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: 1255496484.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n9E71pl4015864
<x-flowed>
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
Kevin says ... "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". I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> 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. [PDF]
> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.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" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto: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: 1255523796.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: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean
data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in
the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?
m
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
Kevin says ... "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". I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
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. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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_monitorin
g_current.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 <[4]mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[6]mailto: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.
[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-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: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[10]mailto: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/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [15]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
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [16]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [17]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
--
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
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [21]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [22]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:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
8. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
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/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
16. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Original Filename: 1255530325.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the
CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can
"explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/
the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability
that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this
has been addressed--has it?
m
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
Kevin says ... "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". I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
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. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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_monitorin
g_current.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" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[3]mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[4]mailto: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.
[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/
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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[7]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
<[8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/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
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [12]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [13]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
--
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: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [15]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[16]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
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
12. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
14. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
16. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
17. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1255532032.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the
observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model
projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming,
is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is
always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing"
fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be
disagreement,
mike
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean
data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in
the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?
m
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
Kevin says ... "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". I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
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. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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_monitorin
g_current.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 <[4]mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[6]mailto: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.
[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-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: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[10]mailto: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/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [15]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
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [16]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [17]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
--
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
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [21]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [22]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
--
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: [23]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [24]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[25]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
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:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
8. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
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/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
16. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
23. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
24. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
25. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
26. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1255538481.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: FYI--"Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on temperature data record"
Date: Wed Oct 14 12:41:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tom,
What you'd need to point this out is a pdf of his thesis! Or is there a paper where
the thesis is referred to?
I recall Pat wasn't very good at writing stuff up. There was one paper about warming in
Alaska that I recall either you or me reviewing. It related to surface warming in Alaska
and the borehole from Lachenbruch/Marshall (?) from about 1986.
With the pdf you wouldn't need to say that much, as it is as you say stupid to leave the
Trend in with the rest of the variance.
Did the NCDC info help you sort out that data. Tom P told me that they don't infill
certain areas in early decades, so there is missing data. Tom P isn't that keen on the
method. He rightly thinks that it discourages them from looking for early data or including
any new stuff they get - as they have infilled it, so it won't make a difference. It won't
make a difference, but that isn't the point.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:45 14/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
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, 18311841.
There never was a "Part 2".
Tom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rick Piltz wrote:
Just posted on Climate Science Watch Website.
--RP
[1]http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-co
mment-on-cei/
*Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on
temperature data record*
/Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009
/Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia in the UK and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory comment in
response to a petition to EPA by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels,
which misleadingly seeks to obstruct EPAs process in making an endangerment finding on
greenhouse gases. This new CEI tactic is to call into question the integrity of the
global temperature data record and, by implication, the integrity of leading climate
scientists.
/E&E News PM/ reported on October 7 (CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
endangerment proposal):
The Competitive Enterprise Institutea vocal foe of EPAs efforts to
finalize its endangerment findingpetitioned 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.
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.
We talked with E&E News on this latest maneuver by the ideologues at CEI and contrarian
scientist Pat Michaels and posted on October 8
<[2]http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/cei-epa-endangerment-petiti
on-oct09/>: CEI global warming denialists try another gambit seeking to derail EPA
endangerment finding
The process initiated by the CEI petition will, we suppose, produce an appropriate
response for the record from EPA and relevant members of the science community. And
while that process drags on, CEI and Michaels no doubt will use their petition as a
basis for attempting to muddy the waters of scientific discourse, while sliming leaders
of the international climate science community and questioning their motives.
A few of those leaders have begun to comment on this attempt. We post below comments
Climate Science Watch has received from Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in the UK:
Comment by Benjamin D. Santer
<[3]http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Santer/index.php>, Program for Climate Model
Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
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 Climatic Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) 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
groupsprimarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also
in RussiaWERE 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 argumentthat discernible human influence findings are
like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational
datasetis 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
aloneas 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 variablesand 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 mannerexamining 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
communityand to the planetby making gridded surface temperature
datasets available for scientific research. They deserve medalsnot
the kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving
from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
(Santer has received several honors, awards and fellowships including the Department of
Energy Distinguished Scientist Fellowship
<[4]https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2005/NR-xxx xxxx xxxx.html>, the E.O.
Lawrence Award, and the Genius Award by the MacArthur Foundation.)
Comment by Prof. Phil Jones <[5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/>, Director,
Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:
No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up
<[6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/> on the CRU web
page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might
not have done.
Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here
<[7]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php> and
here <[8]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html>].
The original raw data are not lost. I could reconstruct what we
had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the
mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort
would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it
some time. The documentation of what weve done is all in the
literature.
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 for which we made appropriate
adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our
adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that
didnt need adjusting.
3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological
Services <[9]http://www.wmo.int/pages/members/index_en.html> (NMSs)
have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we
replaced the data we had with the better series.
In the papers, Ive 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 NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies data
<[10]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/> for the same domains. Apart from a
figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research
Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al.
<[11]http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Vose-etal-TempTrends-GRL2005.pdf>
Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot.
I think if it hadnt been this issue, the Competitive Enterprise
Institute would have dreamt up something else!
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.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/
2. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/cei-epa-endangerment-petition-oct09/
3. http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Santer/index.php
4. https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2005/NR-xxx xxxx xxxx.html
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
7. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
8. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html
9. http://www.wmo.int/pages/members/index_en.html
10. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
11. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Vose-etal-TempTrends-GRL2005.pdf%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0
Original Filename: 1255550975.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Kevin,
I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
>> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
>> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
>>
>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>
>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
>>
>> Kevin says ... "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". I do not
>> agree with this.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> 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. [PDF]
>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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
>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.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" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> <mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto: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: 1255553034.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Gavin,
I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties
and the possibility of compensating errors.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gavin Schmidt wrote:
> Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the
> fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal
> variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple
> individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more
> suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is
> great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability
> does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.
>
> The kind of things we are hearing "no model showed a cooling", the "data
> is outside the range of the models" need to be addressed directly.
>
> Gavin
>
> On Wed, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
>> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
>> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
>> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
>> community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
>> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
>> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
>> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
>> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
>> what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
>> notwithstanding),
>>
>> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
>> all),
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>>
>>> Tom.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> thanks Tom,
>>>> I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
>>>> mike
>>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
>>>>> recent
>>>>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
>>>>> look at
>>>>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
>>>>> trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
>>>>> is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
>>>>> observed data.
>>>>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
>>>>> second
>>>>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>>>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
>>>>> Kevin says ... "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". I
>>>>> do not
>>>>> agree with this.
>>>>> Tom.
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>> 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. [PDF]
>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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
>>>>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.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" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>>>>>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto: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: 1255558867.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: 14 Oct 2009 18:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 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>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the
fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal
variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple
individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more
suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is
great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability
does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.
The kind of things we are hearing "no model showed a cooling", the "data
is outside the range of the models" need to be addressed directly.
Gavin
On Wed, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
> community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
> what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
> notwithstanding),
>
> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
> all),
>
> mike
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
> > > > Kevin says ... "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". I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> > > > > 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. [PDF]
> > > > > <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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
> > > > > http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.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" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > > > > > <mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
> > > > > > > To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > > > > > <mailto: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: 1256214796.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" <T.D.Davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <k319@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" <K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100
Cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" <B.Summers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" <A.Preece@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means - for the man-in-the street).
Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk's reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward - Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website - that is (wharever the legal word is).
Trevor
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:16 PM
>To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
>Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece
>Alan Mr (MAC)
>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>Dear Phil and Keith,
>Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP
>environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing
>about it (true, as he has just returned from China).
>
>I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees
>any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how
>anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the
>following lines. (I think the last line would have to come
>directly from you Keith)
>
>For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter.
>I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been
>opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the
>piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter.
>Best, Annie
>
>
>Draft statement
>Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately
>selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of
>recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia
>is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the
>Climatic Research Unit's website.
>
>This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a
>site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve
>McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth
>changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data
>used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis,
>with recent data from a more localised origin than the data
>analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces
>a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative.
>
>This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the
>Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the
>Copenhagen climate talks.
>
>
>-------------------------------
>Annie Ogden, Head of Communications,
>University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ.
>Tel:+44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>www.uea.ac.uk/comm
>............................................
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO)
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM
>To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
> Here it is Annie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM
>To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO)
>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>Also, do you know anything about this?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45
>To: newsdesk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>Sir,
>I draw your attention to the growing international climate
>change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the
>reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud.
>
>After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a
>particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no
>attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests
>that dozens of 'peer reviewed' scientific papers that relied
>on the same dataset are now 'similarly flawed' and should be
>withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a
>fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - namely, whether the
>recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence
>attributable to man.
>
>I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject
>profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic.
>
>Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be
>greatly in the public interest, especially given the
>Copenhagen summit fast approaching.
>
>David Robinson
>
>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments
>---
>Sent via BlackBerry
>David Robinson MSc
>Blacklock and Bowers Limited
>
>This email and any attachments to it are confidential and
>intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom
>they are addressed.
>You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments
>in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The
>views expressed in them are those of the individual author and
>do not necessarily represent the views of this Company.
>
>Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a
>virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and
>you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems
>against viruses.
>
>Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under
>Company Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office
>is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.
>
>
Original Filename: 1256302524.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi James
Thanks for doing this and let's keep it moving as fast as possible. Yes
the formatting in places is disconcerting and the line numbering is a
bit on and off.
I have suggestions for changing two words.
Line 13 “severely” to "greatly"
Line 79 “more dramatic” to "greater"
As they stand, words like those used carry a lot of extra subjective
tone that implies "bad" or has a commentary that is not desirable as per
Rev 3. I wonder if you should not be a bit more specific in responding
to Rev 3 and say what other words were changed in the abstract at
least? If it were "word" I would send in a version of the abstract with
tracking on. It might make the difference between having the editor
approve it and sending it back to Rev 3.
Best regards
Kevin
James Annan wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I had a reply from Grant, and have made some changes to the paper -
> very little of substance, but I've lightly edited the wording
> throughout. I also added refs to Newell and Weare, and Angell (not
> A+Korshover), which seem relevant. Despite this, I've managed to cut a
> few lines off in total. I have also drafted replies to the reviewers
> (with their comments appended for reference).
>
> We do have a 2 week extension agreed, to 11 Nov. However it doesn't
> really seem like there is much more that needs doing. More suggestions
> are welcome, however, and before resubmitting, *I need an explicit OK
> from each author*.
>
> James
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, 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
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1256353124.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Salmon <m.salmon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Salmon <m.salmon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Yamal 2009
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:58:44 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Melvin <t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
I'm not thinking straight. It makes far more sense to have
password-protection rather than IP-address protection. So, to access
those pages
Username: steve
Password: tosser
Have a good weekend!
Mike
Mike Salmon wrote:
> Figure E added; figure F updated. I still need "ALT" tags for each
> figure. Data page needs a lot of work.
>
> Tim: I understand you're providing a whole new page?
>
> Tom: I definitely don't have the list of references for sensit.htm.
> Please send me the Word file or tell me where to look on your PC.
>
> Briffa et al 1996 added to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
> Access to the Yamal 2009 pages is currently restricted by IP address.
> Try to access them from home, then tell me the time at which you tried.
> I'll pick your IP address out of the logs and add it to the "permitted"
> list.
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009-temporary/main.htm
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009-temporary/sensit.htm
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009-temporary/data/
>
> Mike
>
>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1256735067.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: The web page is up about the Yamal tree-ring chronology
Date: Wed Oct 28 09:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike,
Sept 2009 isn't up yet. I expect it in the next day or so. I'll check again tomorrow.
Away Friday and Mon/Tues next week. Our web site will update on Sunday if the HC have
updated theirs.
Seems nothing yet on Keith's Yamal.
One of the Russians has a reason why Khad hasn't grown so much. All the sites in the
region have permafrost at depth. Those nearer the rivers have the permafrost at a greater
depth, partly due to the rivers. Warmth in the 20th century has meant greater depths for
the roots. Khad is a walk from the river and slightly higher, so possibly has less
available soil depth above the permafrost. All the sites are sampled through river
transport. When the coring was done in the 1980s and early 1990s the fieldwork teams ate a
lot of fish!
Permafrost idea is impossible to prove without going back to the sites and drilling down.
The Russians plan to do this when they revisit the area, but that depends on resources.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Thanks--we know that. The point is simply that if we want to talk about about a
meaningful "2009" anomaly, every additional month that is available from which to
calculate an annual mean makes the number more credible. We already have this for
GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU to be able to do a more decisive update of the
status of the disingenuous "globe is cooling" contrarian talking point,
mike
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy
him in on. He's not as predictable as we'd like
On Oct 27, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Yes a link will be fine.
I'll look into Sept numbers, but you shouldn't be looking at individual months.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:54 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Phil,
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page--Gavin t?
As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we
actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our
original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly
deniable accusations,
m
p.s. any word on HadCRU Sep numbers yet???
On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike, Andy,
It has taken Keith longer than he would have liked, but it is up. There is a lot to
read and understand. It is structured for different levels. The link goes to the top
level. There is more detail below this and then there are the data below that.
You can either go to our main page
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ then click on the link
or directly here
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
I'll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for
effect.
There is an additional part that shows how many series from Ch 6 of AR4 used Yamal -
most didn't! Also there is a sensitivity test of omitting it - which comes from the
Supplementary Info with Osborn and Briffa (2006). As expected omitting it makes very
little difference. To get to this follow the links from the above link.
McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he
would produce his own series. Similarly the instrumental temperature is even more
robust, which he also knows.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [3]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: [4]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [5]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[6]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 [7]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: [8]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
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/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
3. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
6. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
10. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Original Filename: 1256747199.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Yamal response from Keith
Date: Wed Oct 28 12:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
John,
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
This went up last night about 5pm. There is a lot to read at various levels. If you get
time just the top level is necessary. There is also a bit from Tim Osborn showing that
Yamal was used in 3 of the 12 millennial reconstructions used in Ch 6.
Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 - although he seems to have forgotten this.
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was
doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
Original Filename: 1256760240.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith,
There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this
person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts.
Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
Cheers
Phil
X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to
<Don.Keiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> using -f
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Thread-Index: AcpDQ2sqWC+z2djuSqC1Ax4HdHoH1wUn1Ocw
From: "Keiller, Donald" <Don.Keiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-ARU-HELO: CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL
X-ARU-sender-host: cambe01.ad.anglia.ac.uk (CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL) [193.63.55.171]:25427
X-ARU-Mailhub: yes
X-ARU-Exchange: yes
X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned
X-Spam-Status: no
Reply-to: Don.Keiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 34330xxx xxxx xxxxbde843c4e5 (trained as not-spam)
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=f
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=n
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=s
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1
Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered
from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy
surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology;
([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm)
and the chronology itself;
([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)
Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am
more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre
([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588)
Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions
1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data
and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?
2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can
still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low
individual weighting?
And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my
initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller
-----Original Message-----
From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
To: 'k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'
Cc: 'p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly
since I hear that you are unwell.
However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much
discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a
number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the
"Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers,
further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.
--
EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAExxx xxxx xxxx, more than 30% of
our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the
academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies;
Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History;
Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit
[8]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information.
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in
error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and
then immediately delete the e-mail from your system.
Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.
Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and
attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good
computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus
free.
Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may
not be a 100% secure communications
Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service -
[9]www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
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.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=f
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=n
4. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=s
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
7. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588
8. http://www.anglia.ac.uk/rae
9. http://www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
Original Filename: 1256765544.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Graham F Haughton" <G.F.Haughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!'
Graham
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 28 October 2009 16:39
To: Graham F Haughton
Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Dear Graham,
Thanks for the speedy reply. Just like you
are, we are trying here to do bits of research
mostly related to the current set of contracts we
have. Trying to respond to blogs is just not part
of the deadlines we have entered into with the
Research Councils, the EU and DEFRA.
You are probably aware of this, but the
journal Sonja edits is at the very bottom of
almost all climate scientists lists of journals
to read. It is the journal of choice of climate
change skeptics and even here they don't seem to
be bothering with journals at all recently.
I don't think there is anything more you can
do. I have vented my frustration and have had a considered reply from you.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:45 27/10/2009, you wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Dear Phil, sorry to hear this. I don't see much
>of her these days, but when I do see Sonja next
>I'll try and have a quiet word with her about
>the way the affiliation to us is used, but at
>the moment in fairness she is entitled to use it
>in the way she does. Fortunately I don't get to
>see many of these email exchanges but I do
>occasionally hear about them or see them and
>frankly am rarely convinced by what I read. But
>as with all academics, I'd want to protect
>another academic's freedom to be contrary and
>critical, even if I personally believe she is
>probably wrong. I agree with you that it'd be
>better for these exchanges to be conducted
>through the peer review process but these forms
>of e-communication are now part of the public
>debate and its difficult to do much about it
>other than to defend your position in this and
>other fora, or just ignore it as being, in your words, malicious.
>
>I can understand your frustration and I am
>pretty sure I'd be feeling exactly the same in
>your shoes, but I am not sure at the moment that
>I can do much more. If you think I can and
>should do more then feel free to ring and I am happy to discuss the matter.
>
>Graham
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: 27 October 2009 17:05
>To: Graham F Haughton
>Subject: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
>
>
> Dear Professor Haughton,
> The email below was brought to my attention
>by the help desk of UKCP09 - the new set of UK
>climate scenarios developed for DEFRA. It was
>sent by the person named in the header of this
>email. I regard this email as very malicious. Dr
>Boehmer-Christiansen states that it is beyond her
>expertise to assess the claims made. If this is
>the case then she shouldn't be sending malicious
>emails like this. The two Canadians she refers
>to have never developed a tree-ring chronology in
>their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
>on his blog site that he has no aim to write up
>his results for publication in the peer-review literature.
> I'm sure you will be of the same opinion as
>me that science should be undertaken through the
>peer-review literature as it has been for over
>300 years. The peer-review system is the
>safeguard science has developed to stop bad science being published.
>
> In case you want to read more about the
>subject my colleague Keith Briffa has just put this up on his web site.
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
>
> It has taken him some time, partly as he has
>been off after a serious operation in June. He
>has had to return early to respond to this. He
>has also had some difficulty contacting our Russian colleagues.
>
> The claims on the Climate Audit site are
>exaggerated, but get taken completely out of
>context by the other blog sites that get referred
>to in Dr Boehmer-Christiansen's email. I will
>draw your attention to two things
>
> 1. The Yamal chronology is only used in 3 of
>the 12 millennial temperature reconstructions in Ch 6 of the 2007 IPCC Report.
>
> 2. McIntyre was sent the data for Yamal by our
>Russian colleagues on Feb 2, 2004.
>
> I realize Dr Boehmer-Christensen no longer
>works for you, but she is still using your affiliation.
>
> Best Regards
> Phil Jones
>
>
> 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 (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
> <
><http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists->
>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
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
>
> Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
>
>
>
> b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009
>
><http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>By
>
>Patrick J. Michaels
>
>
> Imagine if there were no reliable
>records of global surface temperature. Raucous
>policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
>no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point
>be little more than a historical footnote, and
>President Obama would not be spending this U.N.
>session talking up a (likely unattainable)
>international climate deal in Copenhagen in
>December. Steel yourself for the new reality,
>because the data needed to verify the
>gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
>either lost or purged from some discarded
>computer. Only a very few people know what really
>happened, and they aren't talking much. And what
>little they are saying makes no sense.
> In the early 1980s, with funding from
>the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
>United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
>established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to
>produce the world's first comprehensive history
>of surface temperature. It's known in the trade
>as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors,
>Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the
>primary reference standard for the U.N.
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>until 2007. It was this record that prompted the
>IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence on global climate."
> Putting together such a record isn't at
>all easy. Weather stations weren't really
>designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing
>ones were usually established at points of
>commerce, which tend to grow into cities that
>induce spurious warming trends in their records.
>Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the
>afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by
>the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Sr.,
>many of the stations themselves are placed in
>locations, such as in parking lots or near heat
>vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
> So the weather data that go into the
>historical climate records that are required to
>verify models of global warming aren't the
>original records at all. Jones and Wigley,
>however, weren't specific about what was done to
>which station in order to produce their record,
>which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of
>0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century.
>
> Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an
>Australian scientist, wondered where that "+/-"
>came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in
>early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's
>response to a fellow scientist attempting to
>replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so
>invested in the work. Why should I make the data
>available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
> Reread that statement, for it is
>breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In
>fact, the entire purpose of replication is to
>"try and find something wrong." The ultimate
>objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
>
> Then the story changed. In June 2009,
>Georgia Tech's Peter Webster told Canadian
>researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested
>raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So
>McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information
>Act request for the same data. Despite having
>been invited by the National Academy of Sciences
>to present his analyses of millennial
>temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't
>have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So
>his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the
>University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
> Faced with a growing number of such
>requests, Jones refused them all, saying that
>there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding
>the data between CRU and nations that supplied
>the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested
>those agreements, country by country, but only a
>handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third
>World countries and written in very vague language.
> It's worth noting that McKitrick and I
>had published papers demonstrating that the
>quality of land-based records is so poor that the
>warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first
>year for which we could compare those records to
>independent data from satellites) may have been
>overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who
>received the CRU data, published studies linking
>changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).
> Enter the dog that ate global warming.
>
> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor
>of environmental studies at the University of
>Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data
>we have received into existing series or begun
>new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
>stations within a particular country or if all of
>an individual record should be freely available.
>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.
> The statement about "data storage" is
>balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
>The files went onto a computer. All of the
>original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape
>drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the
>world's surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
> If we are to believe Jones's note to the
>younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
>and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
>ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been
>an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster
>received some of the data this year. So the
>question remains: What was destroyed or lost,
>when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
>
> All of this is much more than an
>academic spat. It now appears likely that the
>U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
>legislation from its docket this fall - whereupon
>the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
>going to step in and issue regulations on
>carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
>can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a
>regulation can. If there are no data, there's no
>science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
>answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
>Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
>studies at the Cato Institute and author of
>Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.) "
>
>
>
>
>
>*****************************************************************************************
> To view the terms under which this email
>is distributed, please go to
><http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html>
>http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.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
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>*****************************************************************************************
>To view the terms under which this email is
>distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*****************************************************************************************
Original Filename: 1257532857.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Revised CC text
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Thanks, Phil.
A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest
Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper
to avoid giving Lindzen the last word.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>
> Got to this sooner than I thought. I've responded to your points by
> saying things in comments and also responding to some points at the end
> of the references.
>
> Over the weekend I'll get the references into the same format. Can
> you have another look through? I think we are there on almost everything.
>
> Keith should be replying about the trees - a possible reason why KHAD
> is anomalous relates to permafrost depth. Impossible to prove and it's
> likely much more complicated. Difficult to detail with MM when they
> won't publish anything. They also know the global temperature record is
> robust, the millennial records less so. Taking one or two records out
> makes no difference and they know that. They go on about issues that
> have no effect.
>
> The CC article explains why the global T record is robust, so
> something to refer to. I don't think it is going to help our H-Indexes
> though!
>
> Have a good weekend!
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1257546975.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming -- and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Comments?
Tom
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachLANDvsOCEAN.doc"
Original Filename: 1257847147.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "IPCC WGI TSU" <wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IPCC Draft Good Practice Guidance Paper on Detection and Attribution for Review
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:59:07 +0100 (CET)
Reply-to: wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, qdh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barros@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, plattner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, krisebi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, midgley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tsu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id nAA3xK1S014515
Dear Participants of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection & Attribution,
dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the draft version of the Good Practice Guidance Paper
(GPGP) which has been prepared by the Core Writing Team (CWT) following
the IPCC joint WGI/II Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution. Gabi,
Ove, Camille, David, Gino, Marty, Peter, and Sari, have been working very
hard to meet the TSU deadline and have managed to provide the Co-Chairs
with the attached draft version right in time for presentation at the IPCC
Plenary in Bali the last week of October. We all owe them our sincere
thanks for the efforts put into the preparation of this document.
Logistics:
We would now like to invite all participants of the Geneva Expert Meeting
to review the GPGP and to provide comments and suggestions on the attached
draft within 2 weeks from today (i.e. by *November 24*). If you do plan to
provide your inputs, please prepare your comments in a separate document
(word or plain text) in order to facilitate the handling of the comments
from potentially ~30 participants. Submission of the files will be by
email to the WGI TSU at wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. We will collect all the
reviews, combine them into an easily manageable format and will then
forward them to the CWT. The task of the CWT will then be to consider all
your comments and revise the GPGP accordingly. We do not plan to send the
Guidance Paper out for a second round of comments, but trust that the CWT
will make every effort to take your suggestions into account as much as
possible.
Changes to terminology discussed in Geneva:
Please note that the CWT, after intense discussions, had to make a few
changes to the language used in the "approved" documents from the last
day's final plenary. One of the changes is the change from "direct" to
"single step" attribution. Given the level of discussion created within
the CWT and also during the meeting, the CWT felt it was more constructive
NOT to insinuate which methods are better or stronger and so strived for
neutral language, particularly as the views about what constitutes a
strong method differed between groups (not only IPCC WGs). Note that the
word
Original Filename: 1257874826.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gil Compo <compo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data - One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Gil,
These will do for my purpose. I won't pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft
paper. As you're fully aware you're going to have to go some ways to figuring out what's
causing the differences.
You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don't think it is going to make much
difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought
to include the NCDC dataset as well.
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset.
In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the
NHxxx xxxx xxxxland domain.
The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967
or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming
back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th
century (the 1900s).
The longer periods are those you've noticed - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also
something up with the period 1xxx xxxx xxxxand the 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off
again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons
would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to
be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to
sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line
back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the
HadCRUT3/GISS average.
Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input
during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey
spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you
might have?
One final thing - don't worry too much about the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod, as I think we'll be
changing the SSTs there for 1xxx xxxx xxxxand with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1xxx xxxx xxxx) to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues.
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote:
Phil,
1. I didn't get the attached.
Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice.
2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949,
"observed" after that) are specified.
Attached is a research figure. Please do not share.
In it, I have plotted the annual average (top panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m
temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from
GISTEMP 1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be
extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. The ensemble mean is the thick gray
curve. Averages are July-June.
(middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from
CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is the same.
(bottom panel) same as middle panel but for Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N).
Anomalies are with respect to 1xxx xxxx xxxx. period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU
(HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black.
No data has been masked by another dataset's observational availability, but missing
values are not included in that dataset's area-weighted average.
Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer seems to be the case in the late 19th
century but not the early 1920's.
Note that the only thermometer data in the magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over
oceans. The two landonly panels are independent of thermometers, aside from the
specified SSTs.
There are some very interesting differences, particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and
WWII.
Correlations (I told you this was research, right?). The second pair is for linearly
detrended data.
GLOBE (70N-50S)
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383
GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S)
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316
NH Land (20N-70N)
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880
I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 were high for an independent dataset this
long. I think that these are higher than the proxies?
The global isn't that fair because we have the HadISST.
The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See
Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha (2008), What is causing the variability in
global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L23712,
doi:10.1029/2008GL035984.
It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change.
Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material.
best wishes,
gil
Phil Jones wrote on 11/9/09 2:55 AM:
Gil,
A couple of questions.
1. See the attached. Is this paper providing the SST input to 20CRv2?
2. Do you change greenhouse gases in the run?
Apologies if these are answered elsewhere.
Do you have any pre-draft plots without subsampling to get some idea of how good the
agreement?
I'm asking these questions as I'm writing an essay for Climate Change. There are no
diagrams in this, but showing the agreement with 20CRv2 will be a nice way to finish the
paper.
Paper briefly documents the magnitude of all the problems in global temperature data -
such as SST biases, exposure issues, urbanization and site changes (in order of
importance). Site changes for global averages are the least important. Trying to point
to a few home truths to skeptics who keep on going on about the land data.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:39 03/11/2009, Gil Compo wrote:
Phil,
Already calculated. We don't suffer from some of the issues that you and Adrian raised
because we use only surface pressure.
In the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the agreement with the various (yours, GISTEMP,
NOAA) thermometer-based near surface T is high, but in the Tropics and Southern
Hemisphere, there are discrepancies, particularly over Africa and South America. The
20CRv2 does not have the intensity of the Siberia warming.
There are also discrepancies in the WWII period. I have not subset the reanalysis to
correspond to a particular dataset's missing mask as all 3 have different coverages.
I'll be making plots for the paper (with a draft coming) soon.
best wishes,
gil
[2]P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote on 11/3/09 3:37 AM:
Gil,
I'm sitting in a meeting in Bristol with Rob Allan. We've
had a
thought. When you finish v2 will you be quickly calculating the global
T average for the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod? Do you expect this to look like the
real global T, or do you expect it to not show the longer timescale
change that NCEP from 1948 showed?
I can send a paper with Adrian Simmons from JGR in 2004 on
this when
I'm back in Norwich tomorrow.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Colleagues,
Courtesy of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences
Division and University of Colorado CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center, at
[3]ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/20thC_Rean/provisionalV2/ ,
please find temporary netCDF files from the 20th Century Reanalysis
version 2 (1xxx xxxx xxxx). These yearly files are for the ensemble mean
analysis (means) and ensemble standard deviation (spreads) of selected
variables. Colleagues from organizations contributing to the 20th
Century Reanalysis version 2 or the International Surface Pressure
Databank version2.2, the observational input dataset, are welcome to
investigate these preliminary files. Colleagues on the Atmospheric
Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth Working Group 3
Verification and Validation of reanalyses are also welcome to begin
working with these files.
We are working with our distribution partners at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory and NOAAs
National Climatic Data Center on wider availability and documentation.
A rough draft of important documentation is attached.
Also, please see our new homepage at
[4]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/ which includes access
to
images of 6-hourly sea level pressure and 500 geopotential maps
generated from the version 2 data.
When production is complete, the 20CR version 2 will span 1871 to
present.
The references for the dataset are
Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, N. Matsui, R.J. Allan,
X. Yin,B.E. Gleason, R.S. Vose, G. Rutledge, P. Bessemoulin, S.
Br
Original Filename: 1257881012.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section <Section@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <AS-SECTION_D@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Letter to Atmospheric Sciences members
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section <Section@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Atmospheric Sciences Section members,
First, I would like to remind you of three very close deadlines:
Nov. 12, Discounted registration for AGU Fall Meeting. Register at
[1]https://www.associationsciences.org/agu/meet_demog.jsp, and sign up for our Atmospheric
Sciences banquet on Dec. 15.
Nov. 13, Vote yes on AGU governance changes, [2]http://www.agu.org/governancevote/
Nov. 13, Please respond to [3]stacyjackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx if you are willing to volunteer
your expertise to help answer questions during the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties of
the Framework Convention on Climate Change (see below).
Second, I would like to give you some information about where your contributions to
AGU go. Last year, members of the Atmospheric Sciences Section contributed $43,410 to
AGU's Voluntary Contribution Campaign. In 2008, due largely to member donations like
these, AGU facilitated career development events attended by 600 students, hosted 75 K-12
teachers at Fall Meeting workshops, and sponsored 31 members' visits with U.S. policy
makers. Additionally, voluntary contributions allowed AGU to provide travel grants to 135
deserving students to present their research for the first time at an AGU meeting. These
programs are essential for AGU's relevance and vitality. I know Atmospheric Science members
want AGU to do more. Please join me in supporting AGU's efforts to strengthen our
scientific society by making a gift to the 2010 Voluntary Contribution Campaign.
Unrestricted contributions are used to support AGU's greatest needs, but you can directly
support students pursuing Atmospheric Sciences by making a gift to the David Hofmann Travel
Grant, Holton-Kaufman Grant, or Namias Travel Grant. You can make your gift when you renew
your AGU membership, or you can give today at:
[4]https://www.agu.org/givingtoagu/making_your_gift.php
Sincerely,
Alan Robock
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, AGU [5]robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
AGU Climate Scientists,
We are writing to encourage hundreds of you to participate in a unique opportunity to
improve the public's climate knowledge during the week before and the week of this year's
AGU Fall Meeting.
As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists
and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the
American public's "belief" in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the
earth according to the Pew Center's October poll), and December's media blitz provides an
opportunity to reverse the trend.
Your participation is needed to ensure that climate science coverage across media channels
is accurate, fact-based, and nuanced. Provided that enough AGU members sign up to
participate, we will be offering the opportunity for journalists reporting during the
Copenhagen conference to submit their questions on-line and receive a response from a
climate expert before an article goes to press.
We are asking each of you to sign up for two hours over the course of those two weeks
(12/7-18) to respond to questions from journalists. You will be able to choose which
queries to answer based on your expertise, and there will be an option to double-team when
questions span multiple areas of expertise. We will be setting up the appropriate
logistics to enable both virtual participation and a central work area at the AGU meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to email Stacy Jackson at the email address below.
If you are willing to participate, please respond in the affirmative by Friday November
13th to [6]stacyjackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. Given the magnitude of the media coverage, we are
seeking several hundred willing climate scientists. More details will be forthcoming.
Thanks in advance,
Alan Robock, President, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section
Anne Thompson, President-Elect, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section
References
1. https://www.associationsciences.org/agu/meet_demog.jsp
2. http://www.agu.org/governancevote/
3. mailto:stacyjackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. https://www.agu.org/givingtoagu/making_your_gift.php
5. mailto:robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:stacyjackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1257888920.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: c.harpham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: FW: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day joins
Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Colin,
I thought that this didn't happen.
Cheers
Phil
From: C G Kilsby <c.g.kilsby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:35:37 +0000
Subject: FW: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day
joins
Thread-Topic: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day
joins
Thread-Index: AcpiFAtfZVu2N5gLTBW4NaA+k/QJowAB1zVA
Accept-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-GB
X-smtpf-Report: sid=lA9FZe094454569100; tid=lA9FZe0944545691XL;
client=lan,relay,white,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(pass,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 35355645 - b33bcd1c960c (trained as not-spam)
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=35355645&m=b33bcd1c960c&c=f
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=35355645&m=b33bcd1c960c&c=n
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=35355645&m=b33bcd1c960c&c=s
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Interesting one for you....
From: Lyndsey Middleton [[4]mailto:lyndsey.middleton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 10 November 2009 2:43 PM
To: C G Kilsby
Subject: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day joins
Hi Chris,
Another Weather Generator query for you. It was raised by Richard Watkins of Manchester
University (and COPSE project) following a visit from Roger yesterday.
Can you let me know your response please?
Cheers,
Lyndsey
Long Description=The hourly data from the Weather
Generator have discontinuities at each
midnight join. The e.g. temperature
jumps, may be as high as 9?C. The
hourly data seem to have been generated
independently for each day, rather than
fitting a curve from the maximum of one
day to the minimum of the next. The
minimum to maximum curve, i.e. within
each day, is fine.
Could the Weather Generator be altered
to produce more realistic hourly data
by fitting from Tmax to Tmin the
following day, please? This would be
helpful particularly for any use of the
data for building simulation with plant
controls.
Thanks,
Richard Watkins
Lyndsey Middleton
Enquiries Officer
UK Climate Impacts Programme
School of Geography and Environment
OUCE
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY
[5]www.ukcip.org.uk
Tel: 01xxx xxxx xxxx(direct) or 01xxx xxxx xxxx(switchboard)
My working days are: Tuesday and Wednesday 9am to 5pm and Friday 9 am to 12.30pm
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=35355645&m=b33bcd1c960c&c=f
2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=35355645&m=b33bcd1c960c&c=n
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=35355645&m=b33bcd1c960c&c=s
4. mailto:lyndsey.middleton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://www.ukcip.org.uk/
Original Filename: 1258039134.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Sandy Tudhope <sandy.tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Latest draft of WP1
Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Wolff, Eric W" <ewwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Wilson <rjsw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bass, Catherine" <C.J.Bass@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Turney, Christian" <C.Turney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Allan <rob.allan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear All (especially Chris/Catherine),
Here's the latest draft of WP1. All in the group have now commented and amended this.
You should have the 3 supporting letters from Tree partners. Eric was contacting Eric
Steig and Sandy (see below) is contacting 3 coral people.
There is an issue about a Map. Rob W put one in his PhD page. This shows the corals. If
we were to add the tree-ring sites we would mainly get a splodge of points in South America
and NZ. Ice cores would just be over the AP and in the low-lat Andes. Issue is one of
space. We already have 3pp fo this WP. Refs will reduce to about 0.5pp once we go to et al
for 3 or more authors. A map would be useful for presentation to NERC, but is it essential
for the submission?
I'm away from tomorrow lunchtime for the weekend. Back in on Monday. Hope we'll be
looking through more complete drafts next week!
Cheers
Phil
At 19:02 11/11/2009, Sandy Tudhope wrote:
Dear Phil et al,
Good to speak to you earlier Phil and Rob W..
Please find attached a slightly modified version for WP1 ... I've just changed the coral
section a bit. Briefly, I've identified the new coral coring sites (rather than get
bogged down trying to describe how we will use analysis of model output to prioritise),
plus I've added back in some references and details that I think help, but don't add too
much length.
I've written to Janice Lough, Julie Cole and Kim Cobb re being Project Partners (I
actually spoke to Kim and she is keen).
FIGURE: I still think it might be useful to have a map in the main proposal ...
basically like the one Rob has in the PhD proposal ... we can simply have boxes around
the tree ring and ice core regions. This map needn't be any larger than Rob already
has it ... but it does help illustrate where we will get/have data. What do you all
think?
Cheers,
Sandy
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: 1258053464.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Letter draft
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Phil, attached is a draft letter. We were keen to keep it as short,
sweet and uncomplicated as possible without skipping over important
details. Shorter, simpler, requests are more likely to get read and
acted upon was the specific advice from international relations.
--
Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB.
tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax. xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.hadobs.org
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachPhil_letter_draft_091109.doc"