viva and I are currently reevaluating options for
those last two).
ERSST is updated monthly. The SST portion is already updated for
September and the land portion will wait another week or so for more
data to come in. (I realize I've been assuming you are using ERSST as
shorthand for NCDC's merged land/ocean data set, equivalent to HadCRU -
if you're only asking about SSTs, Viva and Dick are the people to ask).)
The base period used for calculation of anomalies from the grid box
mean of ERSST is, I believe, the 30 years 1xxx xxxx xxxx(as that had the most
data). So if you are using a gridded field, that is the relevant number
- though Viva can verify my memory on the dates). But when we make
global averaged temperature time series, we adjust the time series up or
down so that the zero line is the mean of 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
Viva, Dick, do you have anything to add (or correct)?
Tom, I've also cc'd Deke Arndt, the head of our Climate Monitoring
Branch because if you find this confusing, he will probably want to make
sure the web pages you read are made clearer.
Regards,
Tom P.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Wigley [3]<wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009 2:16 am
Subject: ERSST
Dear Toms,
Could you please clarify a few things for me ...
(1) Is the currently downloadable ERSST data version 3, or 3b?
It seems to be 3b -- but the web page is not entirely clear.
In one place it says that v.3 will be used from July, but
elsewhere it says 3b will be used from July.
If it is v.3b, then does this mean that the Smith et al.
reference is not (quite) appropriate?
(2) Is ERSST spatially complete? I think not. If it were, then
(NH+SH)/2 should equal GL, but this is not the case. I'm
sure you know that HadCRU uses (NH+SH)/2 for the global mean
(arguably superior to a straight global area average). It
seems odd that this issue has been glossed over.
(3) How often will ERSST be updated? I presume you are aware
that HadCRU updates annually to get the late data in. It seems
that ERSST only updates with new numbered versions -- so it
misses late data. (GISS is worse.)
(4) What is the reference period? I think I saw somewhere on
the web page that it is 1900-99? But methodologically perhaps
it is difficult to define a reference period?
Thanks,
Tom
References
1. mailto:Viva.Banzon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1255095172.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record]
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "'Kevin E. Trenberth'" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Steve,
I was made aware of this yesterday (see forwarded email).
Best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
X-Account-Key: account1
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id n991Sh62016185;
Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: None
Received: from dione.llnl.gov ([128.115.57.29])
by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Message-ID: <4ACE91CA.7000006@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Reply-To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick Piltz <piltz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
CC: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Jim Hansen <jeh1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Bob Watson <robert.watson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"'John F. B. Mitchell'" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with
charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature
record
References: <80955b$27nkli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
In-Reply-To: <80955b$27nkli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<x-flowed>
Dear Rick,
I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used
in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human
influence" conclusions.
Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
[One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in
global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
test of time.]
The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years.
The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are
like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
global-mean temperature changes.
As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge"
Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
of our professional societies.
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you've got it.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at
the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
issues.
With best regards,
Ben
Rick Piltz wrote:
> Gentlemen--
>
> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>
> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical
> response to their allegations.
>
> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
> some collective coherence.
>
> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
> someone please explain this to me?
>
> Best regrads,
> Rick
>
>
> *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
> 'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
>
> *
>
>
> *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
>
> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
> health and welfare.
>
> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to
> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned*
> <http://*www.*eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf>
> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>
> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
> when drafting its endangerment proposal.
>
> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage
> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
> homogenized) data."
>
> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on
> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's
> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA
> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into
> the most important regulatory issue we face."
>
> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the
> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws
> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote.
>
> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped
> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he
> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
> <http://*eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9>, Sept. 27, 2007).
>
> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were
> not available to comment on the CEI petition.
>
> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,"
> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval."
>
> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
> endangerment proposal.
>
> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the
> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew
> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document
> underlying the finding.
>
> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth
> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's
> technical support document.
>
> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
> vets its data.
>
> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by
> challenging the IPCC data.
>
> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When
> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
> the mainstream science community."
>
> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
> scientific merit of the research data.
>
> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
> of relying upon flawed data.
>
> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic
> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available
> scientific information."
>
> Rick Piltz
> Director, Climate Science Watch
> xxx xxxx xxxx
> www.*climatesciencewatch.org
>
> <http://*www.*climatesciencewatch.org/>Climate Science Watch is a
> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
> science and related research effectively and with integrity in
> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
>
> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
> any part of what one has recognized to be true.
> --Albert Einstein
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1255100876.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
I've known Rick Piltz for many years. He's a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is. I forwarded the message
> to Rick. So if you want to add anything else feel free to do so.
> We have more stations going into the latest CRU data than we did in the
> 1980s.
>
> In Lecce next week for 2 days at a GKSS summer school led by Hans VS!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Dear Rick,
>>
>> I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
>>
>> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>>
>> First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
>> colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
>> intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used
>> in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
>>
>> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
>> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human
>> influence" conclusions.
>>
>> Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
>> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
>> 20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
>> might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
>> Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
>> scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
>> global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
>> here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
>> Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
>> Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
>> completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
>> process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
>> inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
>> instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
>> procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
>> changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
>>
>> I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
>> his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
>> Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
>> withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
>> computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
>>
>> I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
>> every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
>> temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
>> preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
>> generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
>>
>> [One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
>> had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
>> scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
>> out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in
>> global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
>> test of time.]
>>
>> The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
>> They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
>> available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
>> every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
>> vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
>> understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
>> every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years.
>>
>> The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are
>> like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
>> also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
>> observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
>> changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
>> obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
>> global-mean temperature changes.
>>
>> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
>> and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
>> Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge"
>> Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
>> performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
>> temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
>> atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
>> runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
>> temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
>> Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
>> that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
>> we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
>> internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
>> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
>> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
>>
>> Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
>> behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
>> being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
>> influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
>> publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
>> out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
>> as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
>> on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
>> Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
>> others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
>> of our professional societies.
>>
>> The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
>> our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
>> antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
>> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
>> have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
>> construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
>> dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
>> transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
>> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
>> various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
>> spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
>> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
>> They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
>> the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
>> for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
>> the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
>>
>> The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
>> allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
>> and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
>> can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
>> from me - you've got it.
>>
>> I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at
>> the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
>> issues.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> Rick Piltz wrote:
>>> Gentlemen--
>>>
>>> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
>>> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
>>> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
>>> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
>>> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
>>> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
>>> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
>>> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
>>> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>>>
>>> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
>>> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
>>> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
>>> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical
>>> response to their allegations.
>>>
>>> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
>>> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
>>> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
>>> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
>>> some collective coherence.
>>>
>>> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
>>> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
>>> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
>>> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
>>> someone please explain this to me?
>>>
>>> Best regrads,
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>> *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
>>> 'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
>>>
>>> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
>>> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
>>> health and welfare.
>>>
>>> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to
>>> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned*
>>> <http://**www.**eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf>
>>> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
>>> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
>>> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>>>
>>> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
>>> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
>>> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
>>> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
>>> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
>>> when drafting its endangerment proposal.
>>>
>>> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage
>>> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
>>> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
>>> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
>>> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
>>> homogenized) data."
>>>
>>> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
>>> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on
>>> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's
>>> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
>>> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA
>>> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into
>>> the most important regulatory issue we face."
>>>
>>> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
>>> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the
>>> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws
>>> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
>>> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote.
>>>
>>> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
>>> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped
>>> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he
>>> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
>>> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
>>> <http://**eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9>, Sept. 27, 2007).
>>>
>>> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were
>>> not available to comment on the CEI petition.
>>>
>>> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
>>> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,"
>>> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval."
>>>
>>> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
>>> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
>>> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
>>> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
>>> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
>>> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
>>> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
>>> endangerment proposal.
>>>
>>> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
>>> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
>>> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the
>>> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew
>>> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document
>>> underlying the finding.
>>>
>>> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth
>>> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
>>> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
>>> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
>>> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
>>> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's
>>> technical support document.
>>>
>>> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
>>> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
>>> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
>>> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
>>> vets its data.
>>>
>>> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
>>> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by
>>> challenging the IPCC data.
>>>
>>> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When
>>> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
>>> the mainstream science community."
>>>
>>> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
>>> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
>>> scientific merit of the research data.
>>>
>>> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
>>> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
>>> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
>>> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
>>> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
>>> of relying upon flawed data.
>>>
>>> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
>>> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
>>> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
>>> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic
>>> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
>>> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available
>>> scientific information."
>>>
>>> Rick Piltz
>>> Director, Climate Science Watch
>>> xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> www.**climatesciencewatch.org
>>>
>>> <http://**www.**climatesciencewatch.org/>Climate Science Watch is a
>>> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
>>> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
>>> science and related research effectively and with integrity in
>>> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
>>>
>>> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
>>> any part of what one has recognized to be true.
>>> --Albert Einstein
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
>> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
>> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1255298593.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "Rick Piltz" <piltz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Your comments on the latest CEI/Michaels gambit
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:03:13 +0100 (BST)
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ben Santer" <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Rick,
What you've put together seems fine from a quick read. I'm in Lecce in
the heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK by
Wednesday.
The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we
had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start
with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of
time though. I may get around to it some time. As you've said, the
documentation of what we've done is all in the literature.
I think if it hadn't been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt up
something else!
Cheers
Phil
> Phil and Ben--
>
> Thanks for writing. I appreciate very much what you're saying.
>
> I'm going to be posting some entries on this matter on the Climate
> Science Watch Web site. I'm sure others will weigh in on it in
> various venues (Steve Schneider has supplied me with an on-the-record
> quote), and I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant
> scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as
> part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on,
> and meanwhile CEI and Michaels will demagogue their allegations, as
> they do with everything. No way to prevent that. But I would like to
> expedite documenting some immediate pushback, helping to set the
> record straight and put what CEI and Michaels are up to in perspective.
>
> I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote just a bit (and
> adding some possible URL links and writing-out of acronyms), in the
> hope that, with your permission and with any revisions or additions
> you might care to make, we could post your comments. This requires
> no clearance other than you and me. I would draft appropriate text to
> provide context. Please take a look at this and RSVP:
>
> Ben's comment:
>
> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>
> First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
> are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic
> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully,
> intentionally, and suspiciously "destroyed" some of the raw surface
> temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
> temperature datasets.
>
> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible
> human influence" conclusions.
>
> Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
> over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
> station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and
> Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts
> by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based
> estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In
> fact, a key point here is that other groups -- primarily at the NCDC
> [NOAA National Climatic Data Center] and at GISS [NASA Goddard
> Institute for Space Studies], but also in Russia -- WERE able to
> replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups.
> The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely
> independently. They made different choices in the complex process of
> choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
> inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
> instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
> procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface
> temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results.
>
> The second argument -- that "discernible human influence" findings
> are like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational
> dataset -- is also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
> considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale
> near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data
> alone - as is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which
> shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes.
>
> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
> and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science
> Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1 (Temperature trends in
> the lower atmosphere: steps for understanding and reconciling
> differences), and the state of knowledge report, Global Climate
> Change Impacts on the United States, rigorous statistical fingerprint
> studies have now been performed with a whole range of climate
> variables -- and not with surface temperature only. Examples include
> variables like ocean heat content, atmospheric water vapor, surface
> specific humidity, continental river runoff, sea-level pressure
> patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric temperature, tropopause
> height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and Arctic sea-ice
> extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is that
> natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes we
> have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
> internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
>
> I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
> antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom
> Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers
> to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the
> HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
> transparent manner -- examining sensitivities to different gridding
> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use
> of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
> spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
> They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community --
> and to the planet -- by making gridded surface temperature datasets
> available for scientific research. They deserve medals -- not the
> kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving from Pat
> Michaels and the CEI.
>
>
> Phil's comment:
>
> No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up on the CRU web page.
> These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have
> done.
> <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
>
> Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as
> in the GHCN archive [Global Historical Climatology Network, used by
> the NOAA National Climate Data Center].
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html
>
> If we have lost any data it is the following:
>
> 1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be
> affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were
> either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series
> in the region.
>
> 2. The original data for sites that we adjusted the temperature data
> [Phil: for known inhomogeneities, or what?] in the 1980s. We still
> have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other
> sites that didn't need adjusting.
>
> 3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and NMSs [National Meteorological
> Services] have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries,
> then we replaced the data we had with the better series.
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/members/index_en.html
>
> In the papers, I've always said that homogeneity adjustments are best
> produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie Vincent
> in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the 200+ sites
> she sorted out.
>
> The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and GISS [NASA
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies] data for the same domains.
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>
> Apart from a figure in the IPCC AR4 [Fourth Assessment Report, 2007]
> showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research
> Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot.
> [Vose et al paper]
>
> All best,
> Rick
>
>
> Rick Piltz
> Director, Climate Science Watch
> xxx xxxx xxxx
> www.climatesciencewatch.org
>
> Climate Science Watch is a sponsored project of the Government
> Accountability Project, Washington, DC, dedicated to holding public
> officials accountable for using climate science and related research
> effectively and with integrity in responding to the challenges posed
> by global climate disruption.
>
> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not
> conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.
> --Albert Einstein
>
Original Filename: 1255318331.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:32:xxx xxxx xxxx(PDT)
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC
Original Filename: 1255352257.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: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.
[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
--
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: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
References
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Original Filename: 1255352444.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[1]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[2]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics views.
[3]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[4]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
--
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: [5]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
References
Visible links
1. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
4. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
5. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
7. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1255477545.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Rick Piltz <piltz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FYI--"Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on temperature data record"
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jim Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear folks,
You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?
Michaels' PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt
with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate
relationships. In his thesis, Michaels claims that his statistical
model showed that weather/climate variations could explain 95%
of the inter-annual variability in crop yields. Had this been
correct, it would have been a remarkable results. Certainly, it
was at odds with all previous studies of crop-climate relationships,
which generally showed that weather/climate could only explain about
50% of inter-annual yield variability.
How did result come about? The answer is simple. In Michaels'
regressions he included a trend term. This was at the time a common
way to account for the effects of changing technology on yield. It
turns out that the trend term accounts for 90% of the variability,
so that, in Michaels' regressions, weather/climate explains just 5
of the remaining 10%. In other words, Michaels' claim that
weather/climate explains 95% of the variability is completely
bogus.
Apparently, none of Michaels' thesis examiners noticed this. We
are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation
by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance.
As an historical note, I discovered this many years ago when working
with Dick Warrick and Tu Qipu on crop-climate modeling. We used a
spatial regression method, which we developed for the wheat belt of
southwestern Western Australia. We carried out similar analyses for
winter wheat in the USA, but never published the results.
Wigley, T.M.L. and Tu Qipu, 1983: Crop-climate modelling using spatial
patterns of yield and climate: Part 1, Background and an example from
Australia. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22, 1831