2007 Emails ______________________________________________________ 1203. 2007-01-02 21:08:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: lempert@rand.org, Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, shs@stanford.edu, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu, manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, rsomerville@ucsd.edu, penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, cwunsch@mit.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, pre@stanford.edu, pre@stanford.edu, gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:08:13 -0500 from: Andy Revkin subject: Re: 'nonskeptic heretics' or the like to: Ronald Prinn some blogging and my responses below, related to the 'climate middle' story (huffington and grist essentially same. huffington response had to be abridged for space). something for everyone.. a key take-home point, please, is that this story was written mainly for the benefit of the 10s of millions of disengaged or doubtful or simply under-edcuated Americans out there for whom it is NEWS that the only discourse now is among folks who believe human-forced climate change is a huge problem. (as jim hansen said in my story, exclamation point included!) the 'hotter' voices are doing their job well. i'm doing mine. [1]http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/2/131839/3289 [2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/high-broderism-reaches-th_b_37639.html [3]http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/01/02/publiceye/entry2321267.shtml and make sure you read today's piece by michael barbaro on Walmart and lightbulbs. [4]www.nytimes.com/energychallenge ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: [5]www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season [6]www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: [7]www.myspace.com/unclewade 3879. 2007-01-03 11:34:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:34:44 +0100 from: Vincent Courtillot subject: Re: An update to: Phil Jones Thank you for your messages. The Academy should be in charge of your travel and lodging details but please do not hesitate to tell me if you encounter any problem. Best wishes for 2007! I look forward to meeting you. Yours sincerely, VC -- Vincent Courtillot Professor of Geophysics University Paris 7, Director Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Member Institut Universitaire de France, Member Academia Europaea and French Academy of Sciences President, Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism, American Geophysical Union President, Scientific Council, City of Paris 1867. 2007-01-03 17:07:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:07:14 +0000 from: Nathan Gillett subject: [Fwd: Fwd: Re: Kate Willett] to: Janice Darch Hi Janice, Please pay Kate at 11.05 per hour, as you suggest. Please take the first two weeks of pay from Phil's DoE account, and the subsequent six weeks from my Leverhulme Prize account. Thanks very much, Nathan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Re: Kate Willett Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:39:48 +0000 From: Phil Jones To: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk >From: "Janice Darch" >To: "Phil Jones" >Subject: Re: Kate Willett >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:29:14 -0000 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 > >Hi Phil, >Hourly it would cost about 6000 if we pay Kate 11.05 an hour, >Janice. > > >_____________________________________________________________________________ >Dr J. P. Darch >Research Manager >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich >NR4 7TJ >UK >Tel :+44 (0)1603 592994 >Mobile:+44 (0)7796932595 >Fax: +44 (0)1603 592535 >----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" >To: "Janice Darch" >Cc: >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:12 AM >Subject: Re: Kate Willett > > >> >> Janice, >> Nathan's doing interviews now for the FREE post. >> I suspect we want to do it as simply as possible - >> no advertisement. So does this mean we'll have to >> do it hourly. I guess then it will be cheaper? >> >> Phil >> >> >>At 10:08 15/12/2006, you wrote: >>>HI Phil, >>>Do you and Nathan want to employ Kate hourly or as a monthly salary? It >>>will make alot of difference to how much you need and wither or not >>>we have to advertise the post. >>>Janice >>>_____________________________________________________________________________ >>>Dr J. P. Darch >>>Research Manager >>>School of Environmental Sciences >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK >>>Tel :+44 (0)1603 592994 >>>Mobile:+44 (0)7796932595 >>>Fax: +44 (0)1603 592535 >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" >>>To: ; >>>Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:51 AM >>>Subject: Kate Willett >>> >>> >>>> Sue, Janice, >>>> I need a bit of help as Clare is away in San Francisco. KateWillett >>>> has handed in her PhD. Nathan is considering using some of his >>>> Leverhulme money to employ Kate for 6 weeks. (Jan/Feb). Do I >>>> have some extra money in my USDoE account to supplement this >>>> for another 2 or 6 weeks, to make up either 2 or 3 months (Jan-Feb >>>> or March next year). I have some work for her to do. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>>University of East Anglia >>>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>NR4 7TJ >>>>UK >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************************************************************************** Dr. Nathan Gillett, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1603 593 647 Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507 784 Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ **************************************************************************** 350. 2007-01-03 17:51:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Marquis@ucar.edu date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:51:07 -0700 from: Martin.Manning@noaa.gov subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Planning for Paris - upcoming teleconferences to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, qdh@cma.gov.cn, cdccc@cma.gov.cn, chenzhenlin@hotmail.com Dear CLAs Happy New Year to you all. It promises to be an eventful one for everyone involved in the AR4 and we are looking forward to working with you to a very successful completion of the report in Paris shortly. In order to make some substantive progress on addressing government comments before we all arrive in Paris, we will be contacting you on a number of issues in the next few weeks. Many of the more straightforward issues can be dealt with by email but some will require a teleconference. We are now planning 4 teleconferences as below. For each of these we are indicating the names of the CLAs and LAs who have been most involved with the issues, however, this is an invitation to you as CLAs to indicate if you would like to participate in any teleconference below that does not already have your name against it. In that case please let us know as soon as possible and not later than c.o.b Friday Jan 5th. Teleconferences: 1 - Sea level rise (observations plus projections): Gregory, Allen, Bindoff, Stocker, Meehl 2 - Observations: Trenberth, Jones, Lemke, Willebrand, Bindoff, Rusticucci, Hoskins 3 - Paleoclimate: Jansen, Overpeck, Briffa 4 - Projections: Meehl, Stocker, Stouffer, Friedlingstein, Held, Kattsov, Stott At this stage we are expecting to deal with issues arising from the comments on the Drivers and Attribution sections of the SPM by email. As we mentioned in an earlier email we are planning two types of presentation during the formal session in Paris. The first are 'science presentations' given in the morning prior to the plenary session or in lunch breaks and are to cover misunderstandings evident in some of the government comments or to provide background as to why some things that may be requested can not be provided (e.g. a probability for climate sensitivity being > 4.5C). They are not intended to deal with specific comments or text proposals. The second type are 'introductory presentations' for each section of the SPM. These will be given during the formal session as we start each SPM section. They need to be quite short (5 - 10 mins) and serve to remind all delegates of the underlying chapters and where the SPM text and figures have come from. The full list of science presentations (the first type above) is as follows. Drivers generally: - Ramaswamy Observations generally: - Trenberth, Lemke, Willebrand Extremes table: - Nicholls Paleo section: - Jansen/ Overpeck Attribution: - Hegerl/ Zwiers Climate sensitivity: - Stocker Sea level budgets & projections: - Bindoff, Alley, Gregory Projections (all other aspects): - Meehl/ Stocker One final note. It is quite evident to us that interest in our SPM is increasing rapidly and many of you have been, or can expect to be, contacted by the media or by others including your own government officials wanting to learn what the final report will say. As we now start to consider revisions to the text of the final draft please ensure that email or other discussions are carried out in strict confidence among ourselves. Generally everyone respects our process but they do frequently need to be reminded of the rules. Regards Susan and Martin _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 247. 2007-01-03 21:19:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Martin Manning" , mmanning@al.noaa.gov, "Jurgen Willebrand" , "Peter Lemke" , "Phil Jones" date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:19:07 -0700 (MST) from: "Kevin E Trenberth" subject: Re: Science presentation for Paris to: "Susan Solomon" Dear Susan and Martin Thanks for the prompt feedback. I wonder if I lost some other email (I asked about news conferences)? I am not happy with some of your comments and wish to respond. All of the slides I included were designed to address misunderstandings in the comments on the SPM. You criticized slide 16 yet if there was just 1 slide to show, that would be my choice. There are so many comments in changes in precipitation that are quite WRONG! In particular, comments 230, 232, 357, 360, 379 (twice) and it also addresses 377, 382 and 383. This relates to misunderstandings among many LAs as well, as I addressed at one of the plenary talks where I cautioned about use of the term "intensification of the hydrological cycle" as being quite wrong and misused. In 352 it claims no trends in global precip. Well precip does not and should not refer to just amount, but also to type, intensity, frequency, duration, patterns etc. It is an incorrect and misinformed comment and fails to recognize that we don't know what is happening over the oceans. 232 makes the error related to intensification of the hydrological cycle. It does not relate to runoff or drought. 357 is wrong in its characterization of trends, and confused by variability. 362 is quite wrong, as temperature changes must have circulation changes associated with them (they can not be uniform. 379 is wrong about precipitation vs water vapor and that relates to characteristics and intensity, and then is very wrong later when it relates heavy precipitation to evaporation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many other comments indicate an absence of understanding of fundamental issues related to how precipitation changes. It is not helped by having mean amounts treated separately from extremes, by the way. But that is in the report. I hope you mistated your point 2. No figures not in the chapter even though the material is extensively written about in the chapter? Does this mean I can't use polar bears on the opening slide? On tropical cyclones I included 4 slides, 3 of which are not in the chapter. The first was on where TCs occur: very educational. But not usable according to you? BTW you call out slides 35 and 38 but there are only 35 in the whole presentation so I am not sure what they are. You call out slide 6 but there are direct queries 256 and 259 asking what the ranking of the top 12 years are. We are not going to put this in the chapter but surely it is a good slide to show? You ask about DTR and dimming and in section 3.2.2.7 the links between DTR and cloud are well spelled out. There is nothing new here. But it is evident from the comments on DTR that a lot of people are confused about this. The fact that DTR went down so much previously was related to cloud and not greenhouse effects. This needs to be made clear. I am not sure what to say about Tropical cyclones. I did not find any comments worth responding to except for 2 from the US govt which are quite wrong. These are 391 and 424. They refer to some work by Kossin that was featured in an AMS seminar on Capitol Hill and unfortunately reported on by Dick Kerr in Science. The work is not published and has been rejected. It is flawed. It failed to take account different sizes of storms in different basins and applied an algorithm trained in the N Atlatic to global. It failed to show improved agreement over time, but instead suggested the whol ]record was wrong! Well the paper was wrong. So how should one respond to comments like this? Similarly the comment 333 by the US govt on the Walker Circulation cites Vecchi et al which was published in Nature 6 May 2006, after our deadline. Also I think it is partly wrong and relates to the 1976/77 climate shift. I would not include it even now. You also query slide 19 and this deals with issues of snow pack and how it relates to drought, something not covered in our chapter as it is a cross cutting issue. I did highlight in my slides the issue of the link between precipitation and temperature which relates to evapotranspiration and drought. Slide 22 is discussed in detail in our chapter although that figure is not presented. Does that make it invalid? Please consider what the briefings are intended to do. Is it to clear up misunderstandings as seen through the comments? Or is it to present a small subset of material from the chapter? Obviously what is presented should not be at odds with the chapter, and none of my material is. My assessment was that a tutorial was needed on precipitation and circulation changes and drought associated with climate change. Let me know if this is no correct. Sorry for sounding off a bit here, but better to clear the air. Perhaps my impression of what the comments say and how to deal with them is different than yours. All the more reason for a telecon. I thought most of the comments were minor suggestions that I assume you have in hand. The others mostly do not involve changes but rather require refuting the erroneous siggestions and comments. Let me know how to proceed, given the above. Thanks Kevin Dear Kevin, Thanks for the cc on this. It's generally looking very good. Martin Manning and I wanted to make a few specific comments and suggestions: 1) Please try to make these rather less detailed whereever practical. This is an audience that is quite diverse, and for many of them material that is too technical will not work well. Please help to present material that addresses the comments we got on the SPM but it would be better not to raise new points or give more detail on points that didn't get a lot of concerns. Slide 16 is an example of one that seems too detailed - we didn't get many comments expressing concerns on those points. Slide 19 is another one that is more detailed than what we have in the text, and there are others with material more detailed or with a rather different emphasis than we need. It's always tempting to do more but time is limited. 2) Please don't include any figures or statements that were not actually in the chapters. It will only raise concerns as to why they were not included, and we have a large amount to deal with already -- so please let's not create new areas for questions. Both the delegates and we are going to have to work with what we have at this point, as tempting as it always is to add stuff. Slides 7, 22, 35, and 38 are among the figures that don't appear in the report, so I suggest dropping those - you can put in text that covers the points. If you show a slide like 6, you will be provoking somebody to suggest adding such a table to the report. That would be tough - we have a lot of other stuff to cover and I don't think we should invite such changes. Similarly please check over all the statements - e.g., are your statements about dimming and DTR changes in the report? Here and a few other places seemed to me (Susan) to be saying things rather differently to the chapter text. 3) Please ensure that you do cover the key queries raised - the basis for drought and tropical cyclones are two key ones and I think these could be clearer. 4) Don't try to cover CO2 or other material on forcing - Ramawamy's presentation will do that. Again, many thanks for this - and thanks for being so prompt and circulating it. I hope these comments are helpful. bests, Susan and Martin > Hi all > Please find attached the slides I have prepared for Paris. Please note > that several are "hidden" and will not show on a slide show, but please > look at them all. There are still far too many, even with the hidden > ones, and based on the comments I would be inclined not to include the > ones on hurricanes. I have not included ones on the ice and oceans or > SLR, presuming those are to be done and added by Peter and Jurgen. One > hidden one is a version of the combined figure from the SPM. > Phil has approved these, but Phil, note I upgraded some of the slides. > Please provide your votes on what to include and what to not include. > > Best regards > Kevin > > Martin Manning wrote: >> Dear Kevin >> >> Here is the follow up message as just mentioned. >> >> Martin >> >>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:13:46 -0700 >>> To: trenbert@ucar.edu, plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de, >>> jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de >>> From: Martin Manning >>> Subject: Science presentation for Paris >>> Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov >>> Bcc: f\IPCC4\WG1-AR4\FinalSession >>> >>> Dear Kevin, Peter and Juergen >>> >>> You will probably have just seen our email with a copy of the >>> comments on the SPM. This one is to follow up and ask if you would >>> please start to prepare a joint science presentation for Paris that >>> would help us to address the comments on the Observations section >>> that are related to chapters 3, 4 and 5 (we are separately asking >>> Nathan, Richard and Jonathan to prepare something on sea level >>> projections and the connection to ice sheets and it may be useful to >>> compare notes with them on SLR). Please feel free to go through the >>> comments yourself and draw your own conclusions as to what can be >>> helpful in this regard. You will see the ones that we have >>> highlighted. Our summary of the main issues that we think will help >>> the delegates is: >>> >>> 1. Choices of temperature baselines and trends >>> 2. Urban heat island effect and how treated >>> 3. Arctic temperature variability; what is known and to what >>> degree current warming is larger/different in character? >>> 4. Where extremes data comes from >>> 5. How drought assessed >>> 6. robustness of precipitation trends in various regions >>> 7. Basis for tropical cyclone statement >>> 8. Basis for DTR statement >>> 9. how uncertainties in SPM-3 constructed >>> 10. snow cover/ice flow data (including basis for figure >>> SPM-3 and its error bars, and the available spatial range >>> in information on ice flow changes, e.g., WAIS vs >>> peninsula) >>> 11. what can be said about Larsen B (is there a summary >>> sentence from the chapter that could be brought forward >>> in a balanced way?) >>> 12. explain / show data on ocean warming (e.g. occurs below >>> the thermocline!) >>> 13. tide gauge vs satellite data -- availability & >>> comparability >>> 14. why can't use "accelerating" word for SLR >>> >>> It will be useful if this science presentation can implicitly deal >>> with misunderstandings, but not at the level of addressing specific >>> comments or governments obviously. We would also advise against >>> getting into discussion of actual wording in the SPM or detailed >>> discussion on figures etc - as that is better left to the plenary >>> session and to contact groups where necessary. >>> >>> Please bring a completed presentation to Paris so that we can discuss >>> it as necessary on Saturday Jan 27. Feel free to call on your >>> colleagues to assist with the preparation of this but we are asking >>> that you give the presentation jointly and that you can coordinate >>> this among yourselves as regards best use of the time etc. The timing >>> is still not decided but we intend to go through the SPM in order so >>> it would likely be either at lunch time of the first day (Jan 29) or >>> in the morning of the second day (Jan 30). Suggested length is total >>> of 30 minutes = 20 minutes presentation + 10 minutes for questions. >>> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns or if we can >>> help. >>> Best wishes for the holiday season >>> Susan and Martin >>> >>> -- >>> *Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >>> *Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >>> NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >>> 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>> Boulder, CO 80305, USA > > -- > **************** > Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu > Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ > P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 > Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) > > Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 > > -- Dr. Kevin. E. Trenberth Climate Analysis Section NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph: (303) 497 1318 www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 5274. 2007-01-04 06:06:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 06:06:40 -0800 from: "James" subject: global warming is global opportunity to: Dear Professor, People, even yourself in today's article [1]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_sc/britain_global_warming are positioning global warming to the public as a threat. The University of East Anglia is incredible, but please consider my non-scientific view. Global warming is global opportunity. It must be positioned this way for us to succeed. Political change comes from people. People need to view global warming Emotionally, as something they can fix, and as something that is an Opportunity for them to benefit. Else, they will ignore it until co2 hits 500ppm People are repelled by threat and drawn to opportunity. Ok. Now that I have your attention :-) We all know the sea is rising. No one cares. People use time, rate, causation and Blame to defer the issue to infinity. None of these factors matters to the sea. When I tell people that the sea is rising, I also remind them a. We will lose every pristine beach on the planet b. They will not be able to take their children to the beach c. By planting trees they can help save the beaches. d. Since everything is connected, saving the beaches will save everything... The first step in mobilizing civilization is to plant billions of trees. Perhaps 100's of billions. Ucsusa.org believes me. Just ask Kevin. Planting trees will give everyone a sense Of empowerment, its non-controversial and easy to do and inexpensive, and open their mind's door to the opportunities presented when we all realize, as I do...that we can manage the temperature of the earth!! Granted this is simplistic. That is what the public needs. Over 90% of the earth's population have No idea what global warming is yet. Thank you so much for listening to my opinion! Your work is so valuable in this war on carbon and the war on combustion. Regards, James Danforth, CEO Workinout.com 2935. 2007-01-04 08:56:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Carlson-Brown, Karen" date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:56:09 -0500 from: "RimsAdmin, SC" subject: RIMS Action Required - p.jones@uea.ac.uk to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Message: This is an auto email reminder that is sent as a courtesy to let researchers know when a progress report is due. A progress report is required in order for us to process the next increment of funding on your award. The URL for the RIMS web site is: https://rimsweb.science.doe.gov/rims/scripts/rims.exe Please log in and submit your progress report (you may also wish to update the Objective and Approach sections at this time) within the next 30 days for the following award. (Please note that delays may jeopardize the continuity of funding.) : Title: Climate Data Analysis and Models for the Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change Project ID: 0004129 Prog Mgr: Anjuli S. Bamzai Phone: 301-903-0294 Division: SC-23.3 PI: Phil D. Jones Award Register#: ER62601 0004129 If, however, you are at the end of your project period and all funds have been received, you should simply submit a brief, final progress report via RIMS for our reporting purposes. You will also need to submit a full final technical report (this includes any conference proceedings and papers) via the DOE Energy Link (E-Link) https://www.osti.gov/elink/241-3.jsp. A note about multiple requests for progress reports: Please note that this message is separate from any other 'RIMS request' that you may have recently received. This progress request is for funding purposes and is intended for the project manager's review, therefore it may contain more technical language. However, abstracts that are requested of all PIs on an annual basis are intended for a more general audience as they are mainly used for publication purposes. Please contact the RIMS System Administrator for clarification. If you need a RIMS User ID and password or if you have questions regarding your RIMS user id and password, please email Karen Carlson-Brown at [1]karen.carlson@science.doe.gov. 3319. 2007-01-04 12:11:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" , "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:11:18 -0000 from: "Jenkins, Geoff" subject: RE: Some help need if possible to: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" John Can you throw any light on the source of the lower panel in fig 7.1 (page 202) of the first (and best) IPCC science report? As a champion of all things palaeo I guess you would have been "involved" in using it? Good to see you and Catriona last week - Happy New Year. Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Warrilow, David (GA) [mailto:David.Warrilow@defra.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 04 January 2007 10:50 To: 'Phil Jones' Cc: Jenkins, Geoff; Geoff Jenkins (E-mail 3) Subject: RE: Some help need if possible Phil, I know the DoE booklet you mean - one of the first we produced. In fact I have just found the 3d Edition and it includes the said graphs. But I am sure the diagrams came from one of the sources mentioned. In fact the first version of the booklet was prepared by Geoff Jenkins, so he may know the specific source - Geoff? - the diagram is Figure 7.1 in the WG1 in the first IPCC report. David -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 04 January 2007 10:00 To: David Warrilow; Warrilow, David (GA) Subject: Re: Some help need if possible David, Thanks. I've looked at the 1979 version and there is something like the figure in it (Figure 45 in the book). It is different as it has the 20th century clearly warmer than the MWP. I will see if I can find someone who has the 1986 edition (in case it is different). Imbrie and Imbrie say they adapted Lamb (1969), but I can easily find this - and it isn't there, so is quite an adaption! I think it must come from Hubert's 'English' temperature history! I recall a Dept of the Environment report from about 1988/89, see Chris's email and this is his memory as well. Can you have one further think? I spoke to Chris again yesterday about the 2007 forecast. I'm now trying to get people to contact the Met Office. I just spoke to the Independent for their New Year's Day issue about what 2007 might be like. With a moderate El Nino there is a good chance it will be warmer than 1998. Back to the Figure. The skeptics keep referring to this curve, saying it was in the First IPCC report, but then disappeared in the SAR and TAR. The SAR had Bradley and Jones (1993) and the TAR Mann et al (1998, 1999, plus other papers) both of which quantified things for the first time. They keep saying that IPCC has lost the MWP, so just trying to show that the 1990 version wasn't based on anything more than what Lamb used to call 'analyst's opinion'. He seems to have liked this phrase and used it in a number of papers. Cheers Phil At 21:46 03/01/2007, David Warrilow wrote: >Phil, > >I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and >Imbrie : >Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the >Mystery. >Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979, 1986 (reprint). >ISBN 0-89490-020-X; ISBN 0-89490-015-3; ISBN 0-674-44075-7. p. 25 > >You may have it in your library. I am afraid I don't have it to hand, > >David > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Warrilow, David (GA)" > >To: "'Phil Jones'" >Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:56 PM >Subject: RE: Some help need if possible > > >>Phil >> >>I do recall your request but as I did not have a AR1 report was unable >>to check what figure you meant. I have a copy at home so will check. >> >>David >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: 02 January 2007 16:25 >>To: Warrilow, David (GA) >>Subject: Some help need if possible >> >> >> David, >> I tried sending this in November. See my email and the one from >> Chris Folland. Do you know which Dept of the Environment report this >> figure in the first IPCC report came from. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >>>Phil >>> >>>I have been asked this several times. This diagram came via David >>>Warrilow based on a Dept of the Environment document I never saw. It >>>came in at the Government Review. It was very schematic - I was just >>>given the diagram which seemed qualitatively reasonable at the time >>>so it was put in - remember there was no paleosection in 1990 as such >>>(this decision was debated at the originating Shepperton meeting I >>>think) but UK wanted something in at the last knockings. Nothing >>>quantitative existed at the time. The diagram says its schematic of >>>course. >>> >>>I was not a lead author of the SAR chapter - I escaped to the Climate >>>Models - Evaluation chapter! Neville Nicholls is your man there I >>>think. >>> >>> >>> >>>Chris >>> >>>Prof. Chris Folland >>>Head of Climate Variability Research >>> >>>Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >>>Kingdom >>>Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >>>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 >>>Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 >>> (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) >>> Fellow of the Met Office >>>Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East >>>Anglia >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>>Sent: 09 November 2006 10:19 >>>To: Folland, Chris >>>Subject: A long time ago .... >>> >>> >>> > Chris, >>> As a result of a PAGES/CLIVAR meeting on the last few millennia, >>> the workshop group are writing a summary paper. Given the somewhat >>> renewed (by skeptics) interest in Fig 7.1 of the First IPCC >>>Report, can >>> you recall where the schematic of the last 1000 years came from. >>> My recollection is Dept Of Environment 'glossy' (pre DETR and DEFRA) >>> from about 1989. Are you able to track this down? I just need the >>> source. I think it is a schematic - i.e. not based on data. >>> >>> In the SAR, you referred to the paper by Bradley and Jones (1993), >>> which was based on decadal data from 10 or 12 proxy records. >>> >>> The figure was shown in the background info to the awful piece >>> in the Sunday Telegraph last weekend. In the background Monckton >>> replotted the curve, said it was Europe (and then gave it the average >>> temperature of Central England)! >>> >>> No rush, we can discuss this at the ETCCDI meeting next week. See >>> you then. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>--- >>>---- >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>---- -- >>Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) >> >>This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient >>only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, >>disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it >>and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments >>will have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems >>we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. >>Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or >>recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other >>lawful purposes. > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 588. 2007-01-04 12:36:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Latham, SE \(Sue\)" , "Pepler, SJ \(Sam\)" , "Lawrence, BN \(Bryan\)" , "Juckes, MN \(Martin\)" date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:36:37 -0000 from: "Stephens, A \(Ag\)" subject: UKCIP DDP Kick-off Meeting - Feb 22nd and 21st/23rd? to: , , , , , Dear all, Happy New Year! We are proposing a 2-day meeting in February to kick-off the UKCIP DDP aspect of the Defra CEER0607 contract (which we are still waiting for). Please can you let me know your availability for the following days: Wed 21st Feb Thu 22nd Feb Fri 23rd Feb Bryan can only make the 22nd but would very much like to be there for a day. Then we'll try and tack on the 21st or 23rd depending on favoured dates. We intend for the meeting to be held at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL, where BADC live: http://www.cclrc.ac.uk/Activity/RALMaps;) in Oxfordshire. The plan for the meeting is to: - review what we have said we'll do. - discuss and decide what we think we need to do. - define and partition the workload into sensible chunks. - discuss solutions that we think we will use. - agree plans for communication, management and meetings. - agree who will do what. Note that I have started drafting sub-contracts so they should be with you soon. Also, a number of other mails can be expected in the next couple of weeks as pre-cursors to the above list. Looking forward to working with you all on this exciting (and only slightly scary) project. Kind regards, Ag 1994. 2007-01-04 13:29:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Crowley , mann@psu.edu, "raymond s. bradley" , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Eric Steig , gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, William Connelley , d-archer@uchicago.edu, rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:29:57 -0700 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: not so fast - an update to: Phil Jones Phil, Gribbin is probably a dead end. Check out the graph: turns out to be Dansgaards numbers from Greenland... the text talks about the warmth in Europe (1000-1300) with mild, wet winters. Then it goes on that one can use the point observations from historical documents to fill in some details quote: OF ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNIQUES FOR UNRAVELING PAST CLIMATIC CHANGES, THE STUDY OF OXYGEN ISOTOPES LOCKED UP AS ICE IN THE GREENLAND ICE CAP. Then it goes to discuss briefly the delta-18-O technique, and say WILLI DANSGAARD have been able to uncover 1420 years of history (which is the Crete core, I believe) The shape is different than the graph we are trying to get at. The best I find is Central England by H.H. Caspar Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear All, > The net is closing... > > National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric > Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action, > National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A. > > This book (Fig A2b) has the same figure as Imbrie/Imbrie. It is rotated. > It also has the same concept of the IPCC 1990 Figure, changes on > various timescales - all rotated. Loads of Lamb diagrams I have > seen countless times before. > > This book also talks about the impending cooling..... > > John Mitchell also thought the figure is in a book by Gribbin > called '1982 CO2 Review". Anyone recall that one. This isn't > in the CRU Library nor UEA's. > > The direct source of the IPCC diagram is the UK Dept of Environment > document from 1989 which is being posted to me. It though has > a source, which isn't in the document. John and Geoff Jenkins > wrote it though. It is possible that just the last millennium panel > was from this source and the others from this 1975 source. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > > Dear All (Tom is off to Texas), > David Warrilow has found the said report. A photocopy is being > posted > to me, and two others have been asked if they know more about how > it was arrived at. > > I'll report more when I get news. > > Phil > > Tom, > Here's a reply from David Warrilow (below). I still think it is > in a UK Dept of the Environment report from 1988/89, as does > Chris Folland, so have asked him to think a little more. > I've looked at the 1979 edition, and Figure 45 is the one. > It has a curve, but with the 20th century warmer than the > MWP!! It is said to be based on Lamb (1969). This is a > chapter in the World Survey of Climatology Series > edited by Landsberg. I can't see how you can adapt anything > from this. Hubert's chapter has lots of detail, many figures > which have lines with the phrase 'analyst's opinion' - one > of his favourite terms for things he made up. If it is an > adaptation, then it comes from Hubert's ideas about > England and NW Europe, because these are the curves > in the 1969 chapter. > > Anyone have the 1986 edition, to see if this curve got changed? > The 1986 date is about right for being in the document I recall > seeing. Some of you who've seen my room, will be saying if I had > a better filing system, then I would be able to find it. Despite keeping > most things I can't find this ! > > By the way, it is GREAT PITY, the First IPCC report didn't use > Fig 45. We'd all be very happy and the skeptics wouldn't be going > on about what came out in 1990. > > Attached is the Met Office forecast for 2007. It seems that I'm > getting > the credit for this in the media. All I did was talk to the > Independent about > what I thought 2007 had in store weatherwise. With an El Nino going on, > I thought it might be a record and just trotted off the typical > things that happen > in El Nino years. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Phil, > > I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and > Imbrie : > Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the > Mystery. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979, > 1986 (reprint). ISBN 0-89490-020-X; ISBN 0-89490-015-3; ISBN > 0-674-44075-7. p. 25 > > You may have it in your library. I am afraid I don't have it to hand, > > David > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\gribbin1982.jpg" 2278. 2007-01-04 15:13:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" , "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:13:05 -0000 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: RE: Some help need if possible to: "Jenkins, Geoff" I think it was based on a diagram A2 in the national Academy of Sciences boolet "Understanding climate change" cirica 1974 if rmeber correctly- I can find out in Reading tomorrow- which I can't find in the library- it was reproduced in one of John Gribbens books and I think a book claled the "1982 CO2 review". I think there 6 diagrams and I remember Tom Wigley commenting that only the first ( millions of years) and Last ( instrumental record) had any credibility. John Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist, Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel. +44(0)1392884604 Fax:+44 (0) 870 9005050 E-mail: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Jenkins, Geoff Sent: 04 January 2007 12:11 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Cc: 'Warrilow, David (GA)'; 'Phil Jones' Subject: RE: Some help need if possible John Can you throw any light on the source of the lower panel in fig 7.1 (page 202) of the first (and best) IPCC science report? As a champion of all things palaeo I guess you would have been "involved" in using it? Good to see you and Catriona last week - Happy New Year. Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Warrilow, David (GA) [mailto:David.Warrilow@defra.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 04 January 2007 10:50 To: 'Phil Jones' Cc: Jenkins, Geoff; Geoff Jenkins (E-mail 3) Subject: RE: Some help need if possible Phil, I know the DoE booklet you mean - one of the first we produced. In fact I have just found the 3d Edition and it includes the said graphs. But I am sure the diagrams came from one of the sources mentioned. In fact the first version of the booklet was prepared by Geoff Jenkins, so he may know the specific source - Geoff? - the diagram is Figure 7.1 in the WG1 in the first IPCC report. David -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 04 January 2007 10:00 To: David Warrilow; Warrilow, David (GA) Subject: Re: Some help need if possible David, Thanks. I've looked at the 1979 version and there is something like the figure in it (Figure 45 in the book). It is different as it has the 20th century clearly warmer than the MWP. I will see if I can find someone who has the 1986 edition (in case it is different). Imbrie and Imbrie say they adapted Lamb (1969), but I can easily find this - and it isn't there, so is quite an adaption! I think it must come from Hubert's 'English' temperature history! I recall a Dept of the Environment report from about 1988/89, see Chris's email and this is his memory as well. Can you have one further think? I spoke to Chris again yesterday about the 2007 forecast. I'm now trying to get people to contact the Met Office. I just spoke to the Independent for their New Year's Day issue about what 2007 might be like. With a moderate El Nino there is a good chance it will be warmer than 1998. Back to the Figure. The skeptics keep referring to this curve, saying it was in the First IPCC report, but then disappeared in the SAR and TAR. The SAR had Bradley and Jones (1993) and the TAR Mann et al (1998, 1999, plus other papers) both of which quantified things for the first time. They keep saying that IPCC has lost the MWP, so just trying to show that the 1990 version wasn't based on anything more than what Lamb used to call 'analyst's opinion'. He seems to have liked this phrase and used it in a number of papers. Cheers Phil At 21:46 03/01/2007, David Warrilow wrote: >Phil, > >I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and >Imbrie : >Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the >Mystery. >Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979, 1986 (reprint). >ISBN 0-89490-020-X; ISBN 0-89490-015-3; ISBN 0-674-44075-7. p. 25 > >You may have it in your library. I am afraid I don't have it to hand, > >David > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Warrilow, David (GA)" > >To: "'Phil Jones'" >Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:56 PM >Subject: RE: Some help need if possible > > >>Phil >> >>I do recall your request but as I did not have a AR1 report was unable >>to check what figure you meant. I have a copy at home so will check. >> >>David >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: 02 January 2007 16:25 >>To: Warrilow, David (GA) >>Subject: Some help need if possible >> >> >> David, >> I tried sending this in November. See my email and the one from >> Chris Folland. Do you know which Dept of the Environment report this >> figure in the first IPCC report came from. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >>>Phil >>> >>>I have been asked this several times. This diagram came via David >>>Warrilow based on a Dept of the Environment document I never saw. It >>>came in at the Government Review. It was very schematic - I was just >>>given the diagram which seemed qualitatively reasonable at the time >>>so it was put in - remember there was no paleosection in 1990 as such >>>(this decision was debated at the originating Shepperton meeting I >>>think) but UK wanted something in at the last knockings. Nothing >>>quantitative existed at the time. The diagram says its schematic of >>>course. >>> >>>I was not a lead author of the SAR chapter - I escaped to the Climate >>>Models - Evaluation chapter! Neville Nicholls is your man there I >>>think. >>> >>> >>> >>>Chris >>> >>>Prof. Chris Folland >>>Head of Climate Variability Research >>> >>>Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >>>Kingdom >>>Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >>>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 >>>Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 >>> (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) >>> Fellow of the Met Office >>>Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East >>>Anglia >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>>Sent: 09 November 2006 10:19 >>>To: Folland, Chris >>>Subject: A long time ago .... >>> >>> >>> > Chris, >>> As a result of a PAGES/CLIVAR meeting on the last few millennia, >>> the workshop group are writing a summary paper. Given the somewhat >>> renewed (by skeptics) interest in Fig 7.1 of the First IPCC >>>Report, can >>> you recall where the schematic of the last 1000 years came from. >>> My recollection is Dept Of Environment 'glossy' (pre DETR and DEFRA) >>> from about 1989. Are you able to track this down? I just need the >>> source. I think it is a schematic - i.e. not based on data. >>> >>> In the SAR, you referred to the paper by Bradley and Jones (1993), >>> which was based on decadal data from 10 or 12 proxy records. >>> >>> The figure was shown in the background info to the awful piece >>> in the Sunday Telegraph last weekend. In the background Monckton >>> replotted the curve, said it was Europe (and then gave it the average >>> temperature of Central England)! >>> >>> No rush, we can discuss this at the ETCCDI meeting next week. See >>> you then. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>--- >>>---- >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>---- -- >>Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) >> >>This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient >>only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, >>disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it >>and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments >>will have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems >>we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. >>Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or >>recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other >>lawful purposes. > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 4571. 2007-01-04 16:29:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:29:32 -0000 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: RE: This and that to: "Phil Jones" Phil Please email a scan of your 1988 article. There has been some debate re seasonal f/c about whether serious N. Atlantic/Europe blocking might develop in next 3 weeks. There is a stratospheric warming occurring and a moderate if slightly fading El Nino which are conducive between them. But only a moderate signal exists in principle. Chris Prof. Chris Folland Head of Climate Variability Research Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 04 January 2007 16:15 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: This and that Chris, Will do. As long as you refer to my Climate Monitor article from 1988! Co-ordination worked fine on the 2006 numbers this year. So let's try and get the forecast in this time. Also , hopefully, we will be able to say how successful it will be. I just checked our web checking thing on google. There are over 150 with me, CRU and UEA in, in the last 3 hours! It seems as though the US has finally woken up. The funniest one was a British one, which also got a forecast from Piers Corbyn, who said it will be snowing by mid-Jan. Several have emailed in responses, saying he said that for mid-Dec as well!! Cheers Phil At 16:01 04/01/2007, you wrote: >Phil > >It will be done and its now second paper on the list. You can be a >reviewer! The amount of admin here has risen several fold this year and >my group has expanded by 1/3rd since Tuesday. Discuss sometime. > >Your own forecast has merely served to increase the profile of mine >here and everywhere else it seems! So don't worry - but next year we >should consult on this. The 2007 forecast got delayed here for >technical admin reasons - and Defras nervousness to some extent. > >Chris > > >Prof. Chris Folland >Head of Climate Variability Research > >Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >Kingdom >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 04 January 2007 13:51 >To: Folland, Chris >Subject: This and that > > > > Chris, > > > Hope your PC is back! > > May be worth considering writing up the Global T forecast > method for a short paper. It seems to have generated a lot of >interest. > Likely to get more each year, as with a 0.2 deg C trend per decade, > each El Nino event could make that year the warmest. Also > it could discuss the independence (or not) of El Nino from global > warming. Last is most difficult. > > It would be better to try and keep the forecast together with the > annual summary in one press release. Gets it over with in one go. > > Finally success with David Warrilow. He's found the said > DoE report from ages ago and is sending me a photocopy. > Also Geoff Jenkins and John Mitchell have been asked if they > can provide any more insight ! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 4728. 2007-01-04 20:41:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Tom Crowley , "Michael E. Mann" , "raymond s. bradley" , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , "Raymond P." date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:41:11 +0000 (GMT) from: William M Connolley subject: Re: not so fast - an update to: Caspar Ammann On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Caspar Ammann wrote: > check figure A9, there the 17th century is cold, and this is probably > the curve that was used. In that case, then its Central England from Lamb. Ah, you mean A9(d) (I thought you meant A9(a) for a bit). Yes, that looks pretty similar to IPCC 1990. Though not identical - the scaling is different, but the timing is similar. -W. > Caspar > > > William M Connolley wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Phil Jones wrote: > > > >> The net is closing... > >> > >> National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric > >> Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action, > >> National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A. > >> > >> This book (Fig A2b) has the same figure as Imbrie/Imbrie. It is rotated. > >> It also has the same concept of the IPCC 1990 Figure, changes on > >> various timescales - all rotated. Loads of Lamb diagrams I have > >> seen countless times before. > >> > > > > ? The source for IPCC can't be the 1975 NAS report. That fig is relatively warm > > about 1600; the IPCC '90 figure is cold then. And as noted the "MWP" is colder > > than 1950. But NAS 75 is the same as I+I, true (they both source to Lamb 69). > > > > Incidentally my I+I says copyright 1979, seventh printing 1998. > > > > -W. > > > > William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ > > Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479 > > > > -- > > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject > > to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any > > reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under > > the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic > > records management system. > > > > > > > > -- > Caspar M. Ammann > National Center for Atmospheric Research > Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology > 1850 Table Mesa Drive > Boulder, CO 80307-3000 > email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 > William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479 -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. 1146. 2007-01-05 07:31:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:31:13 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: Figure to: Phil Jones Phil, I remember that Figure. When it appeared I thought "what crap". I thought Chris had made it up from mainly Lamb material. We knew well then that Lamb's stuff was garbage -- and, of course, Chris was ignorant of paleo data. The blind being led by the blind -- and now it has come back to haunt us. Poetic justice. You might recall that I used a very different Figure from Rothlisberger in the Wigley and Kelly paper. This was a good choice in retrospect because it looks much more like Mann et al. I hate to say this (actually not) but I think I got it right and IPCC got it wrong -- not the first time. Tom. Wigley, T.M.L. and Kelly, P.M., 1990: Holocene climatic change, 14C wiggles and variations in solar irradiance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A330, 547560. 4039. 2007-01-05 07:35:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: William M Connolley , Tom Crowley , "Michael E. Mann" , "raymond s. bradley" , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , "Raymond P." , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" , "Jenkins, Geoff" , "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" , Tom Wigley , mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, "Folland, Chris" date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:35:12 -0700 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report to: Phil Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by routt.cgd.ucar.edu id l05EW8cm017776 Phil, just for comparison, here is the superposition of Lamb's central England (what ever season that might be) on the UK Dep. of Environment report graph. This appears very much to be the same data, note all the little bumps and wiggles are just the same, and then in the tails its 'expertly' extended. Caspar Phil Jones wrote: >> Dear All, > I've added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to > see if we can > definitively determine where the figure in the subject title comes > from. The > background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I'd like > to prove that it is a schematic and it isn't based on real data, but on > presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s. If you think > it is based on something real. > What we'd like to do is show this either on 'Real Climate' or > as background > in a future paper, or both. > I'm attaching a few diagrams as background (attaching in order of > introducing them) and giving some earlier thoughts. I assume you all > have > a copy of the said diagram in the first IPCC report. > > 1. This is where the IPCC diagram came from - the top panel is also > there, but the middle one from IPCC isn't. This is where Chris Folland > knows it came from. He said it was shoehorned in at a very late date. > This report comes from a UK Dept of the Environment document - where the > first edition predates 1990. David Warrilow says that this was written by > Geoff Jenkins and John Mitchell. > > John said the following > > I think it was based on a diagram A2 in the national Academy of Sciences > boolet "Understanding climate change" cirica 1974 if rmeber correctly- I > can find out in Reading tomorrow- which I can't find in the library- it > was reproduced in one of John Gribbens books and I think a book claled > the "1982 CO2 review". I think there 6 diagrams and I remember Tom > Wigley commenting that only the first ( millions of years) and Last ( > instrumental record) had any credibility. > > and > > National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric > Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action, > National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A. > > 2. This 1975 book has the 3rd attachment on p130 . This is very > similar to one > that David Warrilow said (also attached from Imbrie and Imbrie - second > attachment). > > from David > > I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and > Imbrie : > Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the > Mystery. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979, > 1986 (reprint). ISBN 0-89490-020-X; ISBN 0-89490-015-3; ISBN > 0-674-44075-7. p. 25 > > These look the same if you invert and rotate the one from 1975, and > they both > say 'winter conditions in Eastern Europe' - well Imbrie/Imbrie do. They > also say adapted from Lamb (1969). This is the World Survey of > Climatology > series from Landsberg, vol2. I've been through this and I can't see much > of a plot anything like those I've attached, so some adaptation. Also > I've > no idea what this Eastern European series is! > > The IPCC diagram and the UK report clearly don't originate here. > > 3. Caspar Amman had John Gribbin's 1982 book and sent the 4th > attachment. This has a warmer MWP, but is far too cool recently. > So even if this was resmoothed, it wouldn't before the IPCC one. > > 4. Ray Bradley sent this text: > > I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of > literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called "Earth Quest". It > was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers. In one > issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines, Cenozoic, > Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc. > The idea was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth's > climate history. I think this idea evolved from the old NRC > publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on by Tom Webb > in the book I edited for UCAR, /Global Changes of the Past/. (This > was an outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded > around 1990). > > I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I > recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked > me to review. Where he got his version from, I don't know. I think I > scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no > recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it > further, I don't know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to > go through ~1950) perhaps it's not so bad. I note, however, that in > the more colourful version of the much embellished graph that Stefan > circulated ( > http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html > the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different > spin on things. They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the > purported temperature changes. In any case, the graph has no > objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what > happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for > some overly persistent inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave > such things on the table...). > > What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris > Folland must have seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter > he was editing. I don't think he gave a citation and it thus appeared > to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having submitted a great deal of > text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that Chris > essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the > paleoclimate record in that volume. > > There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature > publication was misused. In a paper in /Science/ by Zielinski et al. > (1994) [v.264, p.448-452]--attached-- they reproduced [in Figure 1c] a > similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving the > following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, > Earth-quest 5 (insert) (1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. > Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific > Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)." > But I had nothing to do with that one! > > So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC > record on the last millennium! > > 5. Finally, here's one from Stefan, to show how the IPCC diagram gets > (first another one which appears to be the IPCC 1990 diagram). > The one I want to attach seems to be within Stefan's email so that > is the end of this email. You can also get to this by going to the link > in Ray's piece above. > > It shows how you can embellish a diagram and even get Rembrandt in! > > I've also seen many other embellishments mentioning Greenland, the > Vikings, > Vineyards in York, frost fairs on the Thames etc. Also I've emailed over > the years for the numbers in the 1990 IPCC Figure. I even got a digitized > version once from Richard Tol and told him what he'd done was > ludicrous. > > 6. So who put to together? Do we blame Ray? Is it a whim of his > excellent imagination? I know we will all likely agree with Ray that > it is based on absolutely nothing. Tom Crowley thinks it might be > based on Lamb and sent the final figure. Now all of those who are > or were in CRU know, you should be very careful with Lamb diagrams! > This one does not stand any scrutiny and there are several more > recent papers by Tom Wigley, Astrid Ogilvie and Graham Farmer > that have shown that this final diagram is irreproducible and it was > much cooler in the 11-13th centuries. It is also England and summer > only. The galling thing is, it does look like the IPCC Figure!!!!!! > > When Tom sent the figure, he added this text (see below). > > The figure looks like Figure 30 (I've not scanned this one), but will, > from his 1982 (reprinted in 1985 and 1995) called Climate History > and the Modern World. This figure has series for the year, JJA and > DJF. > > Someone tell me it isn't based on a Lamb diagram, please.... > > Phil > > Tom Crowley said > we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" > that figure - I do not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at > the attached - which I used in the Crowley-Lowery composite just > because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the record of > record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his > book dated 1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard > et al. 1975 Nature paper on Norsemen...etc used that figure when > comparing what must have been their Camp Century record - have to > check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the > timing of Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England! > > 25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a > strong statement on the MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of > the MWP being warming than the present was correct and that the 1999 > Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him that > he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to > do my "bonehead" sampling of whatever was out there just to see what > happened when you added them all together - the amazing result was > that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is history -- > much ignored and forgotten. > > I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote - > and that Fred Singer loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the > journal) basically shoehorned me into re-reproducing that figure even > though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in the figure > caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states > "compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so > that puts a further twist on this because it point to Houghton not > Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that part of the > figure caption because I don't think I knew those details. > > but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from - > the MWP is clearly more schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl > about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA are pretty good) - maybe > there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do the > MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have > thrown in the old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can > schlep something together using only those old three records. > > tom > > Stefan said > > the reason why I started to worry about this is the attached graph. > Recognise something? > - Used in school teaching in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, is on a > website with officially recommended teacher materials > - Used in university teaching in Germany > - Used in politics in Germany by people within the FDP. > Note the vertical axis label on that, by the way. The text that goes > with it claims the medieval warm period was 2-4 C warmer than today. > Climate sceptics material, of course. > > Cheers, Stefan -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Lamb_on_EnvRep.jpg" 956. 2007-01-05 10:15:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , "Willebrand, Juergen " , Nathan Bindoff , Mote Philip , "Solomon, susan" , Martin Manning , John Kennedy , "Parker, David (Met Office)" date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:15:08 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: SPM-3 Error estimates to: Peter Lemke Peter I am not sure this is right. Here is the series of emails about this: You will see that we were aware that the error bars were supposed to become comparable and ultimately this was left in the hands of John Kennedy and David Parker. I'll cc them. Kevin Hi all There has been a flurry of emails on this. I believe the action now is with John Kenedy and David Parker who are the only ones(?) with all the data sets and in a position to try to make the plots and error bars comparable. So let's see what issues arise from them. Thanks Kevin Phil Jones wrote: Nathan, See the other email trying to get the snow plot to look similar, i.e with error ranges. The temperature plots includes all the measurement errors and biases at the decadal scale. Also, if you look very closely at the temp plot you'll see that the error band is very slightly asymmetric, as the urban error is one sided. Look closely at the present - it is just about visible! Also all our errors are the known errors. There is no assessment of unknown errors. So just like Rumsfeld we haven't made estimates of these, although I think for his case they could have made some assessment of the unknowns. We can't as they really are unknowns. This range is 5/95%, so 2*SE times 0.8225. Cheers Phil At 00:44 20/07/2006, Nathan Bindoff wrote: G'day Kevin The graph looks fine. I would like to confirm that the error bars have been increased from standard errors to 90% confidence intervals by scaling by ~1.66. A note of caution, as we revise our chapter we may well increase the confidence interval to include uncertainty associated with unresolved decadal variability. The current confidence estimates are really estimates that come from the processing of the tide gauge data and the method and donot take into account decadal variability in climate processes. Also to confirm, the shaded area on the global air temperature is a confidence interval representing what?, instrumental noise, decadal variability and other unresolved process? Cheers Nathan Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi All Dennis Shea reprocessed the sea level record to 1) Rezero the values relative to 1961-90 2) Replace the wisker plots with an error range more that the yelloe one in the sfc T plot. This does not have a decadal filter run through it though. Kevin Phil Jones wrote: David, I guess we could but it is just one more thing to remember to alter in January. So let's not do that. Cheers Phil At 12:27 19/07/2006, david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: Phil Thanks. I don't remember a newer version but John Kennedy will confirm. Were we supposed to add 2006 to the top panel in due course? David On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 11:53, Phil Jones wrote: > John, David (and Nathan), > I'm not sure where we are on this figure for the SPM. I'm > reattaching the latest version I had emailed to me. Anny has already > sent some > sea level data. Not sure how these in the zip file compare with those used? > I was only acting as a go-between on this figure, hoping that John > Kennedy would be able to draw it. I think it is John who produced the > attached. > John - can you check whether these files differ? > > This means that the sea level is now OK. So what about the snow area? > Has that got uncertainty estimates, Richard? > > Apologies if I've misunderstood anything here. Put it down to the > stifling heat here today. Supposed to be in mid-30s C somewhere in > the UK. Ch 3 has been discussing extremes. Today is HOT !!!!!!!!! > > Cheers > Phil > > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 01:40 19/07/2006, Nathan Bindoff wrote: > >G'day Kevin > > > >Kevin Trenberth wrote: > >> > >>------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > >> > >>Subject: > >>[Fwd: Re: IPCC diagrams FAQ fig] > >>From: > >>Kevin Trenberth > >>Date: > >>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:23:39 -0600 > >>To: > >>Nathaniel Lee Bindoff , Richard Alley > >> > >> > >>To: > >>Nathaniel Lee Bindoff , Richard Alley > >> > >>CC: > >>Phil Jones , david parker , > >>Martin Manning , Susan Solomon > >> > >> > >>Nate, Richard > >> > >>I am not sure who is in charge of this? > >Actually I thought Phil Jones was in the sense of creating the plot > >(with John Kennedy). Richard and I were to provide the data. The aim was > >to get the same look and feel for all three data. > > > >I have attached the same data that was used to make figure SPM3. > > > >The challenge for us was figure out the of adding the 5-90% shading > >representing the decadal noise to match the same figure in the upper panel. > >Is it true that Phil (with John) created that panel, and also the shading > >represening the decadal noise. And if so could he do it for the Sea-Level > >Data I have attached? Phil? > > > >In which case we have all the data necessary to complete the sea-level > >figure. Note that there is an arbitary level that needs to be added to > >each time series to get them to overly each other. The reference period > >of 1961-1990 can be calculated for both of the Holgate and Church time > >series. The altimeter data should be just adjusted to lie on top of the > >other two time series. > >>Please see the discourse below and the attached figures. The second one > >>is from our FAQ and has the global T with now 2 scales: anomalies from > >>1961-90 left and absolute values at right > >>It seems desirable to have the zero correspond to 1961-90 for all 3 on > >>the left scale and maybe (or maybe not) add absoluite values on right > >>(for sea level this would be 3,800 m or so, i.e. 3,800,000 mm??) > >I wouldn't bother with the absolute scale on the right side of the panel > >for sea-level. > >> > >>Anyway if you can provide the value on the left axis that corresponds to > >>the 1961-90 value we could do the offset. > >>Opinions? Should the zero line be drawn in each case? > > > >See above > > > >Is this okay Phil? > > > >Over to Richard > > > >Cheers Nathan > >> > >>Kevin > >> > >>-------- Original Message -------- > >>Subject: Re: IPCC diagrams FAQ fig > >>Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 09:17:19 -0600 > >>From: Susan Solomon > >>To: Kevin E Trenberth > >>CC: Phil Jones , david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk, > >>Martin.Manning@noaa.gov > >>References: < > >> > >> > >> > >>Dear Kevin et al., > >>Thanks for the info on this. I understood that there would be some > >>changes in the sea level and snow data presentation by those chapters, > >>for consistency with the atmospheric data normalization period, error > >>bars, etc. So representatives of those chapters will need to be in the > >>loop for this figure to reach final form. Please contact Bindoff and > >>Alley, respectively. > >> > >>Thanks, > >>Susan > >> > >> > >>At 1:15 PM -0600 7/8/06, Kevin E Trenberth wrote: > >> >Susan, David etc > >> > > >> >David thank John Kennedy for the 3 panel figure for the SPM. You sent me > >> >an eps and I have converted to a png: this is the second one labeled > >> >Figure... > >> >I have modified it a bit, changing axes and labels in the other version. > >> > > >> >Kevin Peter Lemke wrote: > Dear Friends, > I hope that you all had a good start into the New year and I wish you > all the best for the remaining part of it. > Concerning the error estimates in the figure SPM-3 the comment SPM-249 > is correct. I got the following comment from Phil Mote about the error > of the snow data: > > "As I recall, I calculated the standard deviation of the residuals of > the whole > time series after subtracting the smoothed curve, so it's a little > different from decadal means. We had to do this because we have no > *error* estimate of the underlying data. So the reviewer is correct in > that the snow panel is not strictly consistent with the temperature > panel." > > I think we HAVE TO unify the error shadings. Given that the errors of > single data points are all different and - at least in the case of the > snow data - not known, I wonder if it still makes sense that somebody > (Kevin, Phil J.) takes all time series and calculates the errors in > the same way. If we stick to decadal data (so that the widths of the > error range is changing with time) then there are only 10 data points > for the snow series to compute the variance from. This is not much, > but acceptable in this case, I think. > > Has this already been addressed by somebody? I am on vacation until > Monday and I am not really up-to-date. > Best regards, > Peter > -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 925. 2007-01-05 12:14:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Michael Schlesinger , lempert@rand.org, Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu, manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, mmaccrac@comcast.net, omichael@princeton.edu, hare@pik-potsdam.de date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:14:05 -0800 from: "Stephen H. Schneider" subject: Re: a query to all... to: Andy Revkin Hi all. Let me add to Mike and other's points about political tipping points trumping bio-geophysical ones in the policy world--though not quite how others put it--with one simple question: Why is California the lowest CO2 per capita emitting state and Texas the highest? Not primarily the weather, in my view, but the political climate: value systems about social benefits are so different. In CA social benefits are in deeply in the political equation--even the Governator--and in Texas, protection of entrepreneurial rights seems to dominate. California has myriad building codes and performance standards that have pushed efficiency--and save the state some $5B a year it is estimated. Not Texas by comparison. Classical blue-red state ideological differences, to oversimplify. The issue gets very interesting at a more collective level where the relative power of differeing local ideologies clash and there is a need to work out a deal--under Bush, no meaningful climate deals possible. The social tipping phemenona I mentioned seem to be building: from Katrina, Gore movie, high roller corporate support for policy growing fast and media covering less of the crazies is all contributing to positive movement towards some policy at aggregate level--whether it is more than band-aid remains to be seen, but we are finally moving. Hope this is useful, Cheers, Steve PS I agree that palpable biophysical events in one's backyard help with social tipping--like earlier snowmelt in CA Sierra got the attention of the State Hydrologist and farmers. But why then isn't stronger hurricanes and heat waves in the Gulf doing the same in Texas? Ideology of the beholder, perhaps? Happy New Year All. Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences 371 Serra Mall Gilbert Building Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Freeman Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org Quoting Andy Revkin : > a very very very poignant and true point, michael. > > i have a song called "a very fine line" that explores all those > facets of life like that. > > At 01:58 PM 1/5/2007, Michael Schlesinger wrote: > >Andy: > > > >Despite the large climatic diversity of the United States, which > >ranges from arctic Alaska to tropical Hawaii, had the 5-to-4 > >'hanging-chad' decision of the U.S. Supreme Court swung the other > >way, the U.S. would have confronted the challenges of human-induced > >climate change these past 6 years, rather than deny and avoid them. > > > > > >And, we would not now be mired in Iraq. > > > > > >Michael > > > > > > > >>this'll be refreshing after our recent back-and-forths. > >> > >>a quick question. > >> > >>given that climate, for most folks, remains local... doing a short > >>piece for weekend assessing thesis that it's harder to build > >>momentum for climate action in USA because we're so darned large > >>and climatically variegated (epic snow in rockies, balmy in > >>northeastern states, etc) compared to, say, Europe (which tends to > >>experience a 'common' climate, to some extent...)... > >> > >>anyone thought about that much before? > >>happy to hear your thoughts (but promptly!) > >>ANDREW C. REVKIN > >>The New York Times / Environment > >>229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 > >>phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 > >>Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: > www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming > >>Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning > >>Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade > > > > > >ANDREW C. REVKIN > >The New York Times / Environment > >229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 > >phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 > >Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: > www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming > >Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning > >Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade > 3406. 2007-01-05 12:46:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: lempert@rand.org, Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, shs@stanford.edu, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu, manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, rsomerville@ucsd.edu, penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, mmaccrac@comcast.net, omichael@princeton.edu, hare@pik-potsdam.de date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:46:24 -0500 from: Andy Revkin subject: a query to all... to: rprinn@mit.edu, mann@psu.edu, dshindell@giss.nasa.gov this'll be refreshing after our recent back-and-forths. a quick question. given that climate, for most folks, remains local... doing a short piece for weekend assessing thesis that it's harder to build momentum for climate action in USA because we're so darned large and climatically variegated (epic snow in rockies, balmy in northeastern states, etc) compared to, say, Europe (which tends to experience a 'common' climate, to some extent...)... anyone thought about that much before? happy to hear your thoughts (but promptly!) ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: [1]www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season [2]www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: [3]www.myspace.com/unclewade 3568. 2007-01-05 13:45:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu, lempert@rand.org, Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, shs@stanford.edu, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu, manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, mmaccrac@comcast.net, omichael@princeton.edu, hare@pik-potsdam.de date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:45:54 -0600 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: a query to all... to: Andy Revkin Andy: You sent me your song in August 2005, a month I shall never forget. The 5-4 'hanging-chad' decision is a real-world example of a bifurcation point from which there can be no going back, this as witness by 3000 young American men and women lying in their graves, with more to come. What the United States needs to confront the challenges of human-induced climate change is LEADERSHIP from its CEO. Alas, we shall have to await 20 January 2009, at the earliest, for such Leadership. Michael a very very very poignant and true point, michael. i have a song called "a very fine line" that explores all those facets of life like that. At 01:58 PM 1/5/2007, Michael Schlesinger wrote: Andy: Despite the large climatic diversity of the United States, which ranges from arctic Alaska to tropical Hawaii, had the 5-to-4 'hanging-chad' decision of the U.S. Supreme Court swung the other way, the U.S. would have confronted the challenges of human-induced climate change these past 6 years, rather than deny and avoid them. And, we would not now be mired in Iraq. Michael this'll be refreshing after our recent back-and-forths. a quick question. given that climate, for most folks, remains local... doing a short piece for weekend assessing thesis that it's harder to build momentum for climate action in USA because we're so darned large and climatically variegated (epic snow in rockies, balmy in northeastern states, etc) compared to, say, Europe (which tends to experience a 'common' climate, to some extent...)... anyone thought about that much before? happy to hear your thoughts (but promptly!) ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade 1609. 2007-01-05 14:20:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:20:44 +0000 from: Jonathan Gregory subject: New study: Current sea level rise 'not particularly unusual' to: Phil Jones Dear Phil Yes, we are going to have fun with sea level in Paris. Actually I don't think I've read that paper yet but we have a diagram already that shows the very large variability in decadal trends from tide-gauges. Personally, I suspect that the network is too sparse, so that the variability is to some extent measurement noise. It is so large we have no physical explanation for it. Thanks. Best wishes Jonathan 3594. 2007-01-05 16:20:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:20:30 +0100 from: Andr Berger subject: Re: Fwd: Re: 2007 to be 'warmest on record' to: Phil Jones Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming. Wait to see you March 5 in Paris. Cheers Andr Le 12:16 5/01/2007, vous avez crit: Andre, Happy New Year ! Hope to see you in Paris on March 5. Here is what I sent back to Timo. I am realizing that there were many more blind cc's on his email, which my reply hasn't gone to! I will email Timo and ask him to send these around. I'm attaching just for you the detailed press release for the 2006 temperatures and also Chris Folland's prediction for 2007. Mine is similar but much simpler. Don't send Chris' forecast onto anyone else, but you can send the detailed 2006 press release on to anybody. As usual Timo is wrong ! These forecasts have been done for a number of years. Only two seemed to be archived online. I can't seem to persuade either the HC nor UEA to archive these for longer, nor add the more detailed pdfs. Cheers Phil Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:27:24 +0000 To: Timo Hmeranta , "Chris K. Folland" From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: 2007 to be 'warmest on record' Cc: "'Alan J. Thorpe'" , , "'Al Pekarek'" , 'Andr Bijkerk' , "'Anthony R. Lupo'" , "'Benny Peiser'" , "'Bob Foster'" , "'Douglas V. Hoyt'" , "'Jack Barrett'" , "'Jarl R. Ahlbeck'" , "'Michael C. MacCracken'" , "'Patrick J. Michaels'" , "'Peter Stilbs'" , "'Piers Corbyn'" , "'Richard S. Lindzen'" , "'S. Fred Singer'" , "'Sallie Baliunas'" , "'Stephen McIntyre'" , "'Tom V. Segalstad'" , 'Wibjrn Karln' , "'Willie Soon'" , "'Vincent Gray'" , "'Boris Winterhalter'" Timo, You recall incorrectly. This isn't the first time. In fact Chris and the Hadley Centre have been doing this for a number of years. The forecasts have generally been with the earlier press release in mid-Dec for, if I recall correctly, since about 1999 or 2000. The press release archive at the Met Office has that for 2006 issued on 15th Dec 2005. You'll need to download the pdf with that press release. They don't seem to have archived earlier years online (and neither does UEA it seems). This said 1. The forecast for 2006 made then (15/12/05) was 0.45+/- 0.12. The final number for 2006 was 0.42 2. The same pdf gave the forecast from 2004 for 2005. The forecast was for 0.51 and it was 0.48. Chris will have a list of the earlier forecasts. The switch over from HadCRUT2(v) to HadCRUT3(v) has changed levels slightly, so the earlier ones are no longer compatible. The techniques that have gone into the forecast have also been refined. There is a background document to the 2007 forecast, which again Chris may be able to send. The 2007 forecast is for 0.54 +/- 0.16 (95% confidence level), which is only marginally above the 1998 value (hence the 60% chance that it will be broken). With the latest method (i.e. that used in 2007), the forecast for 2006 was 0.37 (real value 0.42), so slightly cold but well within the 95% range. Chris has told me he is writing up the latest approaches for a paper. I can only presume that this time there has been more press coverage, as the forecast is for a record. The earlier ones were made, however, but as they were always for a value below that in 1998, they seemed to get ignored by the press. I recall saying with some of the earlier press releases, that it would take an El Nino event to break the 1998 record. Although this one is only in the moderate category compared to 1997/98, the base level is now nearly 0.2 deg C higher than it was in 1997. 2005 got close, even without an El Nino event. I don't want to get into a big debate about this. There will be an IPCC report due out this year, and there will be much to debate there as to why the underlying temperatures now are running higher than they were in 1997/98. As an aside, you can download the global temperature series (HadCRUT3(v)) from either our (CRU/UEA) or the Met Office (HC) web sites. I recall several statements made to the media over the last year or two about trends in global temperature since 1998. Before you make these again, work out the linear trend from 1998. If you take 1998-2005, or 1998-2006 (I've only worked these two out) the trend coefficient is positive. It isn't significant statistically, but I wouldn't expect any trend coefficient in any observational climate series to be significant when just using 8 or 9 years. Best Regards Phil At 09:08 05/01/2007, Timo Hmeranta wrote: Philip D. Jones Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Chris K. Folland Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Dear Phil and Chris, I notice how you predict that this year 2007 will be the warmest on record (The Independent Jan 1, and BBC News Jan 4). If I recall correctly, this is the first time you have made a prediction for one year. Until now you have presented computerized projections only, for decades or a century. I suppose you are now confident that HadCam3 parameterizations are now all-inclusive and truly reliable for presenting past climates and for predictions. Yet, Im a bit suspicious. Until now, as far as I have seen, all the scientists who argue that human CO2 emissions are to blame for current warming have explained: We dont know any other cause I have always wondered how ignorance confirms certainty. Actually, to fill certain scientists ignorance we have other scientists who have alternative explanations. For example, when we take a look for longer periods than recent decades or thermometer readings we see how the Earth has been warming almost 400 years now, with cooling intervals. One alternative explanation is Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery, 2006 Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. 276 pp., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., December 2006 Book Description Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway. Personally, I dont know how climate evolves in near or far future. We may be heading e.g. for a new Maunder Minimum or for a long natural warm era. But, as far as I can see, scientifically you, dear scientists, dont know for sure, either. All the best to yr future attempts to enlarge our knowledge and understanding. Timo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Timo Hmeranta, LL.M. Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9 01620 Vantaa Finland, European Union Email: timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi Home page: [1]http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm "If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes) "To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future shows only a lack of imagination".(Kari Enqvist) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. A. BERGER Universit catholique de Louvain Institut d'Astronomie et de Gophysique G. Lematre 2 Chemin du Cyclotron B-1348 LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE BELGIUM Tel. +32-10-47 33 03 Fax +32-10-47 47 22 E_mail: berger@astr.ucl.ac.be [2]http://www.astr.ucl.ac.be/u/berger ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1497. 2007-01-05 18:44:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Caspar Ammann , William M Connolley , Tom Crowley , "Michael E. Mann" , "raymond s. bradley" , Eric Steig , gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , "Raymond P." , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" , "Jenkins, Geoff" , "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" , Tom Wigley , mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, "Folland, Chris" date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:03 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report to: Phil Jones Phil, I fully agree. The point is not to blame anyone at all - at least my point was to track down the source in order to be able to show the skeptics (or in my special case, the school authorities) that this old graph is completely superseded and should not be used any more in teaching! And I also see your problem: what we are finding out now makes the IPCC process look somewhat unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a diplomatic conundrum how to be completely truthful in reporting this, as we need to be as scientists, without providing the skeptics undue fodder for attacking IPCC. But maybe we're too concerned - the skeptics can't really attack IPCC easily in this case without shooting themselves in the foot. Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 3376. 2007-01-06 14:37:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , Daniel Sarewitz , Andy Revkin , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:37:03 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: a query to all... to: "Stephen H. Schneider" , Michael Schlesinger Dear Steve--Even though this is after Andy's sort of cutoff, the issue is about regional aspects in the US. Indeed, my results, which were derived from EIA and EPA, are based on combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas within each state (or at least for vehicles, put into their tanks in a state). So, electricity made from coal in one state and exported to another counts in the source state, not the user state (and I thought CA actually imported quite a bit of coal-fired power from Four Corners area, etc.). This way of counting is a bit unfair, but the alternative, to my mind, becomes totally imipossible. Recall that the Montreal Protocol done for CFCs proposed to keep track of the responsibility for CFC use--so the rules were that one would count production plus imports minus exports in three categories: (1) bukl tankloads, etc.; (in products like refrigerators and air conditioners); and (c) to make products that cross borders (so, for example to clean computer circuitry--counted against the country of the computer purchaser). This is all well and good, but as it turned out, never had to be done as the Ozone Hole led to calls to phase it out and further conventions/amendments implemented that instead. So, imagine trying such an accounting for fossil fules. Let's just try for the coal used to make electricity in, say, Wyoming, going to another state. So: (1) we'd count the carbon in the coal to make the electricity that went across the line (though fungible as electricity is, this could get a bit contentious); but also would we count, for example: (2) the carbon in the gasoline for the worker to get to the plant, the diesel fuel for the machines that got the coal to the plant, etc.; and (3) the carbon involved in construction and operation of the worker's home and the products that the worker and his family buy, the carbon released when the coal mine was dug out, and so on? And might one deduct the carbon emitted if what the electricity was used for was run a methane from sewage plant or to sequester carbon underground. And what are you going to say to the argument that Californians use less carbon because, for example, they are fortunate enough to live where there is hydropower whereas others don't, yet in our interdependent world we need products or resources from that other region. To my mind, all this becomes so complex that is it must be viewed as impossible, and this is why, rather than trying to do an accounting, the easiest way to do this is some sort of tax on or required permit for carbon release--then the price signal all happens through the economy. When it is necessary for some entity to then use more carbon than someone else, they will pay a price for this--but trying to somehow mandate a personal level of use seems to me much too complex and unproductive. Best, Mike > From: "Stephen H. Schneider" > Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:40:03 -0800 > To: Michael Schlesinger > Cc: lempert@rand.org, lempert@netwood.net, Daniel Sarewitz > , Mike MacCracken , Andy Revkin > , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu, > manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, > penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, > jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, > schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, omichael@princeton.edu, > hare@pik-potsdam.de > Subject: RE: a query to all... > > Hi all again. One minor point--as if any of us have infinite time for any > more of this fun! First I agree with Dan that the political complexities > are key--certainly no less than biophysical complexities in climate > sensitivity--and local makes it even tougher. Mike M, the Wyoming big per > capita thing may not be "right"--depending on how consistently it is > calculated. If their coal is charged to them--CO2-wise--where it is dug and > not where it is burned--most of that in the Midwest I recall (anyone know?), > but not certain about that, thanks to cheap train rides--then it would seem > that a low population state would have a tremendous per capita emission if > liability is at minemouth not at the smoke stack. But if that CO2 is > credited where it is burned, equation might change dramatically--once again > local details and assumptions matter. CA imports fairly little electricity > percentagewise so it wouldn't matter to them much how it is calcualted; but > for WY--that assumption could be dramatic. Either way, to go back to my > point about local culture and politics--and again agree with Dan, that > includes local self-interests--the political & cultural "red-blue" > dichotomy between CA and WY is probably similar--if not even more > disjoint--than CA-TX. Same conclusion--regardless of data--isn't "science" > easy and fun!! > Cheers and Happpy Chinese (local culture again) New Year to you all, Steve > > > Stephen H. Schneider > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, > Professor, Department of Biological Sciences > 371 Serra Mall > Gilbert Building > Stanford University > Stanford, CA 94305-5020 > Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Freeman > Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment > Ph: 650 725 9978 > F: 650 725 4387 > Websites: climatechange.net > patientfromhell.org > > > Quoting Michael Schlesinger : > >> Rob & Dan: >> >> Interesting comments about Leadership. >> >> How would you analyze the Leadership of Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt? >> >> Seemingly they were both able to take a 'step beyond' the then >> conventional wisdom, to do the necessary even though it may have been >> unpopular. >> >> If this is correct, and it may not be, why them, and so few others, >> most particularly the current U.S. CEO? >> >> Is such Leadership another example of a Bifurcation or 'Tipping >> Point', cum Luck? >> >> Michael >> >> >>> Which state would that be? Oh . . . . >>> >>> Anyway, agreed; people are not automatons, different people react >>> differently in similar contexts. The point I wanted to stress, tho, was >>> that it's a mistake to view "political leadership" as some exogenous >>> phenomenon. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robert Lempert [mailto:lempert@rand.org] >>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:43 PM >>> To: Daniel Sarewitz >>> Cc: Robert Lempert; Mike MacCracken; Stephen H. Schneider; Andy Revkin; >>> Michael Schlesinger; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; wmw@ucar.edu; jmahlman@ucar.edu; >>> manabe@splash.princeton.edu; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk; thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au; >>> penner@umich.edu; covey1@llnl.gov; wallace@atmos.washington.edu; >>> jholdren@whrc.org; hjacoby@mit.edu; jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; >>> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov; wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov; omichael@princeton.edu; >>> hare@pik-potsdam.de >>> Subject: RE: a query to all... >>> >>> Dan, >>> >>> All true. But within the constraints you mention an individual's >>> views, experience, and values can affect the leadership position they >>> take on an issue such as climate change. For instance, both Senators >>> Kyl and McCain come from the same party and state, but they seem to >>> take different views on the climate issue. >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> At 4:21 PM -0700 1/5/07, Daniel Sarewitz wrote: >>>> Following up on Rob's parenthetical: you cannot disconnect political >>>> leadership from the interests, values, and perspectives of the >>>> constituencies. This in turn cannot be decoupled from geography, >>>> economic base, transportation infrastructure, distribution of wealth, >>>> distribution of population, level of education, etc. etc. etc. >>>> >>>> It's easy to be a leader if you can make decisions that don't screw >>> your >>>> constituents. "Political will" is not an independent property of >>>> populations or cultures it is a reflection of context. >>>> >>>> d >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Robert Lempert [mailto:lempert@rand.org] >>>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:49 PM >>>> To: Mike MacCracken >>>> Cc: Stephen H. Schneider; Andy Revkin; Michael Schlesinger; >>>> lempert@rand.org; Daniel Sarewitz; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; wmw@ucar.edu; >>>> jmahlman@ucar.edu; manabe@splash.princeton.edu; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk; >>>> thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au; penner@umich.edu; covey1@llnl.gov; >>>> wallace@atmos.washington.edu; jholdren@whrc.org; hjacoby@mit.edu; >>>> jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; schmidt@giss.nasa.gov; wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov; >>>> omichael@princeton.edu; hare@pik-potsdam.de >>>> Subject: Re: a query to all... >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>> >>>> Your message seems quite consistent with the political leadership >>>> argument (perhaps mediated by the perceived costs of mitigation to >>>> ones own constituents) as opposed to the argument that willingness to >>>> act on climate change depends on the extent to which climate impacts >>>> are common or different across a population. >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> At 5:03 PM -0500 1/5/07, Mike MacCracken wrote: >>>>> Steve--I have actually done, though a bit ago, the state by state >>>> estimates >>>>> and your analysis is a bit off. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Texas has the highest total emissions of C of any state, about a >>>> factor >>>>> of 2 above those of California even though California's population is >>>>> highest. >>>>> >>>>> 2. On per capita, California, New Yorkr, and Vermont are roughly the >>>>> lowest--each about half the US average. The state with the highest per >>>>> capita emissions, however, is Wyoming, being about 5 times the US >>>> average >>>>> and about three times the Texas average. >>>>> >>>>> Now, as I have mentioned for some time in my talks for some time, if >>>> the >>>>> President is from the state with the highest emissions, and the VP >>> from >>>> the >>>>> state with highest per capita emissions (not due to profligate waste >>> by >>>>> their people, but because mainly of what they do--dig coal and make >>>>> electricity--and how few people there are, then should we be surprised >>>> by >>>>> the Admin position (given whom they likely talk to)? >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: "Stephen H. Schneider" >>>>>> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:14:05 -0800 >>>>>> To: Andy Revkin >>>>>> Cc: Michael Schlesinger , >>> lempert@rand.org, >>>>>> Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, >>>> jmahlman@ucar.edu, >>>>>> manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, >>>> thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, >>>>>> penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, >>>>>> jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, >>>>>> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, >>> mmaccrac@comcast.net, >>>>>> omichael@princeton.edu, hare@pik-potsdam.de >>>>>> Subject: Re: a query to all... >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all. Let me add to Mike and other's points about political >>>> tipping points >>>>>> trumping bio-geophysical ones in the policy world--though not >>> quite >>>> how >>>>>> others put it--with one simple question: Why is California the >>>> lowest CO2 >>>>>> per capita emitting state and Texas the highest? Not primarily >> the >>>> weather, >>>>>> in my view, but the political climate: value systems about social >>>> benefits >>>>>> are so different. In CA social benefits are in deeply in the >>>> political >>>>>> equation--even the Governator--and in Texas, protection of >>>> entrepreneurial >>>>>> rights seems to dominate. California has myriad building codes >> and >>>>>> performance standards that have pushed efficiency--and save the >>>> state some >>>>>> $5B a year it is estimated. Not Texas by comparison. Classical >>>> blue-red >>>>>> state ideological differences, to oversimplify. >>>>>> >>>>>> The issue gets very interesting at a more collective level where >>> the >>>>>> relative power of differeing local ideologies clash and there is >> a >>>> need to >>>>>> work out a deal--under Bush, no meaningful climate deals >> possible. >>>> The >>>>>> social tipping phemenona I mentioned seem to be building: from >>>> Katrina, >>>>>> Gore movie, high roller corporate support for policy growing fast >>>> and media >>>>>> covering less of the crazies is all contributing to positive >>>> movement >>>>>> towards some policy at aggregate level--whether it is more than >>>> band-aid >>>>>> remains to be seen, but we are finally moving. >>>>>> Hope this is useful, Cheers, Steve >>>>>> PS I agree that palpable biophysical events in one's backyard >> help >>>> with >>>>>> social tipping--like earlier snowmelt in CA Sierra got the >>>> attention of the >>>>>> State Hydrologist and farmers. But why then isn't stronger >>>> hurricanes and >>>>>> heat waves in the Gulf doing the same in Texas? Ideology of the >>>> beholder, >>>>>> perhaps? Happy New Year All. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider >>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary >> Environmental >>>> Studies, >>>>>> Professor, Department of Biological Sciences >>>>>> 371 Serra Mall >>>>>> Gilbert Building >>>>>> Stanford University >>>>>> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 >>>>>> Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, >>>> Freeman >>>>>> Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the >>>> Environment >>>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978 >>>>>> F: 650 725 4387 >>>>>> Websites: climatechange.net >>>>>> patientfromhell.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting Andy Revkin : >>>>>> >>>>>>> a very very very poignant and true point, michael. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i have a song called "a very fine line" that explores all those >>>>>>> facets of life like that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At 01:58 PM 1/5/2007, Michael Schlesinger wrote: >>>>>>>> Andy: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Despite the large climatic diversity of the United States, >> which >>>>>>>> ranges from arctic Alaska to tropical Hawaii, had the 5-to-4 >>>>>>>> 'hanging-chad' decision of the U.S. Supreme Court swung the >>> other >>>>>>>> way, the U.S. would have confronted the challenges of >>>> human-induced >>>>>>>> climate change these past 6 years, rather than deny and avoid >>>> them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And, we would not now be mired in Iraq. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this'll be refreshing after our recent back-and-forths. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a quick question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> given that climate, for most folks, remains local... doing a >>>> short >>>>>>>>> piece for weekend assessing thesis that it's harder to build >>>>>>>>> momentum for climate action in USA because we're so darned >>> large >>>>>>>>> and climatically variegated (epic snow in rockies, balmy in >>>>>>>>> northeastern states, etc) compared to, say, Europe (which >> tends >>>> to >>>>>>>>> experience a 'common' climate, to some extent...)... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> anyone thought about that much before? >>>>>>>>> happy to hear your thoughts (but promptly!) >>>>>>>>> ANDREW C. REVKIN >>>>>>>>> The New York Times / Environment >>>>>>>>> 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 >>>>>>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: >>>> 509-357-0965 >>>>>>>>> Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: >>>>>>> www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming >>>>>>>>> Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning >>>>>>>>> Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ANDREW C. REVKIN >>>>>>>> The New York Times / Environment >>>>>>>> 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 >>>>>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: >>>> 509-357-0965 >>>>>>>> Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: >>>>>>> www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming >>>>>>>> Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning >>>>>>>> Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Robert Lempert >>>> Senior Scientist >>>> RAND >>>> 1776 Main St. >>>> Santa Monica, CA 90401 >>>> ph: 310-393-0411 x6217 >>>> fax: 310-260-8151 >>>> e/m: lempert@rand.org >>>> http://www.rand.org >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and >>>> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, >>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all >>>> copies >>>> of the original message. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Robert Lempert >>> Senior Scientist >>> RAND >>> 1776 Main St. >>> Santa Monica, CA 90401 >>> ph: 310-393-0411 x6217 >>> fax: 310-260-8151 >>> e/m: lempert@rand.org >>> http://www.rand.org >>> >>> -------------------- >>> >>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and >>> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, >>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all >>> copies >>> of the original message. >> >> 4358. 2007-01-06 17:58:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:58:46 -0000 (GMT) from: "Rasmus Benestad" subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report to: I think that this story could possible catch on and make headlines, so I agree that we should be careful. But it's important that we bring the *true* picture out, and it is best that this is done by RealClimate rather than a sceptic site. The general scientific side of the IPCC report (i.e. all the peer-reviewed papers ad the scientific theories) is still sound, but to explain how *one* figure was shoe-horned into the report is harder to defend. The sceptics may argue that the IPCC reports are political after all, and this is also what it sounds like if governments 'hoisted the national flag' by having it's own figures inserted last minute. However, by providing an account of the 'evolution of the IPCC report writing', we could possibly give the story a softer landing. E.g. how many times of review the first report underwent as compared to the present report. We should also put this in perspective - the report is large and covers a wide range of topics, and most (all but our case?) is true to the science. There are sometimes a few rotten apples in a good batch, unfortunately. But the important part is that we don't accept rotten apples and that we sort it out! Forthcoming and up-front. Another important side is that this can provide a lesson for the scientific communities. Rasmus > Phil, I fully agree. The point is not to blame anyone at all - at least > my point was to track down the source in order to be able to show the > skeptics (or in my special case, the school authorities) that this old > graph is completely superseded and should not be used any more in > teaching! And I also see your problem: what we are finding out now makes > the IPCC process look somewhat unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a > > diplomatic conundrum how to be completely truthful in reporting this, as > we need to be as scientists, without providing the skeptics undue > fodder for attacking IPCC. But maybe we're too concerned - the skeptics > can't really attack IPCC easily in this case without shooting > themselves in the foot. > > Cheers, Stefan > > -- > Stefan Rahmstorf > www.ozean-klima.de > www.realclimate.org -- Rasmus E. Benestad Skype: rasmus.e.benestad Rasmus.Benestad@physics.org or @met.no mobile +47-41122662 4715. 2007-01-07 00:46:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: Michael Schlesinger , lempert@rand.org, lempert@netwood.net, Daniel Sarewitz , Andy Revkin , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu, manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, omichael@princeton.edu, hare@pik-potsdam.de date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:46:47 -0800 from: "Stephen H. Schneider" subject: Re: a query to all... to: Mike MacCracken Thanks Mike M. for the post-ANdy session comment, and hi all. I largely agree--in fact made an enemy of most factions at Kyoto saying just that umpteen times at press conferences, side sessions and media interviews--even often quipped that we shouldn't set up a system needing "a thousand barefoot tailpipe inspectors"--a better media line I thought than "high transaction costs". I'll attach for fun the Climatic Change editorial I did on this stuff right after Kyoto arguing for a C-tax--but with equity side payments for a while at least--that got nowhere fast--as the enviros hated it, the industriies hated it and governments ignored it or opposed the T-word or the creation of an international entity to collect and re-distrubute billions. So much for the best laid plans of mice and academics!@#$ If re-broached today?--same outcome I strongly suspect (high confidence). Cheers, Steve PS Even though I think most of the kinds of strategies in vogue are at best, second best, they are for me still much better than no strategies and massive INCREASES in emissions via virtually all credible business as usual scenarios. I try not to, as Mike S has said many times in the past, let "the perfect crowd out the good". Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences 371 Serra Mall Gilbert Building Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Freeman Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org Quoting Mike MacCracken : > Dear Steve--Even though this is after Andy's sort of cutoff, the issue is > about regional aspects in the US. > > Indeed, my results, which were derived from EIA and EPA, are based on > combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas within each state (or at least > for > vehicles, put into their tanks in a state). So, electricity made from > coal > in one state and exported to another counts in the source state, not the > user state (and I thought CA actually imported quite a bit of coal-fired > power from Four Corners area, etc.). This way of counting is a bit > unfair, > but the alternative, to my mind, becomes totally imipossible. > > Recall that the Montreal Protocol done for CFCs proposed to keep track of > the responsibility for CFC use--so the rules were that one would count > production plus imports minus exports in three categories: (1) bukl > tankloads, etc.; (in products like refrigerators and air conditioners); > and > (c) to make products that cross borders (so, for example to clean > computer > circuitry--counted against the country of the computer purchaser). This > is > all well and good, but as it turned out, never had to be done as the > Ozone > Hole led to calls to phase it out and further conventions/amendments > implemented that instead. > > So, imagine trying such an accounting for fossil fules. Let's just try > for > the coal used to make electricity in, say, Wyoming, going to another > state. > So: (1) we'd count the carbon in the coal to make the electricity that > went > across the line (though fungible as electricity is, this could get a bit > contentious); but also would we count, for example: (2) the carbon in the > gasoline for the worker to get to the plant, the diesel fuel for the > machines that got the coal to the plant, etc.; and (3) the carbon > involved > in construction and operation of the worker's home and the products that > the > worker and his family buy, the carbon released when the coal mine was dug > out, and so on? And might one deduct the carbon emitted if what the > electricity was used for was run a methane from sewage plant or to > sequester > carbon underground. > > And what are you going to say to the argument that Californians use less > carbon because, for example, they are fortunate enough to live where > there > is hydropower whereas others don't, yet in our interdependent world we > need > products or resources from that other region. > > To my mind, all this becomes so complex that is it must be viewed as > impossible, and this is why, rather than trying to do an accounting, the > easiest way to do this is some sort of tax on or required permit for > carbon > release--then the price signal all happens through the economy. When it > is > necessary for some entity to then use more carbon than someone else, they > will pay a price for this--but trying to somehow mandate a personal level > of > use seems to me much too complex and unproductive. > > Best, Mike > > > From: "Stephen H. Schneider" > > Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:40:03 -0800 > > To: Michael Schlesinger > > Cc: lempert@rand.org, lempert@netwood.net, Daniel Sarewitz > > , Mike MacCracken , Andy > Revkin > > , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, > jmahlman@ucar.edu, > > manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, > thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, > > penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, > > jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, > > schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, omichael@princeton.edu, > > hare@pik-potsdam.de > > Subject: RE: a query to all... > > > > Hi all again. One minor point--as if any of us have infinite time for > any > > more of this fun! First I agree with Dan that the political > complexities > > are key--certainly no less than biophysical complexities in climate > > sensitivity--and local makes it even tougher. Mike M, the Wyoming big > per > > capita thing may not be "right"--depending on how consistently it is > > calculated. If their coal is charged to them--CO2-wise--where it is dug > and > > not where it is burned--most of that in the Midwest I recall (anyone > know?), > > but not certain about that, thanks to cheap train rides--then it would > seem > > that a low population state would have a tremendous per capita emission > if > > liability is at minemouth not at the smoke stack. But if that CO2 is > > credited where it is burned, equation might change dramatically--once > again > > local details and assumptions matter. CA imports fairly little > electricity > > percentagewise so it wouldn't matter to them much how it is calcualted; > but > > for WY--that assumption could be dramatic. Either way, to go back to my > > point about local culture and politics--and again agree with Dan, that > > includes local self-interests--the political & cultural "red-blue" > > dichotomy between CA and WY is probably similar--if not even more > > disjoint--than CA-TX. Same conclusion--regardless of data--isn't > "science" > > easy and fun!! > > Cheers and Happpy Chinese (local culture again) New Year to you all, > Steve > > > > > > Stephen H. Schneider > > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental > Studies, > > Professor, Department of Biological Sciences > > 371 Serra Mall > > Gilbert Building > > Stanford University > > Stanford, CA 94305-5020 > > Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Freeman > > Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the > Environment > > Ph: 650 725 9978 > > F: 650 725 4387 > > Websites: climatechange.net > > patientfromhell.org > > > > > > Quoting Michael Schlesinger : > > > >> Rob & Dan: > >> > >> Interesting comments about Leadership. > >> > >> How would you analyze the Leadership of Presidents Lincoln and > Roosevelt? > >> > >> Seemingly they were both able to take a 'step beyond' the then > >> conventional wisdom, to do the necessary even though it may have been > >> unpopular. > >> > >> If this is correct, and it may not be, why them, and so few others, > >> most particularly the current U.S. CEO? > >> > >> Is such Leadership another example of a Bifurcation or 'Tipping > >> Point', cum Luck? > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> > >>> Which state would that be? Oh . . . . > >>> > >>> Anyway, agreed; people are not automatons, different people react > >>> differently in similar contexts. The point I wanted to stress, tho, > was > >>> that it's a mistake to view "political leadership" as some exogenous > >>> phenomenon. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Robert Lempert [mailto:lempert@rand.org] > >>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:43 PM > >>> To: Daniel Sarewitz > >>> Cc: Robert Lempert; Mike MacCracken; Stephen H. Schneider; Andy > Revkin; > >>> Michael Schlesinger; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; wmw@ucar.edu; > jmahlman@ucar.edu; > >>> manabe@splash.princeton.edu; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk; > thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au; > >>> penner@umich.edu; covey1@llnl.gov; wallace@atmos.washington.edu; > >>> jholdren@whrc.org; hjacoby@mit.edu; jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; > >>> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov; wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov; omichael@princeton.edu; > >>> hare@pik-potsdam.de > >>> Subject: RE: a query to all... > >>> > >>> Dan, > >>> > >>> All true. But within the constraints you mention an individual's > >>> views, experience, and values can affect the leadership position they > >>> take on an issue such as climate change. For instance, both Senators > >>> Kyl and McCain come from the same party and state, but they seem to > >>> take different views on the climate issue. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> > >>> At 4:21 PM -0700 1/5/07, Daniel Sarewitz wrote: > >>>> Following up on Rob's parenthetical: you cannot disconnect > political > >>>> leadership from the interests, values, and perspectives of the > >>>> constituencies. This in turn cannot be decoupled from geography, > >>>> economic base, transportation infrastructure, distribution of > wealth, > >>>> distribution of population, level of education, etc. etc. etc. > >>>> > >>>> It's easy to be a leader if you can make decisions that don't screw > >>> your > >>>> constituents. "Political will" is not an independent property of > >>>> populations or cultures it is a reflection of context. > >>>> > >>>> d > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Robert Lempert [mailto:lempert@rand.org] > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:49 PM > >>>> To: Mike MacCracken > >>>> Cc: Stephen H. Schneider; Andy Revkin; Michael Schlesinger; > >>>> lempert@rand.org; Daniel Sarewitz; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; wmw@ucar.edu; > >>>> jmahlman@ucar.edu; manabe@splash.princeton.edu; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk; > >>>> thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au; penner@umich.edu; covey1@llnl.gov; > >>>> wallace@atmos.washington.edu; jholdren@whrc.org; hjacoby@mit.edu; > >>>> jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; schmidt@giss.nasa.gov; wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov; > >>>> omichael@princeton.edu; hare@pik-potsdam.de > >>>> Subject: Re: a query to all... > >>>> > >>>> Mike, > >>>> > >>>> Your message seems quite consistent with the political leadership > >>>> argument (perhaps mediated by the perceived costs of mitigation to > >>>> ones own constituents) as opposed to the argument that willingness > to > >>>> act on climate change depends on the extent to which climate impacts > >>>> are common or different across a population. > >>>> > >>>> Rob > >>>> > >>>> At 5:03 PM -0500 1/5/07, Mike MacCracken wrote: > >>>>> Steve--I have actually done, though a bit ago, the state by state > >>>> estimates > >>>>> and your analysis is a bit off. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Texas has the highest total emissions of C of any state, about a > >>>> factor > >>>>> of 2 above those of California even though California's population > is > >>>>> highest. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. On per capita, California, New Yorkr, and Vermont are roughly > the > >>>>> lowest--each about half the US average. The state with the highest > per > >>>>> capita emissions, however, is Wyoming, being about 5 times the US > >>>> average > >>>>> and about three times the Texas average. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now, as I have mentioned for some time in my talks for some time, > if > >>>> the > >>>>> President is from the state with the highest emissions, and the VP > >>> from > >>>> the > >>>>> state with highest per capita emissions (not due to profligate > waste > >>> by > >>>>> their people, but because mainly of what they do--dig coal and make > >>>>> electricity--and how few people there are, then should we be > surprised > >>>> by > >>>>> the Admin position (given whom they likely talk to)? > >>>>> > >>>>> Mike > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> From: "Stephen H. Schneider" > >>>>>> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:14:05 -0800 > >>>>>> To: Andy Revkin > >>>>>> Cc: Michael Schlesinger , > >>> lempert@rand.org, > >>>>>> Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, > >>>> jmahlman@ucar.edu, > >>>>>> manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, > >>>> thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au, > >>>>>> penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, > >>>>>> jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, > >>>>>> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, > >>> mmaccrac@comcast.net, > >>>>>> omichael@princeton.edu, hare@pik-potsdam.de > >>>>>> Subject: Re: a query to all... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all. Let me add to Mike and other's points about political > >>>> tipping points > >>>>>> trumping bio-geophysical ones in the policy world--though not > >>> quite > >>>> how > >>>>>> others put it--with one simple question: Why is California the > >>>> lowest CO2 > >>>>>> per capita emitting state and Texas the highest? Not primarily > >> the > >>>> weather, > >>>>>> in my view, but the political climate: value systems about social > >>>> benefits > >>>>>> are so different. In CA social benefits are in deeply in the > >>>> political > >>>>>> equation--even the Governator--and in Texas, protection of > >>>> entrepreneurial > >>>>>> rights seems to dominate. California has myriad building codes > >> and > >>>>>> performance standards that have pushed efficiency--and save the > >>>> state some > >>>>>> $5B a year it is estimated. Not Texas by comparison. Classical > >>>> blue-red > >>>>>> state ideological differences, to oversimplify. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The issue gets very interesting at a more collective level where > >>> the > >>>>>> relative power of differeing local ideologies clash and there is > >> a > >>>> need to > >>>>>> work out a deal--under Bush, no meaningful climate deals > >> possible. > >>>> The > >>>>>> social tipping phemenona I mentioned seem to be building: from > >>>> Katrina, > >>>>>> Gore movie, high roller corporate support for policy growing fast > >>>> and media > >>>>>> covering less of the crazies is all contributing to positive > >>>> movement > >>>>>> towards some policy at aggregate level--whether it is more than > >>>> band-aid > >>>>>> remains to be seen, but we are finally moving. > >>>>>> Hope this is useful, Cheers, Steve > >>>>>> PS I agree that palpable biophysical events in one's backyard > >> help > >>>> with > >>>>>> social tipping--like earlier snowmelt in CA Sierra got the > >>>> attention of the > >>>>>> State Hydrologist and farmers. But why then isn't stronger > >>>> hurricanes and > >>>>>> heat waves in the Gulf doing the same in Texas? Ideology of the > >>>> beholder, > >>>>>> perhaps? Happy New Year All. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider > >>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary > >> Environmental > >>>> Studies, > >>>>>> Professor, Department of Biological Sciences > >>>>>> 371 Serra Mall > >>>>>> Gilbert Building > >>>>>> Stanford University > >>>>>> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 > >>>>>> Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, > >>>> Freeman > >>>>>> Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the > >>>> Environment > >>>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978 > >>>>>> F: 650 725 4387 > >>>>>> Websites: climatechange.net > >>>>>> patientfromhell.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Quoting Andy Revkin : > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> a very very very poignant and true point, michael. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> i have a song called "a very fine line" that explores all those > >>>>>>> facets of life like that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> At 01:58 PM 1/5/2007, Michael Schlesinger wrote: > >>>>>>>> Andy: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Despite the large climatic diversity of the United States, > >> which > >>>>>>>> ranges from arctic Alaska to tropical Hawaii, had the 5-to-4 > >>>>>>>> 'hanging-chad' decision of the U.S. Supreme Court swung the > >>> other > >>>>>>>> way, the U.S. would have confronted the challenges of > >>>> human-induced > >>>>>>>> climate change these past 6 years, rather than deny and avoid > >>>> them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And, we would not now be mired in Iraq. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Michael > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> this'll be refreshing after our recent back-and-forths. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> a quick question. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> given that climate, for most folks, remains local... doing a > >>>> short > >>>>>>>>> piece for weekend assessing thesis that it's harder to build > >>>>>>>>> momentum for climate action in USA because we're so darned > >>> large > >>>>>>>>> and climatically variegated (epic snow in rockies, balmy in > >>>>>>>>> northeastern states, etc) compared to, say, Europe (which > >> tends > >>>> to > >>>>>>>>> experience a 'common' climate, to some extent...)... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> anyone thought about that much before? > >>>>>>>>> happy to hear your thoughts (but promptly!) > >>>>>>>>> ANDREW C. REVKIN > >>>>>>>>> The New York Times / Environment > >>>>>>>>> 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 > >>>>>>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: > >>>> 509-357-0965 > >>>>>>>>> Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: > >>>>>>> www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming > >>>>>>>>> Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning > >>>>>>>>> Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ANDREW C. REVKIN > >>>>>>>> The New York Times / Environment > >>>>>>>> 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 > >>>>>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: > >>>> 509-357-0965 > >>>>>>>> Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: > >>>>>>> www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming > >>>>>>>> Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning > >>>>>>>> Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Robert Lempert > >>>> Senior Scientist > >>>> RAND > >>>> 1776 Main St. > >>>> Santa Monica, CA 90401 > >>>> ph: 310-393-0411 x6217 > >>>> fax: 310-260-8151 > >>>> e/m: lempert@rand.org > >>>> http://www.rand.org > >>>> > >>>> -------------------- > >>>> > >>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and > >>>> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > >>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended > >>>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > >>>> copies > >>>> of the original message. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Lempert > >>> Senior Scientist > >>> RAND > >>> 1776 Main St. > >>> Santa Monica, CA 90401 > >>> ph: 310-393-0411 x6217 > >>> fax: 310-260-8151 > >>> e/m: lempert@rand.org > >>> http://www.rand.org > >>> > >>> -------------------- > >>> > >>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and > >>> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > >>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > >>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > >>> copies > >>> of the original message. > >> > >> > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ClCHKyotoEditorial-SHS98.pdf" 2049. 2007-01-07 15:47:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jurgen Willebrand" , "Peter Lemke" , "Phil Jones" , "Brian Hoskins" , "Martin Manning" , mmanning@al.noaa.gov, "Matilde Rusticucci" date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 15:47:58 -0700 (MST) from: "Kevin E Trenberth" subject: Re: Science presentation for Paris to: "Susan Solomon" Susan Many thanks for the feedback. My comments and explanations follow. I'll expressly ask Phil to respond to us on the UHI issues and what we should say succinctly. I am keen to get further feedback on what to exclude. I had decided to exclude the full slide on all the regional precip trends becuase it is too detailed and would take too long to go through and so the zonal mean latitude-time series captures a lot of the changes. Personally I would like to have both but the issue will be time and simplicity of message, and hence my decision to drop the series: implicitly those are included of course because they are in the chapter. > Kevin, > Many thanks for the preview. I agree that the > presentation has improved, thanks for that. I > would like to offer the following suggestions: > > 1) Ramaswamy will cover radiative forcings, and > will do so comprehensively including aerosols, > ozone, etc. Calling out CO2 and N2O on your > title slide will likely raise queries about why > you cite those and not others. I suggest that > you drop that bullet from your first slide. Yes slide 1 at present is more comprehensive and perhaps more appropriate for you to use. In general with these slides that context will be desirable but perhaps not for Paris. > > 2) The chapter relates changes in DTR to clouds, > and possibly aerosols and land use. The chapter > doesn't explicitly say DTR changes are linked to > dimming. While I personally would agree this is > scientifically quite reasonable, your slide 8 > would be easier for people to understand and will > avoid confusion if its language followed the > chapter so replacing the word dimming on the > slide with clouds, possibly linked to aerosols > and land use, would be helpful. I understand: indeed we did not expressly say "dimming" but in the discussion of dimming it clearly relates to clouds and aerosol. My thinking here is that some may well be aware of dimming but not of changes in clouds, so I thought that terminology might be helpful rather than add confusion. Other views appreciated. > > 3) Slide 9 says major influences of UHI are > identified and excluded. Can this slide please > be clearer as to what is meant by this and what > exactly is done? I think it will benefit all if > we avoid spending a lot of time explaining what > 'major influences' are and what 'minor > influences' aren't covered, how big those are, > etc. > Let me ask Phil to suggest a couple of bullets. > 4) A number of governments have asked for more > clarity on where heavy precip has increased. You > show it nicely in slide 16 but language on the > slide will help us when the discussion of > language comes up. In the extremes table we say > that heavy precip has increased 'over most land > areas' and if the title of this slide were > 'Proportion of heavy rainfalls have increased > over most land areas' that would be very helpful > in laying ground for that. Heavy precip is confusing, because some analysis are in absolute terms: and others are in terms f the percentage of precip that is heavy. The latter change is much more universal, and the main exceptions are where precip amounts have decreased, implying a drier regional climate. Since our report there is anew report in Science on extremes in India in the monsoon increasing and there they talk about real extremes. In the slide we already say "proportion of heavy rainfalls are increasing" so the suggestion is to add "most land areas"? OK. > > 5) What is the reference for slide 20? it's a > nice image but if it's not in the report then > we'll need to discuss that. Slide 19 covers > similar content very well, I think so the second > one on pdsi could be dropped. Slide 20 is from Dai et al 2004. It is extensively discussed in the full report in section 3.3.4 and was featured in some email discussions for the TS related to the trend in the previous slide, resulting in some refinement of the FAQ 3.2. Whereas slide 19 is for all of PDSI, slide 20 separates out PDSI above and below a threshold of 3 and -3 and takes it apart to examine the precip and temperature contributions. It is quite complementary in that regard and shows more explicitlt that it is the dry spells that increased first from precip decreases and second from temperature effects. > > 6) The Emanuel (2007) slide is nice but that > paper has not been assessed in our report. If > you are seen by governments to be making your > argument for the hurricane statement based on the > Emanuel (2007) paper, we will almost certainly > have challenges to the hurricane statement on > procedural grounds -- which is not what we want > to invite. Even though it is an update, it is > substantially different from the published one > that is assessed. No that is not true. In our discussion in section 3.8.3 we note that the original Emanuel (2005a)set of curves was revised and discussed in Emanuel (2005b) in response to the comment by Landsea. But that response did not publish the revised curve; instead it appeared on Emanuel's website. It was that curve we discuss in the report (and the main reason we did not show it was because it had changed) and we say "the PDI increasing by about 75% (versus about 100%) since the 1970s (Emanuel 2005b)." The 100% was the original finding. Now there is a further minor refinement in the 2007 paper (in response to further complaints by Landsea, the corrections to the record to make the surface p and wind estimates compatible was not done at the highest wind speeds: very small changes) but an advantage is that it is updated to include more years: through 2005. It is standard practice for obs time series to be updated and that is mainly what the new curve does. It is not at all at odds with what we discuss already. >You can make a similar basic > point using assessed material by putting one of > the two Webster et al panels next to the SST > trend in slide 27, highlighting the recent trends > in both SST and intense storms with your nice > animated ovals (and replacing the ACE figure, > which uses non-satellite data). While the > Webster figure itself wasn't explicitly in the > chapter, the paper was referenced so I think that > can be defended. The SST curve though is for N Atlantic only and the Webster stuff is global. We could replace the ACE curve with the numbers curve from slide 28? With these explanations, I look forward to further suggestions. > > To respond to some of your other queries: I > think slide 5 is better than slide 6 - showing > all the data is nice. I agree with the idea of > removing the Sahelian series. Agree with both. I suggest putting > back the large-regions rainfall trends slide for > several reasons ( replacing the zonal mean time > series figure with the trends figure). It is > the trends figure that maps to the language in > the SPM which is what we are trying to explain > here - the zonal means are not what we explicitly > talk about in the SPM. If you don't explicitly > defend our SPM paragraph, then we certainly risk > losing it or at best wasting a lot of time on it. See comments above. I'll see if I can do something else. > I also think the trends image is clearer for the > non-expert than slide 15 showing the zonal means > (although as you know I am a big fan of slide 15 > personally on a scientific level). > > There probably still are too many slides and it > will be helpful if we all think hard about which > of these is most needed. In cases where queries > are from just one or two governments, or are more > technical than they are likely to raise in the > plenary, etc., it will be better to be shorter. > I look forward to comments from others as to which, if any, should be excluded. Of course I love them all. > The comments make clear that we are going to be > queried on the increases in heat waves statement > as being too weak and only backed up in the FAQ. > I personally like the European example but if you > could also possibly put some text on that slide > to help back it up more broadly, that will help > to avoid challenges (please see the comments). I included slide 22 which shows the shift in distribution of hot days and cold nights, and I thought this might be better than the Alexander et al maps. Again we run into too any slides. The change in hot days of course relates to heat waves, because the change in extremes relates to the whole pdf. The term heat waves is very subjective and the time scale is not always clear. There was a heat wave on east coast (New York 71F yesterday) although part of a month long warm period. The other main discussion of heat waves in our text is for Australia and I took out the slide of Australia temperatures vs precipitation in the first version (that Brian and Matilde have not seen). There is not much we can do here. The preponderance of evidence from all the statistics and studies demonstrates a clear increase in heat waves, even if there is not a definitive study just on heat waves. That is what we have to say. Regards Kevin > > I'll probably have more comments when we talk but I hope this is helpful. > bests, > Susan > > > At 2:17 PM -0700 1/5/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>Hi all >>I received some very helpful comments from >>Jurgen and I have revamped the slides in the >>light of the comments. I am cc'ing Matilde and >>Brian as they are part of telecon. Please see >>the attached. In all cases I have simplified the >>presentation by placing the take home message at >>the top. There are 30 slides here. At present >>3 are hidden as possible alternates. Also some >>should be dropped: your choice. The slides are >>designed to address what was seen as the biggest >>sources of misunderstanding in the comments on >>the SPM. >>The telecon will presumably discuss whether my >>perceptions on that are the same as others. >> >>Slide 4 may now be somewhat redundant with the >>added years on slide 2. Turns out the cleanest >>separation is for top 8 years graphically, but >>they do not include 1999 or 2000. Suggestions? >>I made a new graphic of the land T vs SST >>differences, and that is slide 6 but it could be >>replaced by slide 5. Your choice. >>I simplified slide 14 (on precip) and removed >>the slide with all the time series. >>I have cleaned up many others somewhat. >>I would be inclined not to show the slide on the Sahel drought (21). >>I added an extra new slide on hurricanes using >>Kerry Emanuel's updated and corrected series. >>So at present there are 5 slides on hurricanes >>and at least 2 of those should be removed. The >>Emanuel one has the advantage over the Webster >>one of including SST. Of these only slide 27 >>includes figures from the chapter, yet I would >>be inclined to drop that one. Your views on this? >> >>Slides 2 thru 12 are on aspects of temperature >>13-16 and maybe 17 are on precipitation >>17 to 21 are on drought >>22 and 23 are on extremes and heat waves >>24 and 25 deal with circulation and relations between T and precip >>26 to 30 deal with tropical cyclones. >> >>To wrap up I repeated the first slide: and I >>added a little piece to the first slide (I know >>this will not make Susan happy, and I would not >>include in Paris, but I thought it was funny). >>Please view as slide show. >> >>That would leave about 24 slides. Some could >>count as 1, e.g. 9 and 10 go together and would >>take less than a minute. But I would guess a >>minute average: order 25 minutes here. >>Please do not use these slides at least until after the report is >> approved. >> >>Regards >>Kevin >> >>-- >>**************** >>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >>Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>NCAR >>P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >> >>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >> >> >>Attachment converted: Discovery:C3IPCCParis.ppt (SLD3/IC) (00377B45) > > -- Dr. Kevin. E. Trenberth Climate Analysis Section NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph: (303) 497 1318 www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 5081. 2007-01-08 08:43:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thibault de Garidel , Gavin Schmidt , " " , " " , Ray Pierrehumbert , Stefan Rahmstorf , wigley@ucar.edu, Eric Steig , Ray Bradley , "Michael E. Mann" , " " , Rasmus Benestad , William M Connolley , " " , Caspar Ammann , " " date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:43:13 -0800 from: Eric Steig subject: Re: letter to the editor this morning to: David Archer Except he should have said "denial" rather than "skepticism" Eric David Archer wrote: > > This guy says it better than we did... > > To the Editor: > > The article about the global warming debate claims to identify an > intermediate position between President Bushs refusal to acknowledge > the reality of climate change and the view, articulated by Al Gore in > his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, that such change poses a > clear and present danger to human life. > > This is not, however, what the article does. Rather, on every major > point, starting with the question of whether climate change is an > established scientific finding, the middle stance agrees with the Gore > position and rejects the Bush deception. The notion that the truth is > midway between two poles of debate is a longstanding American myth, > but it does not work in this case. > > While neither An Inconvenient Truth nor the so-called middle stance > is the final word on climate change, both are responsible efforts to > get at the truth. By contrast, skepticism about global warming is a > position unmoored from reality. > > Daniel A. Segal > Claremont, Calif., Jan. 1, 2007 > /The writer is an anthropology professor at Pitzer College. > > / 3385. 2007-01-08 11:38:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: chen zhenlin , czl , Susan Solomon , Martin Manning date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:38:50 -0700 from: Melinda Marquis subject: AR4 Paleoclimate Teleconference to: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa Dear Peck, Eystein and Keith, Thank you for agreeing to meet this week (Thurs., Jan. 11) to discuss paleoclimate items. Martin will send you a follow-up email with an agenda to focus the teleconference discussion. In the meantime, if you would please confirm or correct the phone numbers where you can be reached, I would be grateful. Jonathan Overpeck Tucson, AZ, U.S. 9:00 a.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.) 1 520 622 9065 Eystein Jansen Bergen, Norway (Oslo-time) 5:00 p.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.) 47 5558 3491 Keith Briffa Norwich, U.K. (London-time) 4:00 p.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.) 44 1603 593 909 ____ Chen Zhenlin Beijin, China [Please send phone for a midnight call.] 12 midnight Thurs.-Fri. Cheers, Melinda -- Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA 1033. 2007-01-08 12:03:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:03:26 -0000 from: "Matt McGrath" subject: Climate change programmes to: Hi Dr. Briffa, My name is Matt McGrath and I'm the environment reporter here at BBC World Service Radio. Ahead of the first IPCC report in February, I've been asked to make a series of explainer programmes about issues related to climate change. One of the pieces is about the history of climate change, another is about forests and how they impact and relate to climate. You were suggested as someone who could talk about these aspects. I'm travelling to UEA this Friday to record a piece with Andrew Watson on oceans - I wondered if it might be possible to record something with you too? Many thanks, Matt McGrath. Matt McGrath Science and Environment Reporter BBC World Service Radio, Bush House, London. +442075572661 +447711910961 matt.mcgrath@bbc.co.uk [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. 3569. 2007-01-08 12:55:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: ,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, wigley@ucar.edu date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:55:20 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report - ONE OTHER THING to: rasmus.benestad@met.no, Dear All, I know that Wegman digitized the IPCC 1990 figure in the US Senate enquiry from 2006. I also need to chase up the paper where Richard Tol used it. Have any of you seen other examples? Cheers Phil > Dear All, Thanks for all your thoughts on this from the weekend. I have a lot to go through. I also have to check a lot of references and to get a lot of details and history correct. At the moment, I think this is an item that shouldn't be on RC until I have all these details. Apart from the IPCC implications I alluded to on Friday - I agree these aren't a serious problem if worded properly - but there are some others which have also surfaced, that I need to check out. I'm away part of this week, have a mountain of other things to do, so I will likely not get this completed until mid-February. So can we all keep quiet till I have it all nailed down. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2567. 2007-01-08 15:09:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:09:41 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM (manual resend) to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:31:43 -0700 To: brasseur@dkrz.de, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca, hegerl@duke.edu, hewitson@egs.uct.ac.za, jhc@dmi.dk, jto@u.arizona.edu, jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de, ken.denman@ec.gc.ca, letreut@lmd.jussieu.fr, meehl@ucar.edu, n.bindoff@utas.edu.au, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, peter.lemke@awi.de, piers@env.leeds.ac.uk, randall@atmos.colostate.edu, richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk, rsomerville@ucsd.edu, stocker@climate.unibe.ch, trenbert@ucar.edu, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov From: IPCC WG1 TSU Subject: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM (manual resend) Cc: Martin Manning Hello all, I apologize for the difficulties we've been having with the email list server. This email, which should have gone out to you all yesterday, was apparently never processed by the email list server. I'm sending this manually, so that you may have it as soon as possible. -- Roy ---- Original email ---- Dear Colleagues Please find attached a compilation of the comments received from governments and NGOs on the final draft SPM. We may get some further late comments but these are a substantial set (nearly 1000) and probably raise all the major issues. In order to make it easier for you to find your way around them, we are providing 5 separate files corresponding to: General + introduction section; Drivers section; Observations section (inlcuding paleoclimate); Attribution section; and Projections section. Overall we are very happy with the way in which the SPM is being received. Although there are many minor issues where the comments identify misunderstandings that need to be cleared up, or suggest better ways of expressing things, there are only a few major issues. These are consistent with some of the comments on the previous draft and so are not unexpected. As in the work on our previous draft SPM, it's important that we jointly develop responses. Our preparation should work towards a successful process. Many constructive and helpful comments have been made in the attached but there are also constraints of several types. Some of these are practical, procedural, or based upon precedents, and we will need to discuss those. Please note that time will be very limited during the formal IPCC sessions in Paris and will also constrain what is practical. A much longer SPM is simply not an option, and we already have more figures than were in the TAR SPM. Finally, it is important to recognize that at previous IPCC approval processes, some written comments by governments were superceded by quite different stated concerns in the formal session, so the written comments cannot be assumed to be absolute at this stage. As we have mentioned earlier we will use our meeting on Jan 27 and Jan 28 to finalize our jointly proposed revisions to the SPM in response to these comments. The TSU is currently preparing a revision in which all the more mechanical and obvious revisions are made. Early in the new year we will be contacting subgroups among you on specific science points and trying to ensure that we have discussed all the key SPM revisions carefully by email or conference call before arriving in Paris. We will also need to prepare some presentations to the delegates in Paris to assist the process. During Jan 29 to Feb 1 we are planning two types of science presentation by CLAs or LAs. The first type will be given during the 2-hour lunch breaks or in the mornings before the start of the plenary session. These will be open to any delegates who are interested, will be informal in style (no translation) and should be from 15 to 30 minutes long. The aim in these presentations will be to explain some of the underlying science, show typical data or results from the chapters where appropriate, and allow delegates to ask questions. These have been very helpful in the past as they allow delegates to interact with the authors in a seminar type of environment. They help to clear up misunderstandings and can be used to explain why some things being asked for by policymakers can not be provided. E.g in this type of presentation we would hope to explain why observed changes are often expressed probabilistically (which confuses some people) and how the sea level rise projections are derived. We should be able to allocate about 3 or 4 hours in total to these presentations and will cover a range of science topics suggested by the comments so far. In the attached compilation of comments the ones that we think can be assisted through science presentations are highlighted in a cyan color. The second type of presentation will be given as part of the formal plenary session and be used to introduce the key issues as we start each section of the SPM. These presentations should be 5 to 10 minutes long and summarize more specifically what is in the SPM and where it has come from in the chapters. We will only allow a very limited number of questions for these presentations and their main purpose is to orient the delegates to the material they are being asked to approve and remind them that it has to be based on the chapters. E.g this type of presentation could help clarify why we do not mix attribution statements with observation statements. To summarize: We will be contacting a few of you separately today or tomorrow about preparing the longer type of science presentations for Paris, then after Jan 1st we will be contacting subgroups regarding our options for revisions to the SPM. If you have any very specific suggestions for how to deal with particular comments or groups of comments please let us know. In the meantime enjoy the holiday season and we will be in touch again shortly. Regards Susan, Dahe, and Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Drivers1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Obs1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_General1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Proj1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Attrib1.doc" 3101. 2007-01-08 15:31:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , mmanning@al.noaa.gov date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:31:18 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: Science presentation for Paris to: Susan Solomon One too many 0's. 0.005. Kevin Susan Solomon wrote: Phil, Thanks. This comes up both in the presentation and in SPM language. A suggested merge of Phil's text below with the SPM language we have implies replacing the sentence on page SPM-5, 6-7 with the following proposal: Sites affected by the urban heat island effect are identified and excluded from these averages, so that remaining uncertainties due to this effect are negligible (less than 0.0005C per decade). This would address several comments asking us to explain what is done with UHI. OK? Susan At 3:52 PM +0000 1/8/07, Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Susan, On the UHI (slide 9) we should probably change the middle bullet. The first and third are not in dispute. May be better to spell out SSTs though, or say marine air temperatures. SSTs are used as anomalies though to approximate MATs. Middle bullet currently says o Major influences are identified and excluded from the records used to create the continental and global values Perhaps we should refer directly to David Parker's paper on UHIs, where he couldn't detect any difference in trends (averaged for 200+ cities) in temperatures on calm nights (when you'd expect the biggest effect) compared to windy nights (when you'd expect the least). There are two aspects to the major influences. 1. Some sites are removed. This isn't many as a % of the total (about 1%). 2. We include in Brohan et al (2006) an estimate of urbanization in the calculation of the errors. This is 0.0055 deg C/decade since 1900. It is a one-sided 'error'. If you look very closely the error range in this paper and in some of the Ch 3 figures is slightly one-sided. This figure comes from Jones et al. (2001) , which came from Jones et al. (1990). Difficulty with all UHI work is that there are countless papers looking at individual sites - which generally use a site in the city centre. This site is rarely one used in the dataset - generally an airport is instead. It is made worse by then looking at individual days and not monthly averages. Only Jones et al. (1990), Parker (2005,2006) and Peterson have looked at large scales. So Affected site are identified and excluded from the records used to create the continental and global values (as not all sites are tested, part of the error range assumes an urban component of 0.0055 deg C/decade) Cheers Phil At 22:47 07/01/2007, Kevin E Trenberth wrote: Susan Many thanks for the feedback. My comments and explanations follow. I'll expressly ask Phil to respond to us on the UHI issues and what we should say succinctly. I am keen to get further feedback on what to exclude. I had decided to exclude the full slide on all the regional precip trends becuase it is too detailed and would take too long to go through and so the zonal mean latitude-time series captures a lot of the changes. Personally I would like to have both but the issue will be time and simplicity of message, and hence my decision to drop the series: implicitly those are included of course because they are in the chapter. > Kevin, > Many thanks for the preview. I agree that the > presentation has improved, thanks for that. I > would like to offer the following suggestions: > > 1) Ramaswamy will cover radiative forcings, and > will do so comprehensively including aerosols, > ozone, etc. Calling out CO2 and N2O on your > title slide will likely raise queries about why > you cite those and not others. I suggest that > you drop that bullet from your first slide. Yes slide 1 at present is more comprehensive and perhaps more appropriate for you to use. In general with these slides that context will be desirable but perhaps not for Paris. > > 2) The chapter relates changes in DTR to clouds, > and possibly aerosols and land use. The chapter > doesn't explicitly say DTR changes are linked to > dimming. While I personally would agree this is > scientifically quite reasonable, your slide 8 > would be easier for people to understand and will > avoid confusion if its language followed the > chapter so replacing the word dimming on the > slide with clouds, possibly linked to aerosols > and land use, would be helpful. I understand: indeed we did not expressly say "dimming" but in the discussion of dimming it clearly relates to clouds and aerosol. My thinking here is that some may well be aware of dimming but not of changes in clouds, so I thought that terminology might be helpful rather than add confusion. Other views appreciated. > > 3) Slide 9 says major influences of UHI are > identified and excluded. Can this slide please > be clearer as to what is meant by this and what > exactly is done? I think it will benefit all if > we avoid spending a lot of time explaining what > 'major influences' are and what 'minor > influences' aren't covered, how big those are, > etc. > Let me ask Phil to suggest a couple of bullets. > 4) A number of governments have asked for more > clarity on where heavy precip has increased. You > show it nicely in slide 16 but language on the > slide will help us when the discussion of > language comes up. In the extremes table we say > that heavy precip has increased 'over most land > areas' and if the title of this slide were > 'Proportion of heavy rainfalls have increased > over most land areas' that would be very helpful > in laying ground for that. Heavy precip is confusing, because some analysis are in absolute terms: and others are in terms f the percentage of precip that is heavy. The latter change is much more universal, and the main exceptions are where precip amounts have decreased, implying a drier regional climate. Since our report there is anew report in Science on extremes in India in the monsoon increasing and there they talk about real extremes. In the slide we already say "proportion of heavy rainfalls are increasing" so the suggestion is to add "most land areas"? OK. > > 5) What is the reference for slide 20? it's a > nice image but if it's not in the report then > we'll need to discuss that. Slide 19 covers > similar content very well, I think so the second > one on pdsi could be dropped. Slide 20 is from Dai et al 2004. It is extensively discussed in the full report in section 3.3.4 and was featured in some email discussions for the TS related to the trend in the previous slide, resulting in some refinement of the FAQ 3.2. Whereas slide 19 is for all of PDSI, slide 20 separates out PDSI above and below a threshold of 3 and -3 and takes it apart to examine the precip and temperature contributions. It is quite complementary in that regard and shows more explicitlt that it is the dry spells that increased first from precip decreases and second from temperature effects. > > 6) The Emanuel (2007) slide is nice but that > paper has not been assessed in our report. If > you are seen by governments to be making your > argument for the hurricane statement based on the > Emanuel (2007) paper, we will almost certainly > have challenges to the hurricane statement on > procedural grounds -- which is not what we want > to invite. Even though it is an update, it is > substantially different from the published one > that is assessed. No that is not true. In our discussion in section 3.8.3 we note that the original Emanuel (2005a)set of curves was revised and discussed in Emanuel (2005b) in response to the comment by Landsea. But that response did not publish the revised curve; instead it appeared on Emanuel's website. It was that curve we discuss in the report (and the main reason we did not show it was because it had changed) and we say "the PDI increasing by about 75% (versus about 100%) since the 1970s (Emanuel 2005b)." The 100% was the original finding. Now there is a further minor refinement in the 2007 paper (in response to further complaints by Landsea, the corrections to the record to make the surface p and wind estimates compatible was not done at the highest wind speeds: very small changes) but an advantage is that it is updated to include more years: through 2005. It is standard practice for obs time series to be updated and that is mainly what the new curve does. It is not at all at odds with what we discuss already. >You can make a similar basic > point using assessed material by putting one of > the two Webster et al panels next to the SST > trend in slide 27, highlighting the recent trends > in both SST and intense storms with your nice > animated ovals (and replacing the ACE figure, > which uses non-satellite data). While the > Webster figure itself wasn't explicitly in the > chapter, the paper was referenced so I think that > can be defended. The SST curve though is for N Atlantic only and the Webster stuff is global. We could replace the ACE curve with the numbers curve from slide 28? With these explanations, I look forward to further suggestions. > > To respond to some of your other queries: I > think slide 5 is better than slide 6 - showing > all the data is nice. I agree with the idea of > removing the Sahelian series. Agree with both. I suggest putting > back the large-regions rainfall trends slide for > several reasons ( replacing the zonal mean time > series figure with the trends figure). It is > the trends figure that maps to the language in > the SPM which is what we are trying to explain > here - the zonal means are not what we explicitly > talk about in the SPM. If you don't explicitly > defend our SPM paragraph, then we certainly risk > losing it or at best wasting a lot of time on it. See comments above. I'll see if I can do something else. > I also think the trends image is clearer for the > non-expert than slide 15 showing the zonal means > (although as you know I am a big fan of slide 15 > personally on a scientific level). > > There probably still are too many slides and it > will be helpful if we all think hard about which > of these is most needed. In cases where queries > are from just one or two governments, or are more > technical than they are likely to raise in the > plenary, etc., it will be better to be shorter. > I look forward to comments from others as to which, if any, should be excluded. Of course I love them all. > The comments make clear that we are going to be > queried on the increases in heat waves statement > as being too weak and only backed up in the FAQ. > I personally like the European example but if you > could also possibly put some text on that slide > to help back it up more broadly, that will help > to avoid challenges (please see the comments). I included slide 22 which shows the shift in distribution of hot days and cold nights, and I thought this might be better than the Alexander et al maps. Again we run into too any slides. The change in hot days of course relates to heat waves, because the change in extremes relates to the whole pdf. The term heat waves is very subjective and the time scale is not always clear. There was a heat wave on east coast (New York 71F yesterday) although part of a month long warm period. The other main discussion of heat waves in our text is for Australia and I took out the slide of Australia temperatures vs precipitation in the first version (that Brian and Matilde have not seen). There is not much we can do here. The preponderance of evidence from all the statistics and studies demonstrates a clear increase in heat waves, even if there is not a definitive study just on heat waves. That is what we have to say. Regards Kevin > > I'll probably have more comments when we talk but I hope this is helpful. > bests, > Susan > > > At 2:17 PM -0700 1/5/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>Hi all >>I received some very helpful comments from >>Jurgen and I have revamped the slides in the >>light of the comments. I am cc'ing Matilde and >>Brian as they are part of telecon. Please see >>the attached. In all cases I have simplified the >>presentation by placing the take home message at >>the top. There are 30 slides here. At present >>3 are hidden as possible alternates. Also some >>should be dropped: your choice. The slides are >>designed to address what was seen as the biggest >>sources of misunderstanding in the comments on >>the SPM. >>The telecon will presumably discuss whether my >>perceptions on that are the same as others. >> >>Slide 4 may now be somewhat redundant with the >>added years on slide 2. Turns out the cleanest >>separation is for top 8 years graphically, but >>they do not include 1999 or 2000. Suggestions? >>I made a new graphic of the land T vs SST >>differences, and that is slide 6 but it could be >>replaced by slide 5. Your choice. >>I simplified slide 14 (on precip) and removed >>the slide with all the time series. >>I have cleaned up many others somewhat. >>I would be inclined not to show the slide on the Sahel drought (21). >>I added an extra new slide on hurricanes using >>Kerry Emanuel's updated and corrected series. >>So at present there are 5 slides on hurricanes >>and at least 2 of those should be removed. The >>Emanuel one has the advantage over the Webster >>one of including SST. Of these only slide 27 >>includes figures from the chapter, yet I would >>be inclined to drop that one. Your views on this? >> >>Slides 2 thru 12 are on aspects of temperature >>13-16 and maybe 17 are on precipitation >>17 to 21 are on drought >>22 and 23 are on extremes and heat waves >>24 and 25 deal with circulation and relations between T and precip >>26 to 30 deal with tropical cyclones. >> >>To wrap up I repeated the first slide: and I >>added a little piece to the first slide (I know >>this will not make Susan happy, and I would not >>include in Paris, but I thought it was funny). >>Please view as slide show. >> >>That would leave about 24 slides. Some could >>count as 1, e.g. 9 and 10 go together and would >>take less than a minute. But I would guess a >>minute average: order 25 minutes here. >>Please do not use these slides at least until after the report is >> approved. >> >>Regards >>Kevin >> >>-- >>**************** >>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@ucar.edu >>Climate Analysis Section, [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>NCAR >>P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >> >>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >> >> >>Attachment converted: Discovery:C3IPCCParis.ppt (SLD3/IC) (00377B45) > > -- Dr. Kevin. E. Trenberth Climate Analysis Section NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph: (303) 497 1318 [3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [5]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 560. 2007-01-08 16:17:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Melinda.Marquis@noaa.gov date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:17:29 -0700 from: Martin Manning subject: Agenda for teleconference on paleoclimate issues to: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , chen zhenlin , czl , Susan Solomon Dear Colleagues Please find attached an agenda for our teleconference later this week. This is based on our analysis of the government comments and we have included the most pertinent ones of those in the attached document. Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Paleo telecon.pdf" 2155. 2007-01-09 08:54:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: Susan Solomon , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Peter Lemke , Jurgen Willebrand , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:54:58 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Brian Hoskins Hi Brian Do you need the first part? Are you rewriting the headline on SPM p 5 lines 35-37 or are you adding an extra bullet on circulation? I thought we agreed on the latter, but your piece seems more like the former. If we left the headline alone and added: * Changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent and, in particular, the mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and strengthened, altering storm tracks. would be an alternative approach. I think it is helpful to mention storm tracks but not be specific about how they have changed. What do you think? Kevin Brian Hoskins wrote: Susan Headline 2 I suggest the following: At continental or ocean basin scale, numerous changes in climate have been observed. Mid-latitude westerly winds (and the associated storms) have shifted polewards and strengthened. Other climate changes include precipitation,..... I have taken the suggestion form SPM_327 to reverse the order of the first sentence. The westerly winds sentence is essentially that in a headline in the TS. I should much prefer not to include the bracketed itallicised phrase on storms. The evidence is less strong. There is some evidence for reduced numbers of storms also but no room to say that. It was not headlined in the chapter or the TS. Best wishes Brian -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 2338. 2007-01-09 09:09:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Susan Solomon , Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Peter Lemke , Jurgen Willebrand , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:09:43 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Brian Hoskins Hi all Attached is a new version of the proposed ppt on obs. I have included a different version of the global mean temperature curve with just one trend line on it: see if you think the message related to that is the right one; and the one with all the trtend lines is hidden in reserve. I now have just 1 hurricane slide with 2 in reserve. I also had some fun with the last slide, following Susan's suggestion (that I am sure she did not intend me to follow up on). Make sure you play that with slide show turned on. Anyway the bottom line is that without the last slide there are now 22 slides, and 8 and 9 essentially count as 1 (or leave 9 out), so it would be order 22 minutes. I could remove a slide like slide 20 but then I would have to take extra time on the previous slide to explain, and so I don't think much would be gained. Slide 18 would be short and acts as a segue to drought. Jurgen, should I add your slides to this? Do you want to change them, maybe to have a similar format, with a header that has the main message? Peter, do you also want me to add yours? Cheers Kevin Brian Hoskins wrote: > Dear All > > I kept quiet over the discussion about trend lines as I think the > final result of not putting them on the 3 curves in the SPM is the > right one. However I certainly defend the use of the 25, 50,100, 150 > year trend lines on the temperature curve as in the TS and Chapter 3 > as being better than the alternatives. A linear fit may not be a good > one but when one is trying to make the smallest number of assumptions > it is more defensible than for example putting in seemingly arbitrary > break-points. The picture also gives a visual impression of how > representative the average rates of change numbers are.The fact that > the trend lines for different time-wondows are all different itself > shows that the linear fit is not good for the longer time-scales. The > monotonically increasing slopes as one moves from the longer to the > shorter time-scales is a strong indication of acceleration, but I > would not put this in the same sentence as the word "unequivocal". > > Best wishes > > Brian > -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\C3IPCCParis2.ppt" 2520. 2007-01-09 13:48:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Peter Lemke , Jurgen Willebrand , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:48:26 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Kevin Trenberth , Brian Hoskins Thanks Brian and Kevin for the help. I agree with Brian about reversing the order in the headline sentence but agree with Kevin that a separate bullet is most helpful. I suggest we keep the headline short and simple and just leave the language we have about wind patterns being one of several things changing there. Otherwise it could be read as putting the circulation change into a very high prominence in the headline which isn't quite the emphasis we were discussing, I think. I tried to combine the suggestions and to keep things clear enough that governments won't complain about lack of specifics. If you look over the comments, you will have seen that above all they will not tolerate vague language. Anybody who was in Shanghai (or any other IPCC meeting) can attest to that so please please everybody help make things as specific as we can. So my suggestion for the wind pattern bullet is: Mid-latitude westerly wind speeds have increased in both hemispheres since about the 1960s. This has caused storm tracks to move towards higher latitudes. {3.6} Regarding the headline that proceeds it, can we consider something like this: At continental or ocean basin scales, numerous changes in climate have been observed. These include sea ice extent, precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and [aspects of extreme weather] OR [the frequency of heavy precipitation and of heat waves, the intensity and duration of drought, and the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons.] The ice sheets have been taken out of the above because they are moving to a consolidated sea level subsection, to deal with several requests for that. Is the new option after wind patterns too specific? I am a little concerned that we will be challenged on that. We could keep what we have: 'aspects of extreme weather'. Equally, I am worried that they will challenge the vagueness of 'extreme weather' so that is why you see two alternatives here. Thoughts? Susan At 8:54 AM -0700 1/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Brian Do you need the first part? Are you rewriting the headline on SPM p 5 lines 35-37 or are you adding an extra bullet on circulation? I thought we agreed on the latter, but your piece seems more like the former. If we left the headline alone and added: * Changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent and, in particular, the mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and strengthened, altering storm tracks. would be an alternative approach. I think it is helpful to mention storm tracks but not be specific about how they have changed. What do you think? Kevin Brian Hoskins wrote: Susan Headline 2 I suggest the following: At continental or ocean basin scale, numerous changes in climate have been observed. Mid-latitude westerly winds (and the associated storms) have shifted polewards and strengthened. Other climate changes include precipitation,..... I have taken the suggestion form SPM_327 to reverse the order of the first sentence. The westerly winds sentence is essentially that in a headline in the TS. I should much prefer not to include the bracketed itallicised phrase on storms. The evidence is less strong. There is some evidence for reduced numbers of storms also but no room to say that. It was not headlined in the chapter or the TS. Best wishes Brian -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 2244. 2007-01-09 16:00:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Susan Solomon , Kevin Trenberth , Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Brian Hoskins , Peter Lemke , Jurgen Willebrand , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:00:36 +0000 from: Brian Hoskins subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Martin.Manning@noaa.gov Dear All I kept quiet over the discussion about trend lines as I think the final result of not putting them on the 3 curves in the SPM is the right one. However I certainly defend the use of the 25, 50,100, 150 year trend lines on the temperature curve as in the TS and Chapter 3 as being better than the alternatives. A linear fit may not be a good one but when one is trying to make the smallest number of assumptions it is more defensible than for example putting in seemingly arbitrary break-points. The picture also gives a visual impression of how representative the average rates of change numbers are.The fact that the trend lines for different time-wondows are all different itself shows that the linear fit is not good for the longer time-scales. The monotonically increasing slopes as one moves from the longer to the shorter time-scales is a strong indication of acceleration, but I would not put this in the same sentence as the word "unequivocal". Best wishes Brian 2432. 2007-01-09 17:02:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: Brian Hoskins , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Susan Solomon , Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Peter Lemke , Jurgen Willebrand , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:02:55 +0000 from: Brian Hoskins subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Kevin Trenberth Kevin Most of the comments I just sent to you still apply. I do think more slides need to be cut. I like the new TC slide. I am not very keen on including one temperature trend line which corresponds to none of the periods we have in the Report. As an alternative you could put the 25 year trend line on and say in your talk that this line in fact fits the record quite well back to the late 60s. I hope there will be a splash in the next polar bear version! Best wishes Brian Kevin Trenberth wrote: > Hi all > Attached is a new version of the proposed ppt on obs. I have included > a different version of the global mean temperature curve with just one > trend line on it: see if you think the message related to that is the > right one; and the one with all the trtend lines is hidden in reserve. > > I now have just 1 hurricane slide with 2 in reserve. > > I also had some fun with the last slide, following Susan's suggestion > (that I am sure she did not intend me to follow up on). Make sure you > play that with slide show turned on. > > Anyway the bottom line is that without the last slide there are now 22 > slides, and 8 and 9 essentially count as 1 (or leave 9 out), so it > would be order 22 minutes. I could remove a slide like slide 20 but > then I would have to take extra time on the previous slide to explain, > and so I don't think much would be gained. Slide 18 would be short > and acts as a segue to drought. > > Jurgen, should I add your slides to this? Do you want to change them, > maybe to have a similar format, with a header that has the main > message? Peter, do you also want me to add yours? > > Cheers > Kevin > > Brian Hoskins wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> I kept quiet over the discussion about trend lines as I think the >> final result of not putting them on the 3 curves in the SPM is the >> right one. However I certainly defend the use of the 25, 50,100, 150 >> year trend lines on the temperature curve as in the TS and Chapter 3 >> as being better than the alternatives. A linear fit may not be a good >> one but when one is trying to make the smallest number of assumptions >> it is more defensible than for example putting in seemingly arbitrary >> break-points. The picture also gives a visual impression of how >> representative the average rates of change numbers are.The fact that >> the trend lines for different time-wondows are all different itself >> shows that the linear fit is not good for the longer time-scales. >> The monotonically increasing slopes as one moves from the longer to >> the shorter time-scales is a strong indication of acceleration, but I >> would not put this in the same sentence as the word "unequivocal". >> >> Best wishes >> >> Brian >> > 2706. 2007-01-10 11:15:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Susan Solomon" , "Kevin Trenberth" , "Brian Hoskins" , martin.manning@noaa.gov, "Matilde Rusticucci" , "Phil Jones" , "Peter Lemke" , "Jurgen Willebrand" , "Nathan Bindoff" , "zhenlin chen" , "Melinda Marquis" date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:15:36 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, "Brian Hoskins" Dear All, Thanks very much for the helpful discussion, which I think is inching to closure. May I suggest that we not drop the 'in both hemispheres' language, whatever else is done. With this change, there seem to me to be three options that have emerged from the suggestions, with diffeent issues associated with each: 1) Mid-latitude westerly winds in both hemispheres have shifted polewards and strengthened since the 1960s, with associated changes in storms. (3.5) Problem: this is too vague. Do we mean moving or strengthening? both? is this misleading if although storms may have strengthened they may also be fewer in number? Also: the assessment of chapter 3 seems to be quite uncertain on the issue of the confidence in the strengthening and whether the numbers of storms have changed significantly, so perhaps it is not appropriate to highlight in the SPM. It seems to me that from chapters 3 we can be reasonably clear on the issue of the poleward shift. That is highly policy-relevant. It also links with chapter 9's attribution statement later on a related issue. So option 2 could be: 2) Mid-latitude westerly winds in both hemispheres have shifted polewards and strengthened since the 1960s. Storms have shifted polewards in association with this change. (3.5) Finally, if we are not comfortable at all with any statement about storms, we can stop with the first sentence, as Phil suggests: 3) Mid-latitude westerly winds in both hemispheres have shifted polewards and strengthened since the 1960s. (3.5) Please give me your thoughts. bests, Susan t 5:25 PM +0000 1/10/07, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Dear All, > Agree with Brian's new bullet. I still think we will > get comments about what changes with storms. If this > is going to lead somewhere we don't want it and cause > problems, then the final part is likely best removed. > > Reading it again, better if we say .. since the 1960s. > About is a little vague. > > Back in CRU on Friday. I may be able to get this hotel link > to work tomorrow morning. > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Dear All >> >> To me a headline should be kept simple with the detail in the bullets >> below, so I prefer the simple version with "aspects of extreme weather" >> but I guess I am outvoted on that! >> >> For the first part of the bullet on the westerlies I should prefer to >> revert to including the shift and also using the word strengthen rather >> than increase (a number, such as the speed, increases): >> >> Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since >> about the 1960s. >> >> The next part on the storms is problematic. I agree with Kevin that we >> should steer clear of the causal langauage Susan had used. However >> Kevin's words seemed to link a shift in the storm tracks with an >> increase in the winds. Also, as reviewed in 3.5.3, some papers suggest >> that, in addition to a poleward shift in the storm tracks and an >> increase in their average intensity, there is a decrease in the number >> of storms . This is probably too much for the bullet, so that a less >> specific version may be required. >> >> I think the whole bullet could be: >> >> Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since >> about the 1960s, with associated changes in storms. (3.5) >> >> Brian >> >> >> Susan Solomon wrote: >> >>> Thanks Brian and Kevin for the help. >>> >>> I agree with Brian about reversing the order in the headline sentence >>> but agree with Kevin that a separate bullet is most helpful. I > >> suggest we keep the headline short and simple and just leave the >>> language we have about wind patterns being one of several things >>> changing there. Otherwise it could be read as putting the circulation >>> change into a very high prominence in the headline which isn't quite >>> the emphasis we were discussing, I think. >>> >>> I tried to combine the suggestions and to keep things clear enough >>> that governments won't complain about lack of specifics. If you look >>> over the comments, you will have seen that above all they will not >>> tolerate vague language. Anybody who was in Shanghai (or any other >>> IPCC meeting) can attest to that so please please everybody help make >>> things as specific as we can. >>> >>> So my suggestion for the wind pattern bullet is: >>> >>> Mid-latitude westerly wind speeds have increased in both hemispheres >>> since about the 1960s. This has caused storm tracks to move towards >>> higher latitudes. {3.6} >>> >>> Regarding the headline that proceeds it, can we consider something >>> like this: >>> >>> At continental or ocean basin scales, numerous changes in climate have >>> been observed. These include sea ice extent, precipitation amounts, >>> ocean salinity, wind patterns, and [aspects of extreme weather] OR >>> [the frequency of heavy precipitation and of heat waves, the intensity >>> and duration of drought, and the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons.] >>> >>> The ice sheets have been taken out of the above because they are >>> moving to a consolidated sea level subsection, to deal with several >>> requests for that. >>> >>> Is the new option after wind patterns too specific? I am a little >>> concerned that we will be challenged on that. We could keep what we >>> have: 'aspects of extreme weather'. Equally, I am worried that they >>> will challenge the vagueness of 'extreme weather' so that is why you >>> see two alternatives here. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> At 8:54 AM -0700 1/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Brian >>>> Do you need the first part? Are you rewriting the headline on SPM p >>>> 5 lines 35-37 or are you adding an extra bullet on circulation? >>>> I thought we agreed on the latter, but your piece seems more like the >>>> former. >>>> >>>> If we left the headline alone and added: >>> >>>> * Changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent >>>> and, in particular, the mid-latitude westerly winds have >>>> shifted polewards and strengthened, altering storm tracks. >>>> >>>> would be an alternative approach. I think it is helpful to mention >>>> storm tracks but not be specific about how they have changed. >>>> What do you think? >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> Brian Hoskins wrote: >>>> >>>>> Susan >>>>> >>>>> Headline 2 >>>>> >>>>> I suggest the following: >>>>> >>>>> At continental or ocean basin scale, numerous changes in climate >>>>> have been observed. Mid-latitude westerly winds (and the associated >>>>> storms) have shifted polewards and strengthened. Other climate >>>>> changes include precipitation,..... >>>>> >>>>> I have taken the suggestion form SPM_327 to reverse the order of the >>>>> first sentence. >>>>> >>>>> The westerly winds sentence is essentially that in a headline in the >>>>> TS. >>>>> >>>>> I should much prefer not to include the bracketed itallicised phrase >>>>> on storms. The evidence is less strong. There is some evidence for >>>>> reduced numbers of storms also but no room to say that. It was not >>>>> headlined in the chapter or the TS. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> **************** >>>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >>>> >>>> Climate Analysis Section, >>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>>> >>>> NCAR >>>> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>> >>>> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >>>> >>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >>> >>> >> >> 2619. 2007-01-10 11:30:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Brian Hoskins , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Susan Solomon , Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Peter Lemke , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:30:26 +0100 from: Jurgen Willebrand subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Kevin Trenberth Dear Kevin, Kevin Trenberth wrote: > I also had some fun with the last slide, following Susan's suggestion > (that I am sure she did not intend me to follow up on). Make sure you > play that with slide show turned on. Regarding the fun in general (sinking polar bears, animations with changing slides etc), personally I'd prefer less of them for this audience since these take time and may also diffuse attention. > Jurgen, should I add your slides to this? Do you want to change them, > maybe to have a similar format, with a header that has the main > message? Yes, please do. I have attached a new version which has simplified one of the slides (taking out 2 panels, adding legend). With the format, please feel free to make this more uniform. The slides do have a header but of course I appreciate suggestions for more succint ones. Best regards, Jurgen Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCC_plenary_oceanobs1.ppt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\jwillebrand6.vcf" 2885. 2007-01-10 11:42:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, Brian Hoskins , Susan Solomon , martin.manning@noaa.gov, Matilde Rusticucci , Peter Lemke , Jurgen Willebrand , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:42:04 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: Susan Solomon Hi all A key question here is to what extent are we limited to working with blinkers on and confining our statements to observations alone? This relates to understanding, some of which has been developed through modeling and consistency. It is not physically possible to have a change in the westerlies without affecting storm tracks also. Indeed the analyses are not as unequivocal on the issues of changes in intensity and frequency, but our understanding and model results support the interpretation of increases in intensity (e.g. through increased moisture there is increased latent heating) and a change in frequency and duration. This is what is suggested by models and so maybe it belongs more in chapter 9 related stuff, but I have to admit to some frustration about observationalists not being allowed to use physical reasoning. In the real world we have only one member of the "ensemble" and we can not beat down the random noise. With that off my chest, see below. Susan Solomon wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks very much for the helpful discussion, which I think is inching > to closure. > > May I suggest that we not drop the 'in both hemispheres' language, > whatever else is done. > > With this change, there seem to me to be three options that have > emerged from the suggestions, with diffeent issues associated with each: > > 1) Mid-latitude westerly winds in both hemispheres have shifted > polewards and strengthened since the 1960s, with associated changes in > storms. (3.5) > > Problem: this is too vague. Do we mean moving or strengthening? > both? is this misleading if although storms may have strengthened > they may also be fewer in number? We mean both, and I don't think it is too vague. It is deliberately vague on storms but it would be misleading to assume storms are unchanged and so I don't think it should be left out. > > Also: the assessment of chapter 3 seems to be quite uncertain on the > issue of the confidence in the strengthening and whether the numbers > of storms have changed significantly, so perhaps it is not appropriate > to highlight in the SPM. It seems to me that from chapters 3 we > can be reasonably clear on the issue of the poleward shift. That is > highly policy-relevant. It also links with chapter 9's attribution > statement later on a related issue. Agree with this commentary. > So option 2 could be: > > 2) Mid-latitude westerly winds in both hemispheres have shifted > polewards and strengthened since the 1960s. Storms have shifted > polewards in association with this change. (3.5) Prefer the first. > > Finally, if we are not comfortable at all with any statement about > storms, we can stop with the first sentence, as Phil suggests: > > 3) Mid-latitude westerly winds in both hemispheres have shifted > polewards and strengthened since the 1960s. (3.5) As I say above, this would be an error of omission as the storms can not stay unchanged. Hope this helps Kevin > > Please give me your thoughts. > bests, > Susan > > > > t 5:25 PM +0000 1/10/07, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> Dear All, >> Agree with Brian's new bullet. I still think we will >> get comments about what changes with storms. If this >> is going to lead somewhere we don't want it and cause >> problems, then the final part is likely best removed. >> >> Reading it again, better if we say .. since the 1960s. >> About is a little vague. >> >> Back in CRU on Friday. I may be able to get this hotel link >> to work tomorrow morning. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>> Dear All >>> >>> To me a headline should be kept simple with the detail in the bullets >>> below, so I prefer the simple version with "aspects of extreme >>> weather" >>> but I guess I am outvoted on that! >>> >>> For the first part of the bullet on the westerlies I should prefer to >>> revert to including the shift and also using the word strengthen >>> rather >>> than increase (a number, such as the speed, increases): >>> >>> Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened >>> since >>> about the 1960s. >>> >>> The next part on the storms is problematic. I agree with Kevin that we >>> should steer clear of the causal langauage Susan had used. However >>> Kevin's words seemed to link a shift in the storm tracks with an >>> increase in the winds. Also, as reviewed in 3.5.3, some papers suggest >>> that, in addition to a poleward shift in the storm tracks and an >>> increase in their average intensity, there is a decrease in the number >>> of storms . This is probably too much for the bullet, so that a less >>> specific version may be required. >>> >>> I think the whole bullet could be: >>> >>> Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened >>> since >>> about the 1960s, with associated changes in storms. (3.5) >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> Susan Solomon wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Brian and Kevin for the help. >>>> >>>> I agree with Brian about reversing the order in the headline sentence >>>> but agree with Kevin that a separate bullet is most helpful. I >> >> suggest we keep the headline short and simple and just leave the >>>> language we have about wind patterns being one of several things >>>> changing there. Otherwise it could be read as putting the >>>> circulation >>>> change into a very high prominence in the headline which isn't quite >>>> the emphasis we were discussing, I think. >>>> >>>> I tried to combine the suggestions and to keep things clear enough >>>> that governments won't complain about lack of specifics. If you >>>> look >>>> over the comments, you will have seen that above all they will not >>>> tolerate vague language. Anybody who was in Shanghai (or any other >>>> IPCC meeting) can attest to that so please please everybody help make >>>> things as specific as we can. >>>> >>>> So my suggestion for the wind pattern bullet is: >>>> >>>> Mid-latitude westerly wind speeds have increased in both hemispheres >>>> since about the 1960s. This has caused storm tracks to move towards >>>> higher latitudes. {3.6} >>>> >>>> Regarding the headline that proceeds it, can we consider something >>>> like this: >>>> >>>> At continental or ocean basin scales, numerous changes in climate >>>> have >>>> been observed. These include sea ice extent, precipitation amounts, >>>> ocean salinity, wind patterns, and [aspects of extreme weather] OR >>>> [the frequency of heavy precipitation and of heat waves, the >>>> intensity >>>> and duration of drought, and the intensity of hurricanes and >>>> typhoons.] >>>> >>>> The ice sheets have been taken out of the above because they are >>>> moving to a consolidated sea level subsection, to deal with several >>>> requests for that. >>>> >>>> Is the new option after wind patterns too specific? I am a little >>>> concerned that we will be challenged on that. We could keep what we >>>> have: 'aspects of extreme weather'. Equally, I am worried that they >>>> will challenge the vagueness of 'extreme weather' so that is why you >>>> see two alternatives here. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> >>>> At 8:54 AM -0700 1/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Brian >>>>> Do you need the first part? Are you rewriting the headline on SPM p >>>>> 5 lines 35-37 or are you adding an extra bullet on circulation? >>>>> I thought we agreed on the latter, but your piece seems more like >>>>> the >>>>> former. >>>>> >>>>> If we left the headline alone and added: >>>> >>>>> * Changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent >>>>> and, in particular, the mid-latitude westerly winds have >>>>> shifted polewards and strengthened, altering storm tracks. >>>>> >>>>> would be an alternative approach. I think it is helpful to mention >>>>> storm tracks but not be specific about how they have changed. >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> Kevin >>>>> >>>>> Brian Hoskins wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Susan >>>>>> >>>>>> Headline 2 >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> At continental or ocean basin scale, numerous changes in climate >>>>>> have been observed. Mid-latitude westerly winds (and the associated >>>>>> storms) have shifted polewards and strengthened. Other climate >>>>>> changes include precipitation,..... >>>>>> >>>>>> I have taken the suggestion form SPM_327 to reverse the order of >>>>>> the >>>>>> first sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>> The westerly winds sentence is essentially that in a headline in >>>>>> the >>>>>> TS. >>>>>> >>>>>> I should much prefer not to include the bracketed itallicised >>>>>> phrase >>>>>> on storms. The evidence is less strong. There is some evidence for >>>>>> reduced numbers of storms also but no room to say that. It was not >>>>>> headlined in the chapter or the TS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> **************** >>>>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >>>>> >>>>> Climate Analysis Section, >>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>>>> >>>>> NCAR >>>>> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>>> >>>>> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >>>>> >>>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 2514. 2007-01-10 12:16:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Brian Hoskins , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Susan Solomon , Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Peter Lemke , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:16:45 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations ppt to: jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de Thanks Jurgen I have inserted your slides with changes in the headers to make them look more like the rest and an edit of the last figure to add information on the source of the 3 curves. Let me know if you don't like any of this? I also added some potential slides on ice as place holders for Peter. Jurgen the last slide was not intended for the main audience in Paris but only as some fun for us in the LA mtg. I have hidden it for now. I have also simplified several other slides and tried to accommodate Brian's suggestions. Regards Kevin Jurgen Willebrand wrote: > Dear Kevin, > > Kevin Trenberth wrote: > > >> I also had some fun with the last slide, following Susan's suggestion >> (that I am sure she did not intend me to follow up on). Make sure >> you play that with slide show turned on. > > Regarding the fun in general (sinking polar bears, animations with > changing slides etc), personally I'd prefer less of them for this > audience since these take time and may also diffuse attention. > > > Jurgen, should I add your slides to this? Do you want to change them, >> maybe to have a similar format, with a header that has the main >> message? > > Yes, please do. I have attached a new version which has simplified one > of the slides (taking out 2 panels, adding legend). With the format, > please feel free to make this more uniform. The slides do have a > header but of course I appreciate suggestions for more succint ones. > > Best regards, Jurgen -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\C3IPCCParis21.ppt" 5151. 2007-01-10 17:09:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Bryan Lawrence" date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:09:19 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: CRU role in Defra project to: "Stephens, A \(Ag\)" Ag, Away today and tomorrow, but this sounds fine. The hours/days are very low for me, else it will all go to UEA and we'll never see the money. This is the same on the WG contract, which we've just received from Chris. So for consistency keep that. Colin's and my work will be on all 5 areas, Colin more on 1, 3 and 4 and me on 2/5. I'll need Colin though to do things for me on my areas. Chris has also a very low personal budget on the WG. Maybe one day UEA and Newcastle will complain, but I doubt anyone will notice. Back in CRU on Friday. Cheers Phil > Hi Phil, > > In the Defra project we have been pretty vague about your role. We've > said: > > "Phil Jones...will work to ensure that this project deploys a WG > appropriately" > > However, we also say we have the following quantities of UEA time: > > WHO? Y1 Y2 > Prof P Jones 1.08 1.08 > Dr C Harpham 74.18 31.18 > > ...which is quite a lot of Colin, and not a lot of you. > > The key issue is that I need to create a credible sub-contract that we > can work to. > > I propose that CRU expertise be involved in the following activities: > > 1. Requirements capture. > 2. High-level project guidance. > 3. Definition and management of the use of observational datasets > affecting the DDP and LINK. > 4. Testing the user-interfaces and other tools - providing feedback. > 5. Managing scientific interactions between the DDP and the WG. > > How does that sound to you? And, Bryan, any thoughts? > > Cheers, > > Ag > > P.S. In phase 2, we would like you to host user workshops but they won't > be happening in this first phase. > -- > Ag Stephens Tel: +44 (0)1392 884263 > BADC - UK Met Office Coordinator Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > Met Office, A2 - W004, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK. > E-mail (BADC): a.stephens@rl.ac.uk > E-mail (Met Office): ag.stephens@metoffice.gov.uk > Home page: http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/astephens > > BADC details: > British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, > > Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, UK. http://badc.nerc.ac.uk > 2611. 2007-01-10 17:25:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Susan Solomon" , "Kevin Trenberth" , "Brian Hoskins" , martin.manning@noaa.gov, "Matilde Rusticucci" , "Phil Jones" , "Peter Lemke" , "Jurgen Willebrand" , "Nathan Bindoff" , "zhenlin chen" , "Melinda Marquis" date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:25:07 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call to: "Brian Hoskins" Dear All, Agree with Brian's new bullet. I still think we will get comments about what changes with storms. If this is going to lead somewhere we don't want it and cause problems, then the final part is likely best removed. Reading it again, better if we say .. since the 1960s. About is a little vague. Back in CRU on Friday. I may be able to get this hotel link to work tomorrow morning. Cheers Phil > Dear All > > To me a headline should be kept simple with the detail in the bullets > below, so I prefer the simple version with "aspects of extreme weather" > but I guess I am outvoted on that! > > For the first part of the bullet on the westerlies I should prefer to > revert to including the shift and also using the word strengthen rather > than increase (a number, such as the speed, increases): > > Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since > about the 1960s. > > The next part on the storms is problematic. I agree with Kevin that we > should steer clear of the causal langauage Susan had used. However > Kevin's words seemed to link a shift in the storm tracks with an > increase in the winds. Also, as reviewed in 3.5.3, some papers suggest > that, in addition to a poleward shift in the storm tracks and an > increase in their average intensity, there is a decrease in the number > of storms . This is probably too much for the bullet, so that a less > specific version may be required. > > I think the whole bullet could be: > > Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since > about the 1960s, with associated changes in storms. (3.5) > > Brian > > > Susan Solomon wrote: > >> Thanks Brian and Kevin for the help. >> >> I agree with Brian about reversing the order in the headline sentence >> but agree with Kevin that a separate bullet is most helpful. I >> suggest we keep the headline short and simple and just leave the >> language we have about wind patterns being one of several things >> changing there. Otherwise it could be read as putting the circulation >> change into a very high prominence in the headline which isn't quite >> the emphasis we were discussing, I think. >> >> I tried to combine the suggestions and to keep things clear enough >> that governments won't complain about lack of specifics. If you look >> over the comments, you will have seen that above all they will not >> tolerate vague language. Anybody who was in Shanghai (or any other >> IPCC meeting) can attest to that so please please everybody help make >> things as specific as we can. >> >> So my suggestion for the wind pattern bullet is: >> >> Mid-latitude westerly wind speeds have increased in both hemispheres >> since about the 1960s. This has caused storm tracks to move towards >> higher latitudes. {3.6} >> >> Regarding the headline that proceeds it, can we consider something >> like this: >> >> At continental or ocean basin scales, numerous changes in climate have >> been observed. These include sea ice extent, precipitation amounts, >> ocean salinity, wind patterns, and [aspects of extreme weather] OR >> [the frequency of heavy precipitation and of heat waves, the intensity >> and duration of drought, and the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons.] >> >> The ice sheets have been taken out of the above because they are >> moving to a consolidated sea level subsection, to deal with several >> requests for that. >> >> Is the new option after wind patterns too specific? I am a little >> concerned that we will be challenged on that. We could keep what we >> have: 'aspects of extreme weather'. Equally, I am worried that they >> will challenge the vagueness of 'extreme weather' so that is why you >> see two alternatives here. >> >> Thoughts? >> Susan >> >> >> At 8:54 AM -0700 1/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >> >>> Hi Brian >>> Do you need the first part? Are you rewriting the headline on SPM p >>> 5 lines 35-37 or are you adding an extra bullet on circulation? >>> I thought we agreed on the latter, but your piece seems more like the >>> former. >>> >>> If we left the headline alone and added: >> >>> * Changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent >>> and, in particular, the mid-latitude westerly winds have >>> shifted polewards and strengthened, altering storm tracks. >>> >>> would be an alternative approach. I think it is helpful to mention >>> storm tracks but not be specific about how they have changed. >>> What do you think? >>> Kevin >>> >>> Brian Hoskins wrote: >>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> Headline 2 >>>> >>>> I suggest the following: >>>> >>>> At continental or ocean basin scale, numerous changes in climate >>>> have been observed. Mid-latitude westerly winds (and the associated >>>> storms) have shifted polewards and strengthened. Other climate >>>> changes include precipitation,..... >>>> >>>> I have taken the suggestion form SPM_327 to reverse the order of the >>>> first sentence. >>>> >>>> The westerly winds sentence is essentially that in a headline in the >>>> TS. >>>> >>>> I should much prefer not to include the bracketed itallicised phrase >>>> on storms. The evidence is less strong. There is some evidence for >>>> reduced numbers of storms also but no room to say that. It was not >>>> headlined in the chapter or the TS. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> >>> -- >>> **************** >>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >>> >>> Climate Analysis Section, >>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>> >>> NCAR >>> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >> >>> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >>> >>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >> >> > > 5054. 2007-01-11 10:12:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:12:03 -0000 from: "Colin Harpham" subject: RE: Station data for UKCIP to: Phil, Perhaps if we asked Ag to make sure Sheffield and Manchester (any others needed?) were included that would sort SCORCHIO too(?). I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a 'fudge factor' along with the poorer modelling for winter. Sunshine could also do with some attention, have you any suggestions for a different distribution to try (one that will give 0s and 1s at the extremes). I will be working in Loughborough tomorrow (hope that's OK). Cheers Colin -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 10 January 2007 17:31 To: Stephens, A (Ag) Cc: Colin Harpham; Phil Jones Subject: Re: Station data for UKCIP > Ag, Thanks. There isn't an immediate rush on this, as you're contarct drafting. If we can get this though direct from the MO, then all the data may be in the same format. You will likely need to talk to someone at NCIC, rather than the HC, so might be tricky. We spent an awful lot of time on previous contracts reformatting data etc - an awful lot. We can discuss this more on Jan 23. Cheers Phil Hi Colin, > > I will have a chat to colleagues at the BADC and the Met Office about > the best way to select your data. I might be able to just write a > script to find the stuff at BADC but I'll have a think. > > Phil is partly right, Phil Bentley is a new recruit in the HC who will > lead the technical work in the Defra project but they are also > recruiting someone new. > > Cheers, > > Ag > > ________________________________ > > From: Colin Harpham [mailto:c.harpham@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 January 2007 10:19 > To: Stephens, A (Ag) > Cc: Phil Jones > Subject: data for UKCIP > > > Dear Ag > > I am involved with the CRU wgen implementation in the UKICP project. > We will need to interpolate model parameters from station level to 5km > grid, and so will need hourly data for at least 30 stations. Would you > be willing to help organise the procurement of these data? (I have > looked at the BADC repository for hourly data and it would be quite a > task to do this remotely since few stations have consecutive runs - > and so would have to order data without knowing the availability). > Ideally... Need a minimum of 10 consecutive years of data within the > period 61-95. Would be better if all stations covered roughly the same > range of years. The stations are evenly distributed across the UK. > For at least 30 stations. > For the following variables: > 1) temperature. > 2) precipitation. > 3) sunshine hours. > 4) wind. > 5) dry bulb temperature. > 6) wet bulb temperature. > 7) barometric pressure. > > any assistance would be greatly appreciated... > regards, > Colin > > ps Phil was wondering if Philip Bentley is the person that HC are > going to employ on the DDP/LINK/TGICA project. > > Dr Colin Harpham > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich > NR4 7TJ > UK > > Tel: +44 -1603 593857 > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > > 2982. 2007-01-12 09:49:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de, Brian Hoskins , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Susan Solomon , Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:49:18 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations ppt to: Peter Lemke Hi Peter I am a bit alarmed about all of these slides as being too complex and not using material from the chapters enough. For instance Fig 4.13 I found easy to understand but your first slide is not easy: why is Europe in blue going up in a and level in b when the glaciers are retreating? The reason is because this shows the rate of change not the result of the change isn't it? In your second slide I do like the Larsen B ice shelf picture and that provides a nice back drop for some explanation of the new bullet (which is good). But why include the 3 panels on the left? What do they add? I am not sure the next two are needed especially in their current form. None of these are in the chapter. They add too much new material. In my last ppt version I added some place holders taking some figures from the chapter as they are part of the picture that "global warming is unequivocal". I would urge you to include the first two I had, plus one of yours based on the Larsen B slide but with the message from the bullet added, or something like that. Regards Kevin Peter Lemke wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > please find enclosed a ppt-file addressing issues of Chapter 4. > Slide 1: addresses SPM-312 and 314. I suggest to accept 312. The > figure (4.15 from the chapter) indicates an increased rate of change > after about 1990. But I do not think that we have an indication of an > acceleration (continuously increasing rate of change). > Slides 2,3 and 4: address the increased flow speed of tributary > glaciers after retreat/thinning/loss of ice shelves or floating > glacier tongues in Antarctica and Greenland (comments SPM-349 to 353) > > I did not find any critical comments concerning snow, sea ice and > frozen ground. Therefore I did not prepare any slides for theses topics. > Best regards, > Peter > > ************************************** > Please note my new e-mail address: > > Peter.Lemke@awi.de > > ************************************** > Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke > Alfred-Wegener-Institute > for Polar and Marine Research > Postfach 120161 > 27515 Bremerhaven > GERMANY > > e-mail: Peter.Lemke@awi.de > Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750 > FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797 > http://www.awi.de > ************************************** -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 3615. 2007-01-12 16:09:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:09:27 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: PDSI to: Gerard van der Schrier Gerard, Not sure what you mean? What IPCC Obs? OK Keith tells me it's the chapter. Here's the text file. Figures come in 3 parts. Don't pass the text on. Tell me which figures and I'll send the parts. By the way, here's two comments written by some country somewhere This bullet is misleading and hardly supported by the evidence given in Chapter 3. There are virtually no direct objective observations of drought. Therefore most of the analysis in Ch3.3 is based on a primitive drought index which depends strongly on precipitation observations. Since drought is often seasonal, the variability in precipitation and drought is even higher than in the annual mean, and significant trends are even more difficult to ascertain. Therefore the statements in this bullet should be weakened considerably, or the bullet should be deleted. [Govt. of Netherlands (Reviewer's comment ID #: 2014-8)] What drought doesn't depend on precip !!!! Is this country somehow different? This bullet is misleading and therefore unacceptable. As an example we may take the SAHEL precipitation trends as shown in figure 3.13 in Chapter 3. For the period 1901-2005 a significant drying trend is shown. For the period 1979-2005, during which a much stronger anthropogenic warming was present, a significant positive trend in the SAHEL precipitation was observed. A closer look at figure 3.13 shows that there are very few regions in the world with a significant trend with the same sign both in the period 1901-2005 and in the period 1979-2005. We repeated this trend exercise for the CRU data set and found again conflicting results. Apparently, regional precipitation is too variable, to detect robust trends in precipitation in most parts of the globe. This bullet should be completely rephrased or deleted. [Govt. of Netherlands (Reviewer's comment ID #: 2014-7)] Another odd comment.... We are tied though as for the whole obs chapter, we weren't allowed to say.. can be confirmed by models, or .. as expected from increases in greenhouse gases. There is no attribution statement anywhere wrt the Sahel.. Nice to see this country using the CRU data .... Don't pass any of this on ..... Cheers Phil At 15:35 12/01/2007, you wrote: >Dear Phil & Keith, > >Thanks for the update and thanks for the figure. > >Would it be possible to have the IPCC 'observations' too? > >Cheers, Gerard >> >>> Gerard, >> I've been talking to Keith about PDSI and I showed him the >> figure attached. This is one from a Kevin Trenberth talk, so >> Aiguo Dai probably produced it. Don't pass this figure on. >> I talked to you earlier about the IPCC CH 3 and the comments >> we'd had on the drought section. These comments said one thing >> mainly. PDSI is no good because it calculates evap crudely. >> Harry will have a revised CRU TS soon - up to jun 2006. He will >> also have calculated Penman PET for each of the land squares. >> >> What I would want to see in a paper is the following: >> >> 1. Direct comparison of PDSI (with sc version) with Thornthwaite >> and Penman PET - to show it makes no difference. >> >> 2. Major PC patterns of scPDSI (now with Penman) >> >> 3. Like the ppt, showing the effect of temperature. Dai has >> got a bigger effect by - I think - basin the temperature on an >> earlier period (say 1951-80 as opposed to 1961-90). Is this >> effect too big? - probably >> >> Any paper will need a few new runs >> >> - with the new data >> - fixing T at some level (1951-80 or 1961-90). Latter better, but an >> earlier cooler >> level will enhance the temperature component >> - Penman instead of Thornthwaite >> - fixed T, so no temperature component (depends on the base) >> >> Perhaps we can discuss this over the coming few weeks. Harry >> should have all the data ready by the end of Feb. >> >> Need to et soils everywhere, but Keith tells me you have that and it looks >> good. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------- >Gerard van der Schrier >Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) >dept. KS/CK >PO Box 201 >3730 AE De Bilt >The Netherlands >schrier@knmi.nl >+31-30-2206597 >www.knmi.nl/~schrier >---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch03_FinalDraft_Text_TSU_FINAL.pdf" 705. 2007-01-12 20:02:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kevin Trenberth , jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de, Brian Hoskins , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov, Matilde Rusticucci , Phil Jones , Nathan Bindoff , zhenlin chen , Melinda Marquis date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:02:00 +0100 from: Peter Lemke subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations ppt to: Susan Solomon Dear Kevin et al., I am happy with your suggestion for the summary of snow, sea ice and permafrost. Concerning glaciers, I also agree that we should not show both panels of my first slide (The difference between the panel is just the total area. By the way, the European glaciers have indeed grown until 1995.) I suggest to keep the right panel with the SLE. I prefer this over the Oerlemans figure (4.13). I have chosen 4.15 because only this figure addresses SPM-312 and 314: the increase in melting since the early 1990s. I also agree that we do not have to show the Greenland glacier speed up, when we show the Larsen B case. The left 3 panels in the Larsen B slide show that only those glaciers are speeding up, where the ice shelf is lost. The Flask glacier did not speed up, because it still has its ice shelf. It is 8 pm now and I have to catch my train home. I will send you an update set of slides tomorrow. Best regards, Peter ************************************** Please note my new e-mail address: Peter.Lemke@awi.de ************************************** Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research Postfach 120161 27515 Bremerhaven GERMANY e-mail: Peter.Lemke@awi.de Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750 FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797 http://www.awi.de ************************************** Susan Solomon schrieb: > Dear All, > Thanks for looking and thinking about this. > > I should clarify that some of what Peter kindly put into his > presentation may link to the sea level presentation, so may be better > moved there. We should consider that carefully. I suspect that > Peter was trying to avoid undue emphasis on Larsen B alone - because > other places are showing similar things. So we should evaluate that > too. While none of the figures themselves are explicitly shown in > Figure 4 (including the Larsen B one), the material referenced is > assessed there and Peter has carefully given the papers - so if we > believe this is needed, it could be considered. > > I do like Figure 4.13 but think it would be clearer for this audience > if it showed just the volume changes rather than the two panels. I > understand why the technical expert likes both but for this audience > perhaps just something showing the changes in glacier volume (SLR) > would be clearer. > > bests, > Susan > > > At 9:49 AM -0700 1/12/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >> Hi Peter >> I am a bit alarmed about all of these slides as being too complex and >> not using material from the chapters enough. >> >> For instance Fig 4.13 I found easy to understand but your first slide >> is not easy: why is Europe in blue going up in a and level in b when >> the glaciers are retreating? The reason is because this shows the >> rate of change not the result of the change isn't it? >> >> In your second slide I do like the Larsen B ice shelf picture and >> that provides a nice back drop for some explanation of the new bullet >> (which is good). But why include the 3 panels on the left? What do >> they add? >> >> I am not sure the next two are needed especially in their current >> form. None of these are in the chapter. They add too much new >> material. In my last ppt version I added some place holders taking >> some figures from the chapter as they are part of the picture that >> "global warming is unequivocal". I would urge you to include the >> first two I had, plus one of yours based on the Larsen B slide but >> with the message from the bullet added, or something like that. >> >> Regards >> Kevin >> >> >> >> >> Peter Lemke wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> please find enclosed a ppt-file addressing issues of Chapter 4. >>> Slide 1: addresses SPM-312 and 314. I suggest to accept 312. The >>> figure (4.15 from the chapter) indicates an increased rate of change >>> after about 1990. But I do not think that we have an indication of >>> an acceleration (continuously increasing rate of change). >>> Slides 2,3 and 4: address the increased flow speed of tributary >>> glaciers after retreat/thinning/loss of ice shelves or floating >>> glacier tongues in Antarctica and Greenland (comments SPM-349 to 353) >>> >>> I did not find any critical comments concerning snow, sea ice and >>> frozen ground. Therefore I did not prepare any slides for theses >>> topics. >>> Best regards, >>> Peter >>> >>> ************************************** >>> Please note my new e-mail address: >>> >>> Peter.Lemke@awi.de >>> >>> ************************************** >>> Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke >>> Alfred-Wegener-Institute >>> for Polar and Marine Research >>> Postfach 120161 >>> 27515 Bremerhaven >>> GERMANY >>> >>> e-mail: Peter.Lemke@awi.de >>> Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750 >>> FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797 >>> http://www.awi.de >>> ************************************** >> >> -- >> **************** >> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >> Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >> NCAR >> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >> >> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 > 4621. 2007-01-15 10:35:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:35:49 -0500 from: "raymond s. bradley" subject: 1990 figure to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, mann@psu.edu Hi Phil: I've made some edits and comments on the attached. More generally, I think you need to comment on the x & y axis scales as used by later authors. For example, in the figure used originally, it went through ~1950; the figure Stefan circulated used by German schools changes the same scale to 2000, thereby deliberately ignoring the recent warming. They also change the y-axis scale, I think. And nobody ever said if the original units were in F or C! I spoke to Jack Eddy, by the way. He has lung cancer but seems to be doing OK with chemotherapy, and he sounded pretty chipper. He said he did not recall where he got his Earth Quest figure, but it may have been from Tom Webb (see Global Changes of the Past, p. 61 on) or from Lamb. There is another side to this which you don't mention --the first attempt to expand by factors of 10, different so-called "global temperatures" was in the 1975 GARP report, Understanding Climatic Change. In that, for the last 1000 years they used Lamb's eastern European winter severity index. This version then got reproduced and further mangled in several later publications, as shown in Tom's chapter. I am as guilty as the rest--I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book! But I did say schematic...! I'm not sure why people think this is such a sensitive topic (vis a vis the IPCC). Apart from the fact that they had Chris Dork Folland writing the paleo section, the first IPCC was a good starting point, and we've clearly come a long way since then. Just because people refer back to that for their own purposes (ie Wegman) does not reflect on the IPCC process as it has evolved. Any day in Vienna is OK for me. I'll be there (with Jane) from Monday-Thursday (leaving Friday am). Look forward to getting together there.... Ray Raymond S. Bradley Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 <[1] http://www.paleoclimate.org> Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipcc1990diagram.doc" 1412. 2007-01-15 12:45:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: raymond s bradley date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:45:46 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: EGU to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, not suggestion you not cite Wegman report, just suggesting you make sure the citation makes clear what the report is... mike p.s. where/when did Tom Crowley use it? Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Thanks. On 1) Putting the last few years in zooms the CET curve much higher. Tim took out the last few years. I need to make this clearer in the caption. Padding is an issue with a 50-year smoother. 2) I agree Wegman isn't a formal publication. This was the highest profile example I could come up to show abuse of the curve. if you know of any others then let me know. Even Tom Crowley shouldn't have used it. There is a belief in the UK, that a curve of UK/CET past temperatures (by summer and winter) exists. It doesn't, but the winter curve from Lamb is probably a lot better than the summer one. I'll let you know on time-frame when I hear from a few more I've sent the piece to. Cheers Phil At 14:10 15/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote: Phil, The attached piece is very good, impressive in the detail you've been able to dig up on this. Won't pass this along. A couple minor comments: 1. I understand the point of the 50 year smoothing, but I think it would still be very useful to show were the most recent decade is on this scale. a lot of the recent warming is washed out by the padding at the end. People will look at this and say "see medieval peak was warmer than present". but that doesn't follow because so much of the warmning has been over past two decades. 2. I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn't peer-reviewed, i.e. could be references as a "criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon). 3. I think that Stefan/Gavin were hoping to do something on RC sooner than the timeline you mention. What do you think about this? Do you want to forward the message to them and tell them the timeline you have in mind? talk to you later, mike p.s. thanks very much for the 'nomination' :), but you flatter me. I think that someone farther along in their career such as Keith is more deserving at this time. Phil Jones wrote: Ray, I have been nominating you for several years, as has Andre and Jean - I think. Not sure how much the last two have been involved recently. I haven't been for a few years. So, congratulations ! If as in previous years, you get asked about future awards, then consider nominating Keith and/or Mike. In the past it has alternated between ice cores and others. As for a presentation, something on the lines of where we stand etc. will be great. Gerard seems to be very flexible with the date for CL28. I've no idea how many abstracts there are yet. Haven't done anything on publicity for the session. Later in the week I'll check how many we have. So suggest the session day you want. Avoid Friday - people leave, also a bit on Thursday. Tuesday and Weds tend to have the most people there. I'll likely put you first in a session - not the early morning, but after coffee or lunch. I'll liaise with Gerard. I have to organize everything by next Monday as I'm at the IPCC in Paris from Jan 23 till Feb 2. Can you two give me your thoughts on the attached? I think this is best in the Wengen meeting summary. Certainly after IPCC has met and likely after June when the chapters come out. Don't pass on to anyone an don't use in Vienna. Cheers Phil PS Are you two getting loads of press cuttings from Mike Schlesinger? At 18:25 13/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote: Ray, I hadn't heard the announcement. This is wonderful news. You (like Phil) couldn't be more deserving for this. I'm sorry that I won't be there (EGU comes at a bad time of the Penn State semester). I owe you a drink when next we meet. Congratulations again! mike raymond s bradley wrote: I was totally surprised to learn I was selected for the EGU's Oeschger medal this year--so if you had anything to do with that, many, many thanks. I knew Hans quite well and so this is especially meaningful for me. Phil got the first Oeschger Medal so I know I am following in his big shoes. But I can't help feeling it's all a clerical error somehow and a correction letter will appear any day now.... But, assuming this is not so...I was asked to give a talk aimed at a non-specialist audience in one of the sessions. I think your session on the last millennium is the obvious session in which to do this, so I will prepare something along the lines of "climate of the last millennium: status and prospect" so I can briefly summarise where we are at and what seems to be needed. I'll submit an abstract on-line this weekend. Ray Raymond S. Bradley University Distinguished Professor Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 < [1]http://www.paleoclimate.org> Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [6]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [7]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [8]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [10]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2599. 2007-01-15 13:55:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:55:14 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_116886931419765" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.11; Q2.03) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:55:14 UT Message-Id: <116886931486@gems2> Dear Dr. Jones: Thank you for your review of "Warming in the High Arctic: Evidence from an instrumental record spanning 125 years" by G.W.K. Moore and Aarti Motala [Paper #2006GL028883], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Mark New Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 4 Presentation Category: Presentation Category C Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: Little Formal Review: Review of Moore and Motala General View This paper has some potential, but needs a major rewrite in order to be worthwhile. As I see this as a very major revision, I'm recommending rejection, but suggesting that the author's submit a massively revised version. I have come to this conclusion for several reasons, outlined in the major changes section below. Although the authors acknowledge the assistance of four colleagues, they have shown themselves (particularly with regard to reanalyses) to be relatively nave and not fully aware of the climatological literature. 1. The instrumental record at Alert extends back to 1950/51. You cannot ignore 29 years of modern instrumental data. You are only using monthly mean temperatures and these data are readily available. With the Arctic showing recent warming, larger-scale averages indicate warming since the 1960s and a warm epoch in the 1930s and 1940s. Either way there is a lot more data - of a potentially cooler period, for which modern measurements exist. The earlier expedition/exploration data might still be unusual but it is vital to also show the full Alert record (the most northern 'manned' site in the world) compared to the full Arctic record for the land areas north of 65N. 2. The aim of the paper was to compare the late 19th century years with the full Alert record on Ellesmere Island. My next point will discuss the poorest part of the paper - the use of reanalyses - but there is a much simpler way of assessing the unusualness of the early data. There are a number of series from Greenland, which extend back to the period and some to much earlier periods (see Vinther et al., 2006). Apart from not being aware of this work, the arguments used by the authors from Rigor et al. (2000), especially for the winter season where the authors' differences are largest, mean that they can make a direct comparison with the homogenized record from Upernavik (~73N). I realise this site is someway south, but correlation decay lengths are large in winter. The winters around the expedition period do appear cool, but there are other winters that are much milder. The NW Greenland record shows considerable decadal variability in winter. 3. To use reanalyses like this there needs to be more awareness of what input data are used. If the regional reanalysis of Mesinger et al. (2006) is based on the same system as NCEP (NNR, i.e. Kalnay et al., 1996), then the whole exercise is pretty pointless. The authors should read the paper by Simmons et al. (2004) where the quality of the ERA-40 reanalysis is compared with observational data and NNR. ERA-40 is a second generation reanalysis and the surface temperature measurements are assimilated. This is not the case in NNR. This might explain why the real observed data at Alert only are only poorly explained by the regional reanalysis. I think the use of the reanalysis in this instance is pointless and I remain to be convinced that their use serves any purpose or that they are giving any useful information as to the comparison of temperatures measured at Alert and the expedition sites. 4. When using reanalysis data for comparison to real observations near coastal areas, it is vital to know whether the model grid box being used is land or ocean. This may not matter much for most of the year, but may in summer months. The resolution of the regional reanalysis needs to be stated and perhaps the grid-box size shown on a figure, such as Figure 2. What is the resolution? 5. The discussion of exposure issues on p4 needs to bear in mind where the observations were made and when. These papers about exposure need to be read. Stevenson screens and their variants were in widespread use in the UK, Canada and the USA in the 1880s. No north European location has problems due to exposure in this period. Problems come earlier - prior to the 1860s - see discussion in Moberg et al. (2003). The warm bias in summer is clear for European locations, but that in winter is much less marked. The biases of the order of 0.2C are an order of magnitude smaller than those that might be due to different locations on Ellesmere Island. The authors are right to raise the issue, but it is likely unimportant, 0.2C is likely the wrong value, but the real one isn't known. 6. The authors should comment on the best way to make use of the early expedition records like those being analyzed. This is to use the approach of Klingbjer and Moberg (2003). Here, early measurements some distance from a modern station were adjusted by means of modern measurements taken with a data logger. This might have been impossible, but is relatively unexpensive, just requiring a little forethought. 7. Two small final points. The Greenland data will show whether these years in the 1870s and 1880s are unusual. Earlier north Canadian expedition data have been assessed by Overland and Wood (2003) and found not to be that unusual compared to modern conditions. This was for different periods and different regions though. It may just show that you can't take as representative a few years of measurements. 8. Related work to that discussed in the authors has been undertaken in the Antarctic with expeditions and exploration data (see Jones, 1990). There are likely other datastes in other parts of northern Canada, which along with the much earlier Greenland data could be combined in a far more informative paper. The paper is timely with respect to the upcoming IPY, but there were many more Arctic expeditions in 1882/3 during the first IPY. Many of these have been recently reconsidered in the light of the upcoming period. 9. There may also be some proxy data for Ellesmere Island from lake cores, but these mostly reflect summer conditions. Ray Bradley has written frequently on this area. References (not used by the authors) Klingbjer, P. and Moberg, A., 2003: A composite monthly temperature record from Tornedalen in northern Sweden, 1802-2002, Int. J. Climatol. 23, 1465-1494. Moberg, A., Alexandersson, H., Bergstrm, H. and Jones, P.D., 2003: Were south Swedish summer temperatures before 1860 as warm as measured?, Int. J. Climatol. 23, 1495-1521. Overland, J.E., and K. Wood, 2003: Accounts from 19th century Canadian Arctic explorers' logs reflect present climate conditions, EOS, 84, 410-412. Simmons, A.J., P.D. Jones, V. da Costa Bechtold, A.C.M. Beljaars, P.W. Kllberg, S. Saarinen, S.M. Uppala, P. Viterbo and N. Wedi, 2004: Comparison of trends and low-frequency variability in CRU, ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR analyses of surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D24115, doi:10.1029/2004JD006306. Vinther, B.M., Andersen, K.K., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Cappelen, J., 2006: Extending Greenland temperature records into the late-18th century. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D11105, doi:10.1029/2005JD006810. 3074. 2007-01-15 17:08:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: zhenlin chen , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:01 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu Dear CLAs, We are writing to address the two types of presentations (shorter and longer) that are to be given in Paris. A number of you have asked about the shorter presentations in particular and we want to clarify that here. We would like to ask the people who served as section coordinators for each section in our TS/SPM meetings to coordinate pulling together the shorter presentations of not more than 10 slides (Ramaswamy on drivers; Bindoff on observations; Hegerl on attribution, Stocker on projections). Many of you have kindly already sent around draft material for the longer science presentations, and that has been very helpful. These will occur informally during lunch breaks, or before the morning sessions at the plenary and will not be subject to simultaneous translation. The most interested delegates will typically find these very helpful, and will want to use them to ask you questions. In addition, during the regular formal sessions and prior to presentation of each of the major sections of the report (drivers, observations, attribution, and projections), we will benefit from a very short presentation that introduces the section. The speaker's words will be subject to simultaneous translation. We suggest that the paleo ice core material be covered as part of the drivers, that the paleo observations be covered as part of the observations, etc, to speed things up (we can switch speakers but keep slides in the same file). These shorter presentations are extremely important in setting the stage. They must be very short. We will have an absolute limit of not more than 10 minutes, preferably 5 minutes for the shorter sections of the report namely drivers and attribution). Please do not include more than a maximum of 10 slides. Questions will be strictly limited by the session chair (Susan or Dahe) to matters of clarity (e.g., if an axis isn't clear). We will go over both the shorter and the longer presentations jointly at our preparatory meeting at the UNESCO center on Sat/Sun Jan 27/28 so please come prepared to do that. An agenda for the preparatory meeting will be circulated to you shortly. The shorter presentations can largely be derived from the longer ones. They will be most helpful if: - they do seek to provide a general sense of how the section is meant to fit together and some key highlights. - they present the figures and tables used in the SPM section to follow, but do not include figures from the chapters unless absolutely essential. Including figures from outside the report could create problems and should be avoided. - they avoid raising new issues or suggesting changes from the distributed SPM. As some of us have seen in the heated discussions via email about the MOC, sticking to the agreed consensus obtained in the chapter teams is something our colleagues who will not be in Paris would appreciate our doing as much as possible. We will need to agree to all changes to be presented by us to delegates as a team in our preparatory meeting on Jan 27-28. They will choose to seek more and that is what we will have to jointly manage. - they have very little text on them, as simple as possible. - they do not try to cover each bullet. You may wish to consider whether it is helpful to alternate speakers between your science presentation and these short presentations, so that more of you get a chance to speak. Some of you asked for sample presentations. You are probably aware that we completed a special report on HFCs/ozone in 2005. The short presentation on our section (section 2) at that session worked extremely well and is appended here as an example in case you want to glance at it, along with the SPM itself. We had much less material to cover of course and more time to do it (this is more than 10 slides but don't be tempted as that was a different situation) but we hope this is still helpful. We look forward to seeeing you and discussing all of the presentations on Jan 27-28. Best regards, Susan, Martin, and Dahe Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SROC_SPM.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SROC_Intro_20050320_v5.ppt" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 3503. 2007-01-16 14:13:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dennis Wheeler , "Frits B. Koek" , konnen@planet.nl, Ricardo Garcia Herrera date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:13:39 +0100 from: David Gallego subject: Re: New historical series and some post-CLIWOC results to: Phil Jones Phil, Dennis, Gunther and everyone, Thank you for your inputs! Phil, I just received your email with the Manolas's paper. Thanks! Up to now we could not compare our data with that of the Barcelona's group (I don't have the IMPROVE CD). We already contacted Mariano Barriendos and now we are waiting for his series. Hopefully within the next few weeks we will be able to carry out some analysis. Our idea is to include the comparison in the paper. Regarding the similar results for the Alpine region and Northern Italy, is there any reference with these results already? I think it will be extremely interesting to explicitly extend the area characterized for warmer-than-average summers in the 1830s-1840s to southern Europe. Unfortunately, we can't look at a continuous series for Cadiz. Our reconstructions ends at 1852 and the present day data provided by the national meteorology institute are rather discontinuous before 1960... Dennis, it's not in our paper, but we did some comparison with the Gibraltar pressure series and at least, the monthly averages seemed to agree quite well. We did not perform daily comparisons. All, regarding to the CLIWOC-relation, we are a bit concerned about the "tone" of our discussion. We are not sure if it can be interpreted as if the entire CLIWOC database is overestimated by a factor of 2 and in fact, this result is strictly applicable to the Cadiz data (well include a paragraph to make this clearer in the final version). However we don't know if some of the ideas in this new paper (measuring average wind gust rather average wind) could directly affect the CLIWOC estimations. From your experience along the CLIWOC process, do you feel we could be overestimating, in any way, the wind in the process from the original wind descriptor to m/s? (in the sense of comparison with present-day anemometer averages). Some evidence of change in the wind averages between CLIWOC and COADS data was suggested in figure 3 in the NAO-SOI reconstruction from the Climatic Change CLIWOC issue, and in figure 2 in our SLP reconstruction based on CLIWOC data in Climate of the Past. Cheers David Phil Jones escribi: > > David, > Do you have the daily T and Pressure data for Cadiz digitized by the > group in Barcelona? I was never that convinced by the homogeneity > analysis performed on the Cadiz series. This was very difficult as there > were no other long T series for the early 19th century and Gibraltar > seemed to have some problems with pressure in the 1820s-1850s. > > I still think more can be done with Gibraltar, but this is up to > Dennis or me finding some time, which is unlikely for a good few > years yet. > > There were also many gaps in the Cadiz record as in Climatic Change > in the pre-1820 period. Have you looked at the full record, rather than > just > the 1825-52 period compared to 1971-2000. We see this longer term warming > in winter further north in the Alpine region and northern Italy. In these > regions there is little change in summer as well. What we think is > happening > is that the summers are too warm in the earliest years, and these should > also show some warming. This might be less than the winters. > > I will show your paper to a visitor we have hear to get her view as > well. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 10:30 10/01/2007, Dennis Wheeler wrote: > >> David, >> >> Thanks for this extremely interesting item and for all your hard work. I >> will make a more complete response next week but I'm just about to go to >> a conference in Hull and won't be back until the weekend. It's good to >> know that CLIWOC is still alive. >> >> regards and best wishes for 2007 >> >> Dennis >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: David Gallego >> Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:13 pm >> Subject: New historical series and some post-CLIWOC results >> >> > Dear all, >> > >> > First we wish you a happy 2007! >> > >> > Despite we have not been in contact for a while, during the last >> > year we >> > have been working with some of the CLIWOC results. We found a new >> > historical data source which provides instrumental temperature and >> > atmospheric pressure along with estimated wind for the city of >> > Cadiz >> > between 1806 and 1854 (the initial year depends on the variable). >> > We >> > presented some preliminary results last November in the MedCLIVAR >> > workshop hosted in Carmona and now we got almost definitive results. >> > >> > First, our results indicate that autumn and winter temperatures >> > (sunset) >> > in the city of Cadiz have risen about 2C in the last 150 years >> > (2.7C >> > in December), while summer temperatures do show almost identical >> > values. >> > Second, we applied the CLIWOC dictionary to convert the wind >> > estimates >> > in the port to m/s. >> > >> > The main result (apart of the fact that we could find direct >> > translation >> > for 99.8% of the terms found in the Cadiz archives) is that while >> > the >> > seasonal behavior is almost exactly reproduced, the CLIWOC- >> > translated >> > wind velocities are double than modern anemometer data. We believe >> > that >> > at least- when used in land-based sources, the use of the CLIWOC >> > dictionary can introduce a strong bias in the translated wind >> > forces. >> > Please, find our proposed explanation in the attached draft. >> > >> > We have some concerns about the results and we will be pleased if >> > you >> > could assist us with our interpretation, particularly about the >> > following issues: >> > >> > 1. What is your thinking about the surprisingly strong winter >> > warming >> > detected? Are there precedents for similar temperature increases in >> > Europe? (Dennis: did you find somewhat similar for Gibraltar?) To >> > our >> > knowledge, there is not published estimation of the urban thermal >> > island >> > effect in Cadiz but we think that for this city this effect should >> > not >> > be such strong. >> > >> > 2. The aprox. 2x factor in the wind estimation is applicable at the >> > wind >> > conversion for the city of Cadiz. Do you think a somewhat similar >> > (but >> > probably of much lower magnitude) wind overestimation could be >> > affecting >> > the current CLIWOC database? Should the situation be similar in the >> > German Maury collection? What is your feeling about this finding? >> > >> > 3. Any other comment will be welcome. >> > >> > Thank you, >> > >> > Regards, >> > David >> > >> > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 679. 2007-01-17 12:09:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:09:59 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Channel four documentary to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, ok, glad to hear that. In any case, Wegman has refused to answer questions asked about his calculations sent by Henry Waxman, a California congressman. Funny thing is, when Waxman sent the letter, he was in the minority. But now that the democrats have taken over, he's the chair of investigations for the entire House of Representatives. I think his staffers (whom I know well) will be interested that Wegman doesn't have time for their questions but *does* have time to do skeptic documentaries! talk later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > You're getting paranoid now! I got this in September > and replied accordingly. > Channel 4 is watched by less than 1M viewers here in the UK. > I doubt they will get anything out in time for IPCC. Ch 4 is an > independent TV company. > > There is a major BBC program coming out on Sunday > showing what Britain will be like in 2050 and 2080. David > Attenborough ( now you've heard of him) leading it. This > will get about 5-8M viewers - depends a bit on time. > There is something on the BBC site, but I can't find it. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Eliya, > This seems like a pointless documentary. I would > suggest you talk to the Royal Society in the UK and read > the front page story in yesterday's Guardian. You will > be giving the skeptic science an airing it doesn't in any > way deserve. > > Best Regards > Phil > > > At 16:40 19/09/2006, you wrote: > >> Dear Prof. Jones, >> >> Wag TV is producing a documentary for Channel 4 called the Great Global >> Warming Swindle which argues that anthropogenic Co2 is not the primary >> driver of climate change, and we are looking for leading scientists who >> can respond to the sceptical arguments. >> >> I'm sure you know most of these arguments, concerning solar forcing, >> criticism of the models and so on. Even though the film will be >> designed to present the sceptics case strongly, we feel that it is vital >> that the voices of other scientists, who believe that man-made global >> warming is a real threat, be present in the film. >> >> It may seem like an unusual request, but I hope you might consider >> granting us an interview for the documentary? >> >> I look forward to hearing from you. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Eliya Arman >> >> WAG TV Ltd >> 2d Leroy House >> 436 Essex Road >> London N1 3QP >> >> +44 (0) 207 688 2165 - t >> +44 (0) 207 688 1702 - f > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2754. 2007-01-17 14:59:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:59:37 -0700 (MST) from: "Kevin E Trenberth" subject: Re: cycle to: "Brian Hoskins" Hi guys I am at AMS: this is brief. One thing about skeptics like Singer is that they do not seem to realize that even natural climate variations have a cause, even if it is merely redistribution of heat within the ocean. Nowaday we can measure those factors and see whether or not that is happening, and of course it is not. Or it is not cooling in the deep ocean to it can warm at the surface etc. The whole argument has no basis in reality. However I only read the abstract. Cheers Kevin > Phil & Kevin > What do you know about Singer's latest work? See: > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf > The other guy is now in the UK to publicise their book. > Do you have a critque or at least any comments on the ideas? > Brian > -- Dr. Kevin. E. Trenberth Climate Analysis Section NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph: (303) 497 1318 www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 3168. 2007-01-17 17:31:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Melinda_Tignor , Martin Manning , Melinda.Marquis@noaa.gov date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:31:30 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris to: Isaac Held , Ronald Stouffer , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, peter lemke Dear Peter, Isaac, Ron, and Keith I am writing to let you know that the agenda for our C/LA meeting to take place in Paris on Saturday and Sunday Jan 27/28 will have your names listed for a proposed role, and I hope you will be able to accept. At the end of the second day of the meeting, we will go over the set of longer 'science presentations' that will be given informally during the lunchtime sessions. There will be two parallel sessions from 4-6 pm on Sunday, and I am hoping that Peter/Keith can chair one dealing with drivers, obs, and paleo, whle Ron and Isaac can chair one on attribution/sea level/projections. Earlier on Sat/Sun we will also have gone over the shorter formal presentations that will be used to start each section of the SPM during the meeting. See below for some more information CLAs requested for preparation of the shorter presentations. An important point is that the short and long presentations should be consistent and should strongly support the SPM approval process (see below). We are seeking tough chairmen who could a) keep to a strict time schedule and avoid slippage; b) ensure that a clear statement is made about what the group conclusion is (e.g., if the group feels that a particular presentation should be changed, that needs to be made clear to the person who will hand in the final presentation to the TSU); and c) helps the group to focus on the need for these presentations to communicate with policy people (not overly technical) and help address the comments received (not to digress). In short, to be tough, fair, constructive, and well organized. Thanks in advance for considering helping with this. If you feel you cannot do it, let me know but I will assume silence is agreement to serve. best regards, Susan >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:01 -0700 >From: Susan Solomon >To: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >Cc: zhenlin chen , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov >Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris >X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >List-Id: >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu >X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== >X-Rcpt-To: >X-DPOP: Version number supressed > >Dear CLAs, > >We are writing to address the two types of presentations (shorter >and longer) that are to be given in Paris. A number of you have >asked about the shorter presentations in particular and we want to >clarify that here. > >We would like to ask the people who served as section coordinators >for each section in our TS/SPM meetings to coordinate pulling >together the shorter presentations of not more than 10 slides >(Ramaswamy on drivers; Bindoff on observations; Hegerl on >attribution, Stocker on projections). > >Many of you have kindly already sent around draft material for the >longer science presentations, and that has been very helpful. >These will occur informally during lunch breaks, or before the >morning sessions at the plenary and will not be subject to >simultaneous translation. The most interested delegates will >typically find these very helpful, and will want to use them to ask >you questions. > >In addition, during the regular formal sessions and prior to >presentation of each of the major sections of the report (drivers, >observations, attribution, and projections), we will benefit from a >very short presentation that introduces the section. The speaker's >words will be subject to simultaneous translation. We suggest that >the paleo ice core material be covered as part of the drivers, that >the paleo observations be covered as part of the observations, etc, >to speed things up (we can switch speakers but keep slides in the >same file). > >These shorter presentations are extremely important in setting the >stage. They must be very short. We will have an absolute limit of >not more than 10 minutes, preferably 5 minutes for the shorter >sections of the report namely drivers and attribution). Please do >not include more than a maximum of 10 slides. Questions will be >strictly limited by the session chair (Susan or Dahe) to matters of >clarity (e.g., if an axis isn't clear). > >We will go over both the shorter and the longer presentations >jointly at our preparatory meeting at the UNESCO center on Sat/Sun >Jan 27/28 so please come prepared to do that. An agenda for the >preparatory meeting will be circulated to you shortly. > >The shorter presentations can largely be derived from the longer >ones. They will be most helpful if: > >- they do seek to provide a general sense of how the section is >meant to fit together and some key highlights. > >- they present the figures and tables used in the SPM section >to follow, but do not include figures from the chapters unless >absolutely essential. Including figures from outside the report >could create problems and should be avoided. > >- they avoid raising new issues or suggesting changes from the >distributed SPM. As some of us have seen in the heated discussions >via email about the MOC, sticking to the agreed consensus obtained >in the chapter teams is something our colleagues who will not be in >Paris would appreciate our doing as much as possible. We will need >to agree to all changes to be presented by us to delegates as a team >in our preparatory meeting on Jan 27-28. They will choose to seek >more and that is what we will have to jointly manage. > >- they have very little text on them, as simple as possible. > >- they do not try to cover each bullet. > >You may wish to consider whether it is helpful to alternate speakers >between your science presentation and these short presentations, so >that more of you get a chance to speak. > >Some of you asked for sample presentations. You are probably aware >that we completed a special report on HFCs/ozone in 2005. The >short presentation on our section (section 2) at that session worked >extremely well and is appended here as an example in case you want >to glance at it, along with the SPM itself. We had much less >material to cover of course and more time to do it (this is more >than 10 slides but don't be tempted as that was a different >situation) but we hope this is still helpful. > >We look forward to seeeing you and discussing all of the >presentations on Jan 27-28. > >Best regards, > >Susan, Martin, and Dahe > > > >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list >Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SROC_SPM 1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SROC_Intro_20050320_v5 1.ppt" 3645. 2007-01-18 06:27:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:27:57 -0700 (MST) from: "Kevin E Trenberth" subject: Re: cycle to: "Brian Hoskins" Brian My quck advice on this is to indeed acknowledge that natural variabilty does occur, but it still has a cause (whether external forcing or internal processes), and the things that are different now are rates of change and the identified human forcings, while the natural forcings can also be assessed and they are not contributing in any substantive way, or maybe even slightly negative since 1950. Kevin > Phil & Kevin > Many thanks. > Dealing with these people is a real problem. I do not know whether they > made it through to Radio 4 this morning but I do know it would be very > difficult to be convincing in opposition to them in that forum (& with > my lack of knowledge of all the snippets they put together!) > Phil: I had not realised that Bob Ward had gone. That's a pity as he had > done a good job. > Best wishes > Brian > > -- Dr. Kevin. E. Trenberth Climate Analysis Section NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph: (303) 497 1318 www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 648. 2007-01-18 08:59:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:59:08 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: our session in July to: Phil Jones Phil, Just confirming that you'll be at IUGG too (I think you already indicated so, but can't remember). I'm wondering if we should do a bit of advertising of this e.g. on some appropriate internet distribution lists? So far there are zero (!) abstracts submitted. I'm going to submit one today. The info is here: [1]http://www.iugg2007perugia.it/abstracttype.asp talk to you later, mike JMS017: The Holocene-Anthropocene Transition: From Natural to Human-Dominance of the Earth System Total abstracts submitted: 0 Abstracts waiting for acceptance: 0 - Accepted Abstracts: 0 - Rejected Abstracts: 0 Sponsoring Association: IAMAS in collaboration with: IAPSO Until recently, the Holocene climate of the last 10,000 years has been relatively stable, at least on a global basis. This period, also characterized by regional to global fluctuations of varying degrees, provides the context for human-induced change. Since about 1750, human activities have become a major factor in the climate, altering atmospheric composition and the land surface. With projections for the rates of change to continue, we are transitioning to a human-dominated climate--the Anthropocene has been coined to describe this emerging period. This symposium invites papers describing the Holocene climate (observational/ proxy or modeling); the forcings that humans are adding to the factors that have affected the climate in the past; documentation, detection, and attribution of the resulting changes; and projections of how these changes will develop in the future Convener Designated: Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK; Tel. +44 (0) 1603 592090; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507784; e-mail: [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk Michael E. Mann, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Department of Meteorology, 503 Walker Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-5013 USA; Tel: +1 (814) 863-4075; Fax: +1 (814) 865-3663; e-mail: [3]mann@psu.edu -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 68. 2007-01-18 09:50:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jan 18 09:50:47 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Your investment suggestions to: "Carey, Gerald" Gerald thanks for these suggestions - in short , I am happy to accept them all . Please go ahead as per your original list ( ie including the Henderson fund ) . I would also be interested to know what interest rate any cash left on deposit with you would normally achieve. Thanks , and I very much look forward to meeting you. Best wishes Keith At 16:36 15/01/2007, you wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Carey, Gerald Sent: 15 January 2007 16:33 To: 'k.briffa@uae.ac.uk' Subject: Re Your investments Dear Keith, I understand from Sarah you would like to receive my investment suggestions for the 37,439.97 balance currently held on the deposit account which accompanies your portfolio and Sarah suggested I should send these direct to you.I know that you are away until late on Wednesday and so I will not hear from you for a couple of days at the least. The 11 direct equity recommendations and 3 funds which James Rainbow put forward in his letter of 16 November ( which replaced his original proposals of 6 direct equities) are all good investments but I suggest a different list.As none of those equities or funds were subsequently purchased I am in a position to make a fresh set of recommendations for the cash ( I note you withdrew 3,000 in mid November from the original sum) and which I now have pleasure in doing. I suggest investing 35,000 and leaving the balance on deposit available for any particularly attractive investment opportunities which may present themselves.I propose making 7 investments.I suggest there should be considerable investment in funds(as opposed to individual equities) to achieve diversification of investment and spread of risk.A portfolio valued at about 50,000 should not have too much directly invested in individual shares.I am not sure if you are willing to invest in bond markets as well as equity markets but,if so,I strongly advise including a bond fund to lower the overall risk profile of your portfolio and to obtain the higher level of capital security offered by bonds relative to equity markets. I suggest investing 5,000 in each of Henderson Preference & Bond Fund,Axa Framlington Equity Income;Finsbury Growth &Income Trust; JP Morgan Fleming Mid Cap and National Grid in the UK and 5,000 in each of Gartmore European and Murray International Trust which invest in overseas equity markets. HENDERSON PREFERENCE & BOND FUND Invests in corporate bonds and preference shares issued by companies.The inclusion of the latter gives very modest scope for capital growth .The bonds element will usually change little in value.Price and gross yield 61.49p and 5.9%. AXA FRAMLINGTON EQUITY INCOME A large fund with a consistently good past growth record from investment in the UK equity market.The yield is slightly above that on the leading UK equity market indices.Price and gross yield 775.15p and 3.1%. FINSBURY GROWTH & INCOME TRUST Invests for growth in capital and income from the UK equity market.A good growth record.Price and gross yield 327p and 3.2%. JP MORGAN FLEMING MID CAP Specialises in investment in FTSE250 Index companies.These companies are pretty large and this tier of the equity market is outperforming the largest UK companies at present as measured by the FTSE100.Price and gross yield 715.5p and 2.0% NATIONAL GRID An integrated utility company quoted in the FTSE100 index.In our view the best value and best managed UK utility group.Price and gross yield 738p and 4.0%. GARTMORE EUROPEAN Invests across European equity markets in large companies.Good growth record.Price and gross yield 579p and 0.4%. MURRAY INTERNATIONAL TRUST Invests in the major equity markets on an international basis.Satisfactory performance record.Price and gross yield 636p and 3.15%. If you do not wish to include bonds,I will be pleased to put forward an alternative to the Henderson Fund? With regard Nokia in your ISA,mobile telecoms remains a highly competitive market in terms of the number of companies in the industry and regulators are involving themselves more and more in pricing etc which aggravates profit margin pressures.Profits warnings in the industry are not uncommon even now after years of struggle for the industry.However Nokia has long been one of the best companies in its industry and overall I suggest persevering for at least a little longer. I hope this e mail is helpful. Kind Regards. Gerald. Gerald Carey Divisional Director-Private Clients Tel:0845 213 3288 Fax:0845 213 3627 e mail:gerald.carey@brewin.co.uk Any views expressed in this e-mail message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. This e-mail message and any attachment is intended only for and is confidential to the addressee. If you are neither the addressee nor an authorised recipient from the addressee please notify us of receipt, delete this message from your computer system, and do not use, copy or disseminate the information in or attached to it in any way. We do not accept liability to any person other than the addressee arising from such a person acting or refraining from acting on such information. Our messages are checked for viruses, but please note that we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted in or with this message. BREWIN DOLPHIN SECURITIES LTD A member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority. Regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the JFSC for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the GFSC for the provision of investment business. Registered office 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD. Registered in England. 2135876 15/01/2007 16:27:13 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4936. 2007-01-18 15:49:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:49:33 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: Re: British documentary about global warming] to: Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Phil Jones guys, fyi... thanks for your advice, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Message-ID: <45AFDD20.5040101@meteo.psu.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:48:32 -0500 From: "Michael E. Mann" Reply-To: mann@psu.edu Organization: Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliya Arman Subject: Re: British documentary about global warming References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Ms. Arman, Unfortunately I will not be available for an interview for your documentary. However, if you are interested in the true current state of affairs I suggest you contact scientists such as Caspar Ammann of NCAR and David Ritson of Stanford University, who have independently investigated the claims of our critics and shown them to be either incorrect, inconsequential, or both. You can find much relevant discussion and links to key peer-reviewed recent studies on the site "RealClimate.org". I would like to bring three main points to your attention: 1. The studies of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) are more than a decade old, and a decade of more recent work by a wide range of researchers both supplants them and validates the key conclusions. Quoting from a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published last summer, " The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. " More information on the National Academy report is available here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/ 2. The specific criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) have been invalidated by at least 5 different peer-reviewed studies (only 1 of which I was associated with). - Wahl and Ammann (in press) demonstrate that (a) the precise statistical conventions used in our original work have almost no influence on the end result, which is quite robust and easily replicated and that (b)each of their primary claims are seen to have been based on a number of inappropriate and erroneous procedures on their part. See: e.g. the discussion here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysis-reproduces-graph-of-late-20th-century-temperature-rise/ - Two additional papers by Von Storch et al and Huybers take issue with the McIntyre and McKitrick claims, discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-27/ - This paper published by my collaborators and me: Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005. Discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10 and the final published version is available here at: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/RuthetalJClimate05.pdf The basic conclusion from these additional studies are that the claims made by M&M (2003) are either incorrect, or do not have any consequences for the conclusions of MBH98. A figure from Wahl and Amman demonstrates the non-impact of any of the legitimate issues that they may have raised quite clearly: http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg 3. The Wegman report was not the result of an impartial scientific inquiry, but was instead commissioned as part of a partisan investigation that was condemned by leading scientific organizations around the world, see e.g. the materials available here: http://branch.ltrr.arizona.edu/ http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/bartonletter.html Neither Wegman nor anyone else associated with that report contacted me at any time. Nor did he investigate what impact changing statistical conventions had on the actual climate reconstructions. As was pointed out long ago (and emphasized by several scientists in congressional hearings last summer), such changes have an entirely inconsequential impact on the reconstruction itself. Wegman has also ignored inquiries from other scientists such as emeritus Stanford University Physics Professor David Ritson who has requested information about the calculations within the report. To my knowledge, Wegman has ignored a congressional inquiry from last year requesting such information. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/ Finally, I would point out that the evidence for human-caused global warming is based on many independent lines of evidence, including the fundamental physics of radiative transfer, various different types of climate observations and sophisticated comparisons of model-predicted changes with what has been observed. As mentioned above, our early studies were just one of many indicating that recent climate changes are anomalous in a long-term context, and all of these studies constitute just one of multiple lines of evidence implicating human activity for significant changes that have already been observed in the climate. From the title of this documentary, I fear that the producers do not have a proper appreciation of what science actually has to say about the issues addressed by the documentary. Sincerely, Michael E. Mann Eliya Arman wrote: >Dear Professor Mann, > >Wag TV is producing a documentary for Channel 4 called The Great Global >Warming Swindle which argues that anthropogenic Co2 is not the primary >driver of climate change. In the programme we will be featuring a >critique of your temperature record reconstruction with interviews from >Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick and Edward Wegman and we would like to >know whether you would like to have the chance to feature and to respond >to their criticism. > >Even though the film will be designed to present the sceptics case >strongly, we feel that it is vital that the voices of other scientists, >who believe that man-made global warming is a real threat, be present in >the film. > >It may seem like an unusual request, but I hope you might consider >granting us an interview for the documentary? > >I look forward to hearing from you. > >Yours sincerely, > >Eliya Arman > >WAG TV Ltd >2d Leroy House >436 Essex Road >London N1 3QP > >+44 (0) 207 688 2165 - t >+44 (0) 207 688 1702 - f > > > > > > > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2539. 2007-01-18 19:32:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: , date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:32:18 -0000 from: "Tett, Simon" subject: RE: best example of trend to choose that hints at greenhouse to: "Andy Revkin" , , , "Stott, Peter" , Andy, apologies for not responding earlier (and I suspect rather too late). I think a good case is that models forced with human and natural forcings do a surprisingly good job of reproducing a range of things (mainly temp related). So surface temp, long-time-scale ocean heat content changes, NH sea-ice (SH is poorly observed) while models forced with natural only forcings do a poor job. SO I'd show some simple plot with obs, model with natural only, model with natural + human. Simon Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886 E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [2]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Andy Revkin [mailto:anrevk@nytimes.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:31 AM To: dshindell@giss.nasa.gov; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; Stott, Peter; Tett, Simon; john.f.mitchell@metoffice.com Cc: schoenfeld@nytimes.com; marsh@nytimes.com Subject: best example of trend to choose that hints at greenhouse forcing being at play in recent warming Hi all, Our Week in Review folks want to (on short notice) pull together a graphic and short story by me explaining what aspects of recent (post 1950) warming speak most clearly of probable human greenhouse influence (attribution). I can think of warmer winters, warmer nights, warming in oceans, changes in height of tropopause, cooling of stratosphere, modeling exercises with/without co2 buildup... all pointing to greenhouse forcing as culprit. I'll be stressing that it's a 'balance of evidence' argument, but if we wanted to create a graph of the long-term global mean temp rise AND one or two of the trends that are relevant, which would be most illustrative? (or is this even doable in a way average folk would comprehend?) a) what am i forgetting from the list above? b) what have i listed that does NOT make the case? Most important: c) would be great to know of any data you can provide that would help them build an image or box to illustrate this. The goal is to allow anyone confused out there to grasp what aspects of ongoing changes most speak of a greenhouse (human) influence. feel free to forward this to others who can help (promptly : - ) . thanks for any prompt ideas or info. the ccs in email addresses above are the two graphix editors, bill marsh and amy schoenfeld. their phone is 212 556 1839. ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: [3]www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season [4]www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: [5]www.myspace.com/unclewade 3572. 2007-01-18 20:39:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Michael E. Mann" date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:39:36 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: Perugia and IUGG 2007 to: Phil Jones IUGG deadline is now end of Feb. We are scheduled for a special evening event with IPCC chairs for IUGG mtg as a whole. We sure do need to do some advertising--there are so many mtgs going on. I have not checked schedule much, etc.--we always need great papers form you all. Mike > From: Phil Jones > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:11:37 +0000 > To: mmaccrac@comcast.net > Cc: "Michael E. Mann" > Subject: Perugia and IUGG 2007 > > Mike, > Mike Mann has reminded me about the abstract deadline for IUGG 2007. > We will be doing some advertising as the we have zero abstracts so far. > In Europe the abstracts for the EGU only closed last Monday... > > Is there going to be an IUGG and/or IAMAS push again in > the next month by email? > > Is there still that session we talked about discussing IPCC and > its WG1 Report? I'm just off home and haven't time to check. > I will tomorrow. Are you expecting a talk from me on atmospheric > obs? > > Apologies this is brief and not chatty! > > Cheers > Phil > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 3262. 2007-01-19 08:21:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Melinda_Tignor , Martin Manning , Melinda.Marquis@noaa.gov date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:21:14 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris to: Keith Briffa , Susan Solomon , Isaac Held , Ronald Stouffer , peter lemke Keith, Peter, Isaac, Ron, Thanks to all of you for helping out. Keith, the audience for the presentations is the policy makers who will be present in Paris. As you have already seen from the comments, many of them are not scientists. The presentations need to be pitched at a non-scientist level. A number of the policy people will be lawyers, and a number will be legalistically looking to find anything that can advance their position. Most of them will however just be looking to ask questions and to better understand, and many will be constructive in how they use the information provided. So it is quite a mix. They should not be given input that distracts from the job at hand. Therefore, these presentations should not bring in new issues not raised in the comments, figures from material outside the report, etc. I hasten to say that all of us hope there will not be big problems in going through the presentations. The presentations are being carefully prepared by excellent people, so my expectation would be for quite minor changes. All of the above has been discussed with those preparing the presentations, so a primary role in co-chairing this session is to lend a constructively critical eye, seeking to advance the goal of clarity, conciseness, and sticking to the report rather than straying, if needed. The outcome is not a formal approval statement of the presentation. The outcome is to guide the collective subgroup to a *clear* consensus on what should be changed before the presentation is passed in to the TSU. If there are things that a majority of the group wants to see changed but others do not, you will have a chairman's job to do in finding a solution everyone can live with. It would probably be helpful if you could keep some notes on the agreed changes, since that will help you ensure that you have been clear enough in stating the conclusion. Too often there is a thrash and no closure. A good chair gets agreement with the group. Thanks again, Susan At 1:00 PM +0000 1/19/07, Keith Briffa wrote: >Hi Susan et al >sorry for delayed response - just back from Paris (or so I >originally thought as the meeting I was at turned out to be 3 hours >away by train ). I too am happy to act as you request, though I am >still uncertain as to who the specific audience will be and more >particularly, what you expect as an outcome of the session (a formal >approval statement or recommendation for amendments?). >cheers >Keith > > >At 00:31 18/01/2007, Susan Solomon wrote: >>Dear Peter, Isaac, Ron, and Keith >> >>I am writing to let you know that the agenda for our C/LA meeting >>to take place in Paris on Saturday and Sunday Jan 27/28 will have >>your names listed for a proposed role, and I hope you will be able >>to accept. >> >>At the end of the second day of the meeting, we will go over the >>set of longer 'science presentations' that will be given informally >>during the lunchtime sessions. There will be two parallel sessions >>from 4-6 pm on Sunday, and I am hoping that Peter/Keith can chair >>one dealing with drivers, obs, and paleo, whle Ron and Isaac can >>chair one on attribution/sea level/projections. >> >>Earlier on Sat/Sun we will also have gone over the shorter formal >>presentations that will be used to start each section of the SPM >>during the meeting. >> >>See below for some more information CLAs requested for preparation >>of the shorter presentations. >> >>An important point is that the short and long presentations should >>be consistent and should strongly support the SPM approval process >>(see below). >> >>We are seeking tough chairmen who could a) keep to a strict time >>schedule and avoid slippage; b) ensure that a clear statement is >>made about what the group conclusion is (e.g., if the group feels >>that a particular presentation should be changed, that needs to be >>made clear to the person who will hand in the final presentation to >>the TSU); and c) helps the group to focus on the need for these >>presentations to communicate with policy people (not overly >>technical) and help address the comments received (not to digress). >>In short, to be tough, fair, constructive, and well organized. >> >>Thanks in advance for considering helping with this. If you feel >>you cannot do it, let me know but I will assume silence is >>agreement to serve. >>best regards, >>Susan >> >>>Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:01 -0700 >>>From: Susan Solomon >>>To: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >>>Cc: zhenlin chen , Martin.Manning@noaa.gov >>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris >>>X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >>>List-Id: >>>List-Unsubscribe: >>>, >>> >>>List-Archive: >>>List-Post: >>>List-Help: >>>List-Subscribe: , >>> >>>Sender: wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu >>>X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== >>>X-Rcpt-To: >>>X-DPOP: Version number supressed >>> >>>Dear CLAs, >>> >>>We are writing to address the two types of presentations (shorter >>>and longer) that are to be given in Paris. A number of you have >>>asked about the shorter presentations in particular and we want to >>>clarify that here. >>> >>>We would like to ask the people who served as section coordinators >>>for each section in our TS/SPM meetings to coordinate pulling >>>together the shorter presentations of not more than 10 slides >>>(Ramaswamy on drivers; Bindoff on observations; Hegerl on >>>attribution, Stocker on projections). >>>Many of you have kindly already sent around draft material for the >>>longer science presentations, and that has been very helpful. >>>These will occur informally during lunch breaks, or before the >>>morning sessions at the plenary and will not be subject to >>>simultaneous translation. The most interested delegates will >>>typically find these very helpful, and will want to use them to >>>ask you questions. >>> >>>In addition, during the regular formal sessions and prior to >>>presentation of each of the major sections of the report (drivers, >>>observations, attribution, and projections), we will benefit from >>>a very short presentation that introduces the section. The >>>speaker's words will be subject to simultaneous translation. We >>>suggest that the paleo ice core material be covered as part of the >>>drivers, that the paleo observations be covered as part of the >>>observations, etc, to speed things up (we can switch speakers but >>>keep slides in the same file). >>> >>>These shorter presentations are extremely important in setting the >>>stage. They must be very short. We will have an absolute limit >>>of not more than 10 minutes, preferably 5 minutes for the shorter >>>sections of the report namely drivers and attribution). Please >>>do not include more than a maximum of 10 slides. Questions will be >>>strictly limited by the session chair (Susan or Dahe) to matters >>>of clarity (e.g., if an axis isn't clear). >>> >>>We will go over both the shorter and the longer presentations >>>jointly at our preparatory meeting at the UNESCO center on Sat/Sun >>>Jan 27/28 so please come prepared to do that. An agenda for the >>>preparatory meeting will be circulated to you shortly. >>>The shorter presentations can largely be derived from the longer >>>ones. They will be most helpful if: >>> >>>- they do seek to provide a general sense of how the section >>>is meant to fit together and some key highlights. >>>- they present the figures and tables used in the SPM >>>section to follow, but do not include figures from the chapters >>>unless absolutely essential. Including figures from outside the >>>report could create problems and should be avoided. >>> >>>- they avoid raising new issues or suggesting changes from >>>the distributed SPM. As some of us have seen in the heated >>>discussions via email about the MOC, sticking to the agreed >>>consensus obtained in the chapter teams is something our >>>colleagues who will not be in Paris would appreciate our doing as >>>much as possible. We will need to agree to all changes to be >>>presented by us to delegates as a team in our preparatory meeting >>>on Jan 27-28. They will choose to seek more and that is what we >>>will have to jointly manage. >>> >>>- they have very little text on them, as simple as possible. >>> >>>- they do not try to cover each bullet. >>> >>>You may wish to consider whether it is helpful to alternate >>>speakers between your science presentation and these short >>>presentations, so that more of you get a chance to speak. >>> >>>Some of you asked for sample presentations. You are probably >>>aware that we completed a special report on HFCs/ozone in 2005. >>>The short presentation on our section (section 2) at that session >>>worked extremely well and is appended here as an example in case >>>you want to glance at it, along with the SPM itself. We had much >>>less material to cover of course and more time to do it (this is >>>more than 10 slides but don't be tempted as that was a different >>>situation) but we hope this is still helpful. >>> >>>We look forward to seeeing you and discussing all of the >>>presentations on Jan 27-28. >>> >>>Best regards, >>> >>>Susan, Martin, and Dahe >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list >>>Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >>>http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas >> >> >> > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4142. 2007-01-19 08:34:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:34:16 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: Re: British documentary about global warming] to: Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Phil Jones as I suspected, this is being done by a right wing hack, his name is Martin Durkin. He appears to be the British version of our John Stossel. Monbiot's all over him: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/ http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39 I think it would be good to contact some folks like Geoerge Monbiot to let them no that this charlatan is up to it again. anyone have contact info for Monbiot? thanks, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on mail.meteo.psu.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Delivered-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Received: from smtp03.altohiway.com (smtp03.altohiway.com [195.12.4.241]) by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2582D0006 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from server.WAGTV.LOCAL (wag001-26968-rtr-adsl-174.altohiway.com [213.83.100.174] (may be forged)) by smtp03.altohiway.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0JAUEsD009807 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:30:14 GMT Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: British documentary about global warming X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:29:41 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: British documentary about global warming Thread-Index: Acc7QmToVlPygpBGTJa9+t7Xo2wylwAbf6rQAAAkRUA= From: "Martin Durkin" To: Cc: "Eliya Arman" Dear Professor Mann, Thank-you for your note. As you know, better than anyone, your paper, and the subsequent work in this area, is of enormous significance. The 'hockey stick' is one of the defining images of the whole theory of man made global warming. Much rests on the assertion that the current period is the warmest in a thousand years - it suggests, as you know, that the current warming is something we should be concerned about. The accuracy, or otherwise, of the hockey stick is therefore of immense public interest. As you know, your study ran counter to received opinion on climate history up to that point. It is not unreasonable to ask whether it was right. I will do my best to study the references you have sent. But we are unable, in a film, to reproduce emails. However, we can repeat our request for a television interview with you, so that you can respond in person to the critique of McIntyre and McKitrick, Weman and others. Yours sincerely, Martin Durkin Director -----Original Message----- From: Eliya Arman Sent: 19 January 2007 09:59 To: Martin Durkin Subject: FW: British documentary about global warming WAG TV Ltd 2d Leroy House 436 Essex Road London N1 3QP +44 (0) 207 688 2165 - t +44 (0) 207 688 1702 - f -----Original Message----- From: Michael E. Mann [mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu] Sent: 18 January 2007 20:49 To: Eliya Arman Subject: Re: British documentary about global warming Dear Ms. Arman, Unfortunately I will not be available for an interview for your documentary. However, if you are interested in the true current state of affairs I suggest you contact scientists such as Caspar Ammann of NCAR and David Ritson of Stanford University, who have independently investigated the claims of our critics and shown them to be either incorrect, inconsequential, or both. You can find much relevant discussion and links to key peer-reviewed recent studies on the site "RealClimate.org". I would like to bring three main points to your attention: 1. The studies of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) are more than a decade old, and a decade of more recent work by a wide range of researchers both supplants them and validates the key conclusions. Quoting from a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published last summer, " The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. " More information on the National Academy report is available here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies -synthesis-report/ 2. The specific criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) have been invalidated by at least 5 different peer-reviewed studies (only 1 of which I was associated with). - Wahl and Ammann (in press) demonstrate that (a) the precise statistical conventions used in our original work have almost no influence on the end result, which is quite robust and easily replicated and that (b)each of their primary claims are seen to have been based on a number of inappropriate and erroneous procedures on their part. See: e.g. the discussion here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysis-repro duces-graph-of-late-20th-century-temperature-rise/ - Two additional papers by Von Storch et al and Huybers take issue with the McIntyre and McKitrick claims, discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-roun d-27/ - This paper published by my collaborators and me: Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005. Discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10 and the final published version is available here at: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/RuthetalJClimate05.pdf The basic conclusion from these additional studies are that the claims made by M&M (2003) are either incorrect, or do not have any consequences for the conclusions of MBH98. A figure from Wahl and Amman demonstrates the non-impact of any of the legitimate issues that they may have raised quite clearly: http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg 3. The Wegman report was not the result of an impartial scientific inquiry, but was instead commissioned as part of a partisan investigation that was condemned by leading scientific organizations around the world, see e.g. the materials available here: http://branch.ltrr.arizona.edu/ http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/bartonletter.html Neither Wegman nor anyone else associated with that report contacted me at any time. Nor did he investigate what impact changing statistical conventions had on the actual climate reconstructions. As was pointed out long ago (and emphasized by several scientists in congressional hearings last summer), such changes have an entirely inconsequential impact on the reconstruction itself. Wegman has also ignored inquiries from other scientists such as emeritus Stanford University Physics Professor David Ritson who has requested information about the calculations within the report. To my knowledge, Wegman has ignored a congressional inquiry from last year requesting such information. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-ho ckeystick-hearings/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece- at-the-wegman-hearing/ Finally, I would point out that the evidence for human-caused global warming is based on many independent lines of evidence, including the fundamental physics of radiative transfer, various different types of climate observations and sophisticated comparisons of model-predicted changes with what has been observed. As mentioned above, our early studies were just one of many indicating that recent climate changes are anomalous in a long-term context, and all of these studies constitute just one of multiple lines of evidence implicating human activity for significant changes that have already been observed in the climate. From the title of this documentary, I fear that the producers do not have a proper appreciation of what science actually has to say about the issues addressed by the documentary. Sincerely, Michael E. Mann Eliya Arman wrote: >Dear Professor Mann, > >Wag TV is producing a documentary for Channel 4 called The Great Global >Warming Swindle which argues that anthropogenic Co2 is not the primary >driver of climate change. In the programme we will be featuring a >critique of your temperature record reconstruction with interviews from >Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick and Edward Wegman and we would like to >know whether you would like to have the chance to feature and to respond >to their criticism. > >Even though the film will be designed to present the sceptics case >strongly, we feel that it is vital that the voices of other scientists, >who believe that man-made global warming is a real threat, be present in >the film. > >It may seem like an unusual request, but I hope you might consider >granting us an interview for the documentary? > >I look forward to hearing from you. > >Yours sincerely, > >Eliya Arman > >WAG TV Ltd >2d Leroy House >436 Essex Road >London N1 3QP > >+44 (0) 207 688 2165 - t >+44 (0) 207 688 1702 - f > > > > > > > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1276. 2007-01-19 12:16:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:16:58 +0100 from: "Klein Tank, Albert" subject: RE: Precipitation trends statement IPCC 4AR SPM to: , "Phil Jones" Hi Dave and Phil, For your information: My KNMI-colleague Geert Jan van Oldenborgh has sent this to the both of you. He figured the Ch.3 authors from the NCDC and CRU datasets portrayed in Figure 3.3.3 will be able to explain. Cheers, Albert. -----Original Message----- From: Oldenborgh van, Geert Jan Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:05 PM To: David.R.Easterling@noaa.gov Cc: Klein Tank, Albert; Ulden van, Aad Subject: Precipitation trends statement IPCC 4AR SPM Dear David Easterling, as climate researcher at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) I had been asked to contribute to the government review of the SPM. One of my points, which made its way into the Dutch review, was that I could not find back many of the trends in precipitation stated in the SPM. I checked all of these in a few datasets that I have available on the KNMI Climate Explorer (http://climexp.knmi.nl). Based on my view of the data, only two of the nine trends mentioned are clearly visible and significant in the observations, and these are slightly mislabelled. Two other highly significant trends are not mentioned. Could you comment why the SPM is so different from my trend maps? I have attached a very rough analysis for internal use, with lots of figures. The main points are listed briefly below, in the order of the SPM final draft (SPM-6 line 5-10). 1) The eastern North America trend seems weak, confined to a small area in Canada, so labelling it "eastern North America" is misleading. 2) The South American trends are poorly specified; if the trends in Argentina are meant, why use the phrase "eastern"? It is also absent in the GPCC datasets. 3) The trend in Northern Europe is in the winter only, this should be mentioned. 4) The North Asian trend is not a trend but a discontinuity in 1940, which looks suspiciously like a change in the observing system. 5) I see no significant trends in Central Asia except for 3 stations in the far west of China. 6) The trend in the Sahel is only significant when you start late and finish early; rainfall has increased substantially again since 1995. Given the large decadal variability in the first half of the century, and the attribution to aerosols of the drought in the 1970s and 1980s, I would hesitate to call the remaining trend "significant". Also, it is only the western Sahel that has a trend, not the eastern Sahel. 7) In the Mediteranean there is only a significant trend in North Africa, there is no significant trend on the northern shores. Labelling it "Mediterranean" is therefore misleading. 8) I see a drying trend in southern Africa only in the Zambia, I do not know the quality of the data there. Averaged over all of southern Africa as implied in the text there is no trend. 9) Parts of southern Asia. Which parts? Two trends that are not included, but highly significant in all datasets are an increase in precipitation in western Australia, and a decrease in western coastal Africa, see the maps in the attachment. Could you shed some light on this discrepancy arises, and what can be done to close the gap? Greetings from calm & sunny Holland (after a big storm), Geert Jan van Oldenborgh -- Geert Jan van Oldenborgh Global Climate Division Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) oldenborgh@knmi.nl http://www.knmi.nl/~oldenbor 2174. 2007-01-19 13:06:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:06:29 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Gooble, gooble to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk,Tim Osborn ,s.busby@uea.ac.uk FYI >Reply-To: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu >X-Originating-IP: 24.190.22.57 >X-URL: http://mail2web.com/ >From: "drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu" >To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:35:31 -0500 >Subject: Gooble, gooble >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.2 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: + >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >*** Here is another attempt to send this email to you. Your email security >features appear to be working too well! > >Hello Prof Briffa, > >So nice to here from you! I see you are now Deputy Director. Soon the House >of Lords! Yes, I will review the paper for >you. I am a nice guy! > >Regarding the NZ paper, I assume you are referring to the one submitted by >Pavla, with me as a co-author, on her >pink pine South Island work: > >"The last 520 years of temperature fluctuations reconstructed from New >Zealand tree rings" by Pavla Fenwick, >Edward R. Cook and Jonathan G. Palmer > >I also asked her at one point why she never submitted a revised paper and >she ducked her head as if I was going to >hit her. A reflex due growing up touch in old communist Czechoslovakia, I >suppose. She admitted that she was too >nervous about the RCS work she did. It is clear now from Tom's work that >her RCS chronology was biased by the >inclusion of younger trees in the sample, so the positive trend in >temperatures reconstructed from the RCS >chronology, while probably there in reality to some extent, is probably too >large. Some such thing like that anyway. I >will be seeing her in a couple of weeks in NZ and will be happy to make her >duck her head again in reflexive >response to your query. The work she did was really quite good overall and >pink pine has a lovely temperature >signal. She even made some NZ gals cry when they were out in the >impenetrable high forest in frigid June coring >trees for her thesis. She told the "little girls" (roughly her words) to go >back to the car while she cored trees in near >freezing conditions. As I suggested above, she grew up touch in old >communist Czechoslovakia. She can also drink >most mortals under the table. > >Now on to Thanksgiving. Yes, of course, the three gentlemen and one scouser >are welcome to come over at that >time. The four of you are even welcome to join us for a fine Thanksgiving >dinner to honor the escape of the Pilgrims >from barbarous British rule. Indeed, your presence at the table would be >expected if not required. I would assume >that you will want to work on Tom's attempt to do the impossible. When Tom >and Ken Peters meet, it will be quite a >spectacle. Two of the smartest and most ill-equipped for society people on >Mother Earth. > >By the way, given the considerable generosity of my current state of mind, >I would ask you for an important favor. >Tom said that he and you have a paper on signal-free standardization ready >to go out the door. Please send me a >copy. I am extremely anxious to put it in ARSTAN and have asked Tom to send >me the code for doing it as well. >Please see if you can facilitate this process. > >Cheers, > >Ed >================================== >Dr. Edward R. Cook >Doherty Senior Scholar and >Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory >Palisades, New York 10964 USA >Email: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu >Phone: 845-365-8618 >Fax: 845-365-8152 >================================== > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 559. 2007-01-19 13:11:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa ,i.harris@uea.ac.uk, Nanne Weber date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:11:18 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: PDSI to: Gerard van der Schrier Dear Gerard, Let's discuss this more when you're here. I will be around. The PDSI paper (and the Penman part) will make a very good and well referenced paper. The whole issue of PDSI has come up in the chapter comments frequently. I reckon this paper will address all of these - so will be very useful for AR5 (presumably there will be one!). Can you use this as an argument? When I did the KNMI review some years ago the use by IPCC of references written by KNMI authors was a metric used. Whilst I don't think this is the best metric for research performance, it is widely used - the number of times we had comments (we ignored most by the way) saying reference these papers I've done, was startling! On the CRU High-Res dataset, Harry will have sorted out the problems of gaps, relaxing to zero anomaly etc which affected the Mitchell and Jones (2005) version. So I think we will be able to have real missing areas when there is no precip anywhere nearby. He's going to sort out the Sahara for example. Many of these are in areas where PDSI is likely meaningless anyway. Let's discuss this more in Feb. I'm away Jan23-Feb2 at the last IPCC meeting. I think I might know who the Dutch reviewer might be. Independently Albert has just sent me some comments from Geert van Oldenburgh. It might also be him as the comments are long the same lines. Cheers Phil At 10:19 19/01/2007, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: >Phil, > >Many thanks for the update. I haven't got a clue who the reviewer is you >complained about in the other mail. I think Albert is able to make an >informed guess, haven't discussed this with him though. > >About a new global PDSI dataset, or the "weighted" PDSI (no backtracking). >I agree that it would be very nice to have this dataset. With the Penman >parametrization. It should make a nice paper. > >The main problem is the lack of time. I have calculated the dataset I send >to Ed (and to Jurg Luterbacher: he was interested in PDSI for Northern >Africa) in the evening hours. Adding the Penmon parametrization, testing >the routines, comparing Penmon and Thornthwaite, doing the analysis and >writing the article will not be possible do in the evening. I need 3 >months for that (rough estimate). > >Nanne Weber and myself are trying to persuade the head of Albert Klein >Tank's department to find the funds for this. Nothing definitive on this >yet. Do you have any suggestions how we can twist his arm most effectively >(in case he is blind to the opportunity this provides)? > >I'll be at CRU on Feb 14th for teaching. Shall we discuss things then? > >There is also a technical concern: with the gaps replaced with, or >"relaxed" to, climatology in the CRU dataset, a possible problem in >applying the PDSI algorithm occurs (be it self-calibrating or not). Palmer >calculated "Climatically Appropriate For Existing Conditions" and PDSI >values are calculated as deviations from this. When the deviations are too >small, strange things happen. There are some other problems too, which I >haven't been able to trace yet. This results in a coverage with some >"gaps" , mainly over sparsely populated areas with rather extreme climates >as the Sahara desert or the Siberian Tundra. > >Cheers, Gerard >> >>> Gerard, >> I've been talking to Keith about PDSI and I showed him the >> figure attached. This is one from a Kevin Trenberth talk, so >> Aiguo Dai probably produced it. Don't pass this figure on. >> I talked to you earlier about the IPCC CH 3 and the comments >> we'd had on the drought section. These comments said one thing >> mainly. PDSI is no good because it calculates evap crudely. >> Harry will have a revised CRU TS soon - up to jun 2006. He will >> also have calculated Penman PET for each of the land squares. >> >> What I would want to see in a paper is the following: >> >> 1. Direct comparison of PDSI (with sc version) with Thornthwaite >> and Penman PET - to show it makes no difference. >> >> 2. Major PC patterns of scPDSI (now with Penman) >> >> 3. Like the ppt, showing the effect of temperature. Dai has >> got a bigger effect by - I think - basin the temperature on an >> earlier period (say 1951-80 as opposed to 1961-90). Is this >> effect too big? - probably >> >> Any paper will need a few new runs >> >> - with the new data >> - fixing T at some level (1951-80 or 1961-90). Latter better, but an >> earlier cooler >> level will enhance the temperature component >> - Penman instead of Thornthwaite >> - fixed T, so no temperature component (depends on the base) >> >> Perhaps we can discuss this over the coming few weeks. Harry >> should have all the data ready by the end of Feb. >> >> Need to et soils everywhere, but Keith tells me you have that and it looks >> good. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------- >Gerard van der Schrier >Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) >dept. KS/CK >PO Box 201 >3730 AE De Bilt >The Netherlands >schrier@knmi.nl >+31-30-2206597 >www.knmi.nl/~schrier >---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1751. 2007-01-19 15:00:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:00:26 -0000 from: "michaelc" subject: carbon dioxide to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, many thanks for your help over the temperature records. I wonder whether you can point me in the right direction over a problem I have - namely that I can't find any papers setting out evidence or proof that current and projected levels of CO2 actually do cause significant warming. I would be very grateful for a steer in the right direction. with kind regards Michael 3535. 2007-01-19 18:34:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: Aad van Ulden , "Klein Tank, Albert" date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:34:41 +0100 from: Geert Jan van Oldenborgh subject: Re: Precipitation trends statement IPCC 4AR SPM to: Phil Jones , David.Easterling@noaa.gov Dear Phil, David, thank you you for the figure, which clarifies a lot. Phil Jones wrote: > If you've just seen the SPM, then you will not know about a figure > within Chapter 3. These are figures 3.14 and 3.15. I'm not supposed to > send these out, so you got them from Albert. Don't pass on to > anyone else. > > So the SPM bullet points are based on these. There are also trend > maps by seasons for 1979-2005 and the year for 1901-2005 and 1979-2005, > and global land series time series for 1901-2005 from various databases > - many more than just GHCN and CRU. However, the reader of the SPM will not know these maps either, and assume something else from the names than you mean. Also you do not follow this consistently: "Western Africa" with a clear trend is arbitrarily replaced by the Sahel, with only a trend in the western half, and "Southern South America" is replaced by "eastern SOuth America". > We chose the regions in the chapter to show precip differently from > how it > had been done in previous IPCC reports. The regions were defined in a > paper > by Giorgi and someone else (from about 2001/2002) that is used in Ch 11 > (Table 11.1). Why are the regions not defined based on the signal? This way one groups together regions with and without trends (e.d., in the Mediterranean, with no significant trends on the European side). > The regions are large, take no account of rainy seasons or rainfall > regimes, > so they have very little climatological content. They use a lot of the > gridded > data though and there are some surprising similarities and dissimilarities > between them. We chose annual, as we only had space for one Figure. This seems like a wise choice, especially since some of the observed changes are shifts in the rain seasons, as in the southern African rain season moving backwards. A fixed window like JJA would show a decrease when in fact there is none. > Now the important point - the SPM. If you've read the SPM you'll have > noticed that hardly any country is mentioned. This is deliberate and we > refer to large regions. This is because we would likely not get the > text past > the govts in Paris the week after next if we were that specific. I agree that this makes sense, however, I disagree with choosing the regions first and making statements as if the observed trend applies to the whole region, rather than parts of it. The reader of only the SPM will conclude that rainfall has decreased everywhere in the Mediterranean, when in fact it has not in half; same with Central Asia, Eastern North America, etc. Coming back to some individual regions mentioned in the SPM I still do not understand most of the claims made in the SPM statement. 1) Eastern North America: your figure shows as well as my maps that a significant increase is only seen in the easternmost provinces of Canada. This should not be labelled "Eastern North America"; there is no trend in New York City and Washingtonn D.C. to name a few populous and politically important places, whereas to the reader this is implied. If this small a region cannot be mentioned it should be left out. 2) Eastern South America is not even defined in your figure. Southern South America is, with a clear trend in Fig 3.14 (which is much weaker in the GPCC data), but this is not included in the SPM. 3) There is a clear trend in northern Europe, but as we all know that it is only in winter and the summer has in fact an opposite trend, would it be possible to add the word "winter"? 4) The North Asian trend. Looking at the data from individual GHCN stations, almost all of them have lots of missing data around 1940, when the averaged series shows a big jump. What is the evidence that this is not caused by chances in the observing system? I find step function always quite suspect. The VasclimO dataset, which the authors claim has better homogenization, has a decreasing trend for the period 1951-2000! This does not seem the kind of certainty that warrants inclusion in the SPM. 5) I still see no significant trends in Central Asia except for 3 stations in the far west of China and in Russia (see plot). Do you want to make a sweeping statement "Central Asia is getting wetter" based on these three station series? Wulomoi shows 1.5 decadal cycle that imitates a trend, Dulan and Irtyssk have barely significant trends (p=0.04). There are many other stations with no trends. 6) I do not see an area labelled Sahel on your Figure in Chapter 3. Why is it then included here? The trend in the Sahel is only significant when you start late and finish early; rainfall has increased substantially again since 1995. Given the large decadal variability in the first half of the century, and the attribution to aerosols of the drought in the 1970s and 1980s, I would hesitate to call the remaining trend "significant". Also, it is only the western Sahel that has a trend, not the eastern Sahel. 7) In the Mediteranean there is only a significant trend in North Africa, there is no significant trend on the northern shores. The trend in the time series of Fig 3.14 is not very convincing by eye, it is much better if you take only the southern half, i.e., North Africa. Claiming the "Mediterranean" is receiving less rainfall as a whole is again misleading. 8) From your plot (and mine on www.knmi.nl/adrica_cenarios) I see very strong decadal variability in southern Africa, and no significant trend. We could just happen to have had a downward cycle near the end. What value for the autocorrelation was used to determine the significance of the trend? The judgement by eye agrees with the map, which does not show strong brown colours either. 9) From your map, this concerns Butan/Assam only; the rest of the subcontinent is getting wetter. I see why the restriction on naming countries causes problems here... In the GHCN dataset I find only one station with >70 years of data there with a significant downward trend, Darjeeling, and only a half dozen with >50 years between many more stations with no trend. Again, you are basing a very important statement on very little actual data, and this statement will doubtless be interpreted to mean that large parts of teh subcontinent are drying. I think it would be better to leave it out. To my great surprise "Western Africa" is included in Fig. 3.14, with a steep decline, but this is not mentioned in the SPM! Western Australia also shows up very clearly in the colours, but is ignored. Why? Because Giorgi used northern and southern Australia? So, in spite of the background information I still do not understand how this statement follows from the observations. Greetings, Geert Jan Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\time series per yr0.png" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Re Precipitation trends statem.png" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\time series per yr01.png" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\time series per yr02.png" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Re Precipitation trends statem1.png" 345. 2007-01-22 08:03:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:03:29 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Paris to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck, how is it going. Is your plan to distribute drafts of the paleo-presentation in Paris before we get there? Two other items. I have been asked by our environment ministry to take part in a press briefing in Oslo on Feb 2. This means I will not be present in the Paris press conf. leaving paleo-questions to you and Keith. Susan says this is Ok with them, but asked me to clear with you as well. I will arrive in the hotel around 9PM on Friday. Should we get together for a short rendez-vous then? See you soon.. Cheers Eystein ps. To the people here this is a sad day, after 86 days of having previp on every day, we have had a completely dry day, and did not set a new record.... _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [1]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no www.bjerknes.uib.no 2876. 2007-01-22 08:48:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: David Gallego , "Frits B. Koek" , konnen@planet.nl, Ricardo Garcia Herrera date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:48:06 +0000 (GMT) from: Dennis Wheeler subject: Re: New historical series and some post-CLIWOC results to: Phil Jones Dear David and Ricardo, This is a fascinating paper, made the more so because it is based on data from an area that I know and like very much. I have only a few comments to make: 1. air pressure: we discussed this generally at the time of the Carmona meeting and Rob Allen and I were both concerned that when you corrected for altitude, temperature and gravity the resulting corrections lowered the air pressure. On any reasonable basis, however numerically imprecise the adjustment might be, the consequence of the change should be to increase pressure. The allowance for height from 45m to sea level and temperatures down to zero C would both have this consequence, and I estimate a correction in the order of +2 degrees for most days. What effect would this different direction and magnitude of correction have on the record and its comparison with present day data? 2. wind force terms: it would be useful to include a table that summarises the overall frequency of the terms used. Was the vocabulary confined to fresquito, muy fresco,frescachon, recio and fuerte? If so it is different to the vocabulary used in the Fisica Celeste records kept in the early 1800s at nearby San Fernando also by naval officers (I have a complete set of these observations and think that I posted a copy to you Ricardo if not, let me know). I have copied below my table (only for September-October 1805 so its a small sample please note) of the correlation between the latter vocabulary and that recorded off-shore by the English blockading fleet. Notice how this Spanish set has categories for calma and flojo at the lower end of the scale and is similar to the 4 or 5 point scale widely used by landsmen across Europe at the time. These terms associate nicely with the English neo-Beaufort terms. It would be interesting to conduct a similar comparison with the Cadiz set. Im persuaded by your arguments that the Cadiz observer might be interested in gusts rather than in mean wind forces. For a harbour master this makes sense as it is such gusts that could create a risk for the vessel when in or approaching the Bay. Cadiz is a notoriously hazardous harbour to get in and out of even today and maritime manuals carry various warnings. Beaufort scale/ Cdiz term calms to light airs light breezes moderate breezes fresh & strong breezes moderate gales and above force 0-1 2 4 5/6 7+ calma 1 0 0 0 0 flojo 0 5 4 0 0 fresquita 0 5 3 6 1 recargada 0 0 0 2 2 3. Im not sure how far this can be done, but is there a possibility of cross-referring with the Urrutia brothers records? They have thrice data for wind direction (sunrise, midday and sunset), usefully summarised at the end of each year and there are some notes on wind force although the scale is difficult to interpret. I dont think that Mariano has used these observations, but I have the complete set here in Sunderland (copies of the original papers). Their scale is, if my understanding is correct calma, ventolino,flojo, fresco. But I havent worked with these data and this is just a first guess. I might be quite wrong but its another 4-point scale similar to that used in San Fernando and widely elsewhere. Your scale is certainly different and seemingly gusty in bias. In have attached, in case you havent seen them, a typical page from the Urrutia brothers documents. 4. More generally, Im inclined to agree with Phils observation that tower top observations might be a little different to those closer to the sea surface. This is not only because of the height differences but also because observations at sea have a different general setting to those over land where, even in Cadiz, boundary layers influences would be more marked. This is, however, more a matter for speculation I suggest rather than firm evidence. 5. Im working on the Cadiz Gibraltar data sets 1520 to 1850 but have only preliminary results. Working on my own with this sort of thing it takes time and number crunching can be time-consuming as we all know. But Im making progress and hope to report back soon. My general view is that Id have much more confidence in the Cadiz data for this period than with those from Gibraltar. The monthly means of the latter might look OK, but the daily obs give cause for some concern. I really have to get this written up for some small publication somewhere. Regards Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:58 pm Subject: Re: New historical series and some post-CLIWOC results > > David, > There isn't yet a paper on the Alpine/N Italian work, as that too > is ongoing. The possible change in the seasonal cycle is hinted > at in this paper. We're not quite sure where we are going with > the Alpine work. There is an overlap series from one site in > Austria, which suggests that exposure issues in summer are > not that important, but it is just one site. This uses the same > approach as in Manola's paper - measuring now with the old > screens/locations, but not the old thermometers. > The issue is hard to come to a firm conclusion. I've > attached another paper on the issue in Sweden. It seems there > and in the Alps the issue relates mostly to summers or the summer > half of the year. > > I'll leave Dennis to comment on the CLIWOC wind relationships. > My own view is that the comparison may not apply between > wind at sea and wind on the coast (at the top of a tower). Shouldn't > you reduce the wind speed from the tower to the height measured > or felt aboard ship. The tower was 12m on land , so would have an > effect of sea breezes. On ship the level may be 4-5m. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:13 16/01/2007, David Gallego wrote: > >Phil, Dennis, Gunther and everyone, > > > >Thank you for your inputs! > > > >Phil, I just received your email with the Manolas's paper. > Thanks! Up to > >now we could not compare our data with that of the Barcelona's > group (I > >don't have the IMPROVE CD). We already contacted Mariano > Barriendos and > >now we are waiting for his series. Hopefully within the next few > weeks we > >will be able to carry out some analysis. Our idea is to include > the > >comparison in the paper. > > > >Regarding the similar results for the Alpine region and Northern > Italy, is > >there any reference with these results already? I think it will > be > >extremely interesting to explicitly extend the area characterized > for > >warmer-than-average summers in the 1830s-1840s to southern > Europe. > >Unfortunately, we can't look at a continuous series for Cadiz. > Our > >reconstructions ends at 1852 and the present day data provided by > the > >national meteorology institute are rather discontinuous before > 1960...> > >Dennis, it's not in our paper, but we did some comparison with > the > >Gibraltar pressure series and at least, the monthly averages > seemed to > >agree quite well. We did not perform daily comparisons. > > > >All, regarding to the CLIWOC-relation, we are a bit concerned > about the > >"tone" of our discussion. We are not sure if it can be > interpreted as if > >the entire CLIWOC database is overestimated by a factor of 2 and > in fact, > >this result is strictly applicable to the Cadiz data (we?ll > include a > >paragraph to make this clearer in the final version). However we > don't > >know if some of the ideas in this new paper (measuring ?average > wind gust? > >rather ?average wind?) could directly affect the CLIWOC > estimations. From > >your experience along the CLIWOC process, do you feel we could be > >overestimating, in any way, the wind in the process from the > original wind > >descriptor to m/s? (in the sense of comparison with present-day > anemometer > >averages). Some evidence of change in the wind averages between > CLIWOC and > >COADS data was suggested in figure 3 in the NAO-SOI > reconstruction from > >the ?Climatic Change? CLIWOC issue, and in figure 2 in our SLP > >reconstruction based on CLIWOC data in ?Climate of the Past?. > > > >Cheers > >David > > > > > > > > > >Phil Jones escribi: > > > >> David, > >> Do you have the daily T and Pressure data for Cadiz > digitized by the > >> group in Barcelona? I was never that convinced by the homogeneity > >> analysis performed on the Cadiz series. This was very > difficult as there > >> were no other long T series for the early 19th century and > Gibraltar>> seemed to have some problems with pressure in the > 1820s-1850s. > >> I still think more can be done with Gibraltar, but this is > up to > >> Dennis or me finding some time, which is unlikely for a good few > >> years yet. > >> There were also many gaps in the Cadiz record as in > Climatic Change > >> in the pre-1820 period. Have you looked at the full record, > rather than > >> just > >> the 1825-52 period compared to 1971-2000. We see this longer > term warming > >> in winter further north in the Alpine region and northern > Italy. In these > >> regions there is little change in summer as well. What we > think is > >> happening > >> is that the summers are too warm in the earliest years, and > these should > >> also show some warming. This might be less than the winters. > >> I will show your paper to a visitor we have hear to get her > view as > >> well. > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >>At 10:30 10/01/2007, Dennis Wheeler wrote: > >> > >>>David, > >>> > >>>Thanks for this extremely interesting item and for all your > hard work. I > >>>will make a more complete response next week but I'm just about > to go to > >>>a conference in Hull and won't be back until the weekend. It's > good to > >>>know that CLIWOC is still alive. > >>> > >>>regards and best wishes for 2007 > >>> > >>>Dennis > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: David Gallego > >>>Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:13 pm > >>>Subject: New historical series and some post-CLIWOC results > >>> > >>> > Dear all, > >>> > > >>> > First we wish you a happy 2007! > >>> > > >>> > Despite we have not been in contact for a while, during the last > >>> > year we > >>> > have been working with some of the CLIWOC results. We found > a new > >>> > historical data source which provides instrumental > temperature and > >>> > atmospheric pressure along with estimated wind for the city of > >>> > Cadiz > >>> > between 1806 and 1854 (the initial year depends on the > variable).>>> > We > >>> > presented some preliminary results last November in the > MedCLIVAR>>> > workshop hosted in Carmona and now we got almost > definitive results. > >>> > > >>> > First, our results indicate that autumn and winter temperatures > >>> > (sunset) > >>> > in the city of Cadiz have risen about 2C in the last 150 years > >>> > (2.7C > >>> > in December), while summer temperatures do show almost identical > >>> > values. > >>> > Second, we applied the CLIWOC dictionary to convert the wind > >>> > estimates > >>> > in the port to m/s. > >>> > > >>> > The main result (apart of the fact that we could find direct > >>> > translation > >>> > for 99.8% of the terms found in the Cadiz archives) is that > while>>> > the > >>> > seasonal behavior is almost exactly reproduced, the CLIWOC- > >>> > translated > >>> > wind velocities are double than modern anemometer data. We > believe>>> > that > >>> > at least- when used in land-based sources, the use of the > CLIWOC>>> > dictionary can introduce a strong bias in the > translated wind > >>> > forces. > >>> > Please, find our proposed explanation in the attached draft. > >>> > > >>> > We have some concerns about the results and we will be > pleased if > >>> > you > >>> > could assist us with our interpretation, particularly about the > >>> > following issues: > >>> > > >>> > 1. What is your thinking about the surprisingly strong winter > >>> > warming > >>> > detected? Are there precedents for similar temperature > increases in > >>> > Europe? (Dennis: did you find somewhat similar for > Gibraltar?) To > >>> > our > >>> > knowledge, there is not published estimation of the urban > thermal>>> > island > >>> > effect in Cadiz but we think that for this city this effect > should>>> > not > >>> > be such strong. > >>> > > >>> > 2. The aprox. 2x factor in the wind estimation is applicable > at the > >>> > wind > >>> > conversion for the city of Cadiz. Do you think a somewhat > similar>>> > (but > >>> > probably of much lower magnitude) wind overestimation could be > >>> > affecting > >>> > the current CLIWOC database? Should the situation be similar > in the > >>> > German Maury collection? What is your feeling about this > finding?>>> > > >>> > 3. Any other comment will be welcome. > >>> > > >>> > Thank you, > >>> > > >>> > Regards, > >>> > David > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >>Prof. Phil Jones > >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >>University of East Anglia > >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >>NR4 7TJ > >>UK > >>----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > >> > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Urrutia Bros Feb 1829.jpg" 4924. 2007-01-22 11:33:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:33:52 -0500 from: Raymond Bradley subject: egu session to: Phil Jones do you have the titles of papers in cl28 or can I find them on a web site? ray Ray, Modified my little bit on this diagram - so thanks. It is worth looking at the 1996 IPCC Report. There is reference to B+J(1993) and the 1992 book and its second edition - as well as a number of papers from the Il Ciocco book. This was all written by Neville Nicholls, although I recall sending him some text. What this 2cnd report says is much better, even reading 10 years later, than what was in the 1990 one. I reckon IPCC (not sure who I really mean here) assumed that this superceded the 1990 report. Cheers Phil At 15:35 15/01/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil: I've made some edits and comments on the attached. More generally, I think you need to comment on the x & y axis scales as used by later authors. For example, in the figure used originally, it went through ~1950; the figure Stefan circulated used by German schools changes the same scale to 2000, thereby deliberately ignoring the recent warming. They also change the y-axis scale, I think. And nobody ever said if the original units were in F or C! I spoke to Jack Eddy, by the way. He has lung cancer but seems to be doing OK with chemotherapy, and he sounded pretty chipper. He said he did not recall where he got his Earth Quest figure, but it may have been from Tom Webb (see Global Changes of the Past, p. 61 on) or from Lamb. There is another side to this which you don't mention --the first attempt to expand by factors of 10, different so-called "global temperatures" was in the 1975 GARP report, Understanding Climatic Change. In that, for the last 1000 years they used Lamb's eastern European winter severity index. This version then got reproduced and further mangled in several later publications, as shown in Tom's chapter. I am as guilty as the rest--I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book! But I did say schematic...! I'm not sure why people think this is such a sensitive topic (vis a vis the IPCC). Apart from the fact that they had Chris Dork Folland writing the paleo section, the first IPCC was a good starting point, and we've clearly come a long way since then. Just because people refer back to that for their own purposes (ie Wegman) does not reflect on the IPCC process as it has evolved. Any day in Vienna is OK for me. I'll be there (with Jane) from Monday-Thursday (leaving Friday am). Look forward to getting together there.... Ray Raymond S. Bradley Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 < [1]http://www.paleoclimate.org> Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond S. Bradley Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 <[4] http://www.paleoclimate.org > Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [5]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [6]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html 762. 2007-01-22 11:46:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:46:01 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: EGU to: Phil Jones A non-truncated version attached. Tim At 10:26 17/01/2007, you wrote: > Tim, > > I gave a copy of this to Keith to look at >Monday > and had meant to send one to you, but forgot. > I also sent one to Ray Bradley. Ray commented > on several aspects one of which was the instrumental CET > curve. Have I got the figure caption description correct? > If you did extend the record with the last few years > and used our padding filter, would the light blue curve > be off the scale? > I don't want you to do this, but to tell me how high >it > gets - off the scale for example? > > Cheers > Phil > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipcc1990_vs_lambCET_nottruncated.png" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 3112. 2007-01-22 14:11:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:11:47 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: O&B 2006 to: Gerd Brger Hi again Gerd, regarding the filter settings, I thought the easiest thing was to send you the code I used -- it's in IDL language but probably simple enough to extract the key points even if you aren't familiar with IDL! I used it with "thalf"=20 years. Please don't forward this code on to any one else. Regarding correlations with temperature, we used whatever had previously been published, whether annual or decadal. But for those series (mostly from Esper) for which correlations weren't already published, we calculated our own. For these we used annual resolution, because that is obviously preferable for sample-size reasons. (In most cases, at least, annual time scale is preferable, but if you have a proxy that is not capable of resolving variations on that time scale, it would be unfair to expect it to do so). We could have calculated our own correlations for all the proxies we used, using annual time scale where appropriate. But our main purpose was to try our different analysis method with a similar set of proxies to those used by other studies, rather than to select a very different set of proxies and change the analysis method at the same time. Given that purpose, we accepted previously published correlations as evidence of probably temperature sensitivity of the proxies. Hope that clarifies things, Tim At 08:33 16/01/2007, you wrote: >Tim, > >I can now almost replicate the analysis, except for the exact filter >settings (esp., how many adjacent points for the ends?). > >With respect to proxy selection, why did you choose annual >correlations in some cases and decadal in others, the latter not >being easy to replicate. > >Ciao, > Gerd Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\filter_cru.pro" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 83. 2007-01-23 16:45:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jan 23 16:45:34 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Re Your PEP and ISA to: "Carey, Gerald" Gerald these are fine - go ahead when convenient thanks Keith At 15:47 23/01/2007, you wrote: Keith, I have already given suggestions some thought. YOUR PEP I suggest investing 6,000 in Henderson Eurotrust.This investment trust invests in large and medium sized companies in Europe which are perceived to be undervalued in view of their growth prospects or due to significant change in management or structure.The past performance record of the fund is good (+92.3% over the past 3 year period).The share price and gross yield are 499.75p and 1.2 YOUR ISA I recommend investing 2,800 in Pacific Horizon investment trust.The fund invests in the Asia Pacific equity markets excluding Japan which performed poorly since the end of 2005.The past capital growth record has been consistently strong(+99.8% over the past 3 years).The current share price and gross yield are 130p and 0.9%. I hope these ideas are helpful. Kind Regards. Gerald. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 23 January 2007 15:21 To: Carey, Gerald Cc: Sarah Raper Subject: RE: Re Your PEP and ISA Gerald I entirely agree about the need to invest the existing Pep/ISA cash balances and I await your suggestions . I will forward your message (with regard to investing in a current year ISA ) and we could then discuss this in the context of our overall situation when we all meet together in London. Thanks again Keith At 15:00 23/01/2007, you wrote: >Keith, >Neither yourself or Sarah have made a >subscription to your respective ISAs in the >current tax year. You both made a subscription >at the end of the previous tax year on 14 March >2006.You subscribed 6,000 cash and Sarah >subscribed 7,000 cash.It is these subscriptions >which account for the majority of the current >deposit cash balances in the ISAs. > >The tax advantages of ISAs ( and PEPs) have been >similarly chipped away at by the government in >recent years.The main change is that dividends >on shares now suffer Income Tax at 10%( tax on >bonds can still be reclaimed).Capital gains from >all investments remain exempt from Capital Gains Tax. > >Provided one pays Income Tax and/or there is >pressure on the annual CGT exemption ,PEPs and >ISAs remain worthwhile once the charges are >taken into account providing that the value of >the investments rises over a period of time.If >you do find you have spare cash outside the ISA >then,subject to the above comments,I would >encourage you to subscribe in the current tax >year.Any amount between 3,000 and 7,000 can be >subscribed.I am not sure if Sarah wishes to invest and has available cash? > >With regard the existing uninvested cash >balances in theISAs,under the Inland Revenue >rules which govern the plans we are not supposed >to leave subscriptions uninvested for too long.I >feel after 10 months the cash should be invested soon. > >Regards. >Gerald. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [<[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>[3]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 23 January 2007 13:49 >To: Carey, Gerald >Subject: Re: Re Your PEP and ISA > >Gerald >I would be interested , of course, to hear your >suggestions - I do not intend to leave any of the >money in my PEP or ISA accounts uninvested over >the long term. However, I have now realised that >neither Sarah or I have taken out ISAs for some >time , and certainly not this year (I believe) . >Given that I have just invested the cash outside >of these though, it might be difficult (or not >worth?) buying ISA anyway. What do you think? >thanks >Keith >At 11:41 23/01/2007, you wrote: > >Dear Keith, > >I have not carried out a review of the current > >investments in your PEP and ISA or made > >recommendations for investment of the cash on > >deposit.The deposit cash balances in your PEP > >and ISA are currently 8,665.47 and > >3,011.69.Would you like me to do so at this stage? > >Kind Regards. > >Gerald. > > > >Gerald Carey > >Divisional Director-Private Clients > >Tel:0845 213 3288 > >Fax:0845 213 3627 > >e mail:gerald.carey@brewin.co.uk > > > > > > > >Any views expressed in this e-mail message are > >those of the individual sender, except where the > >sender specifically states them to be the views > >of Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. > >This e-mail message and any attachment is > >intended only for and is confidential to the > >addressee. If you are neither the addressee nor > >an authorised recipient from the addressee > >please notify us of receipt, delete this message > >from your computer system, and do not use, copy > >or disseminate the information in or attached to > >it in any way. We do not accept liability to any > >person other than the addressee arising from > >such a person acting or refraining from acting > >on such information. Our messages are checked > >for viruses, but please note that we do not > >accept liability for any viruses which may be > >transmitted in or with this message. > >BREWIN DOLPHIN SECURITIES LTD > >A member of the London Stock Exchange, > >authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority. > >Regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) > >Law 1998 by the JFSC for the conduct of business in Jersey, > >and regulated in Guernsey by the GFSC for the > >provision of investment business. > >Registered office 12 Smithfield Street, London, > >EC1A 9BD. Registered in England. 2135876 > > > >23/01/2007 11:32:08 > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > ><[4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/>[5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/ briffa/ > > > >Any views expressed in this e-mail message are >those of the individual sender, except where the >sender specifically states them to be the views >of Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. >This e-mail message and any attachment is >intended only for and is confidential to the >addressee. If you are neither the addressee nor >an authorised recipient from the addressee >please notify us of receipt, delete this message >from your computer system, and do not use, copy >or disseminate the information in or attached to >it in any way. We do not accept liability to any >person other than the addressee arising from >such a person acting or refraining from acting >on such information. Our messages are checked >for viruses, but please note that we do not >accept liability for any viruses which may be >transmitted in or with this message. >BREWIN DOLPHIN SECURITIES LTD >A member of the London Stock Exchange, >authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority. >Regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) >Law 1998 by the JFSC for the conduct of business in Jersey, >and regulated in Guernsey by the GFSC for the >provision of investment business. >Registered office 12 Smithfield Street, London, >EC1A 9BD. Registered in England. 2135876 > >23/01/2007 14:51:32 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Any views expressed in this e-mail message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. This e-mail message and any attachment is intended only for and is confidential to the addressee. If you are neither the addressee nor an authorised recipient from the addressee please notify us of receipt, delete this message from your computer system, and do not use, copy or disseminate the information in or attached to it in any way. We do not accept liability to any person other than the addressee arising from such a person acting or refraining from acting on such information. Our messages are checked for viruses, but please note that we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted in or with this message. BREWIN DOLPHIN SECURITIES LTD A member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority. Regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the JFSC for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the GFSC for the provision of investment business. Registered office 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD. Registered in England. 2135876 23/01/2007 15:37:52 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4063. 2007-01-24 13:34:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:34:09 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173 to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk >To: "Quaternary Science Reviews" >From: Keith Briffa >Subject: Re: Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173 > >At 14:24 19/12/2006, Quaternary Science Reviews wrote: >>Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-06-00173 >>Title: Hemispheric changes of internal and forced variability >>recorded in regional climate - imprints of Medieval Warm Period, >>Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based >>temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe >>Quaternary Science Reviews >> >>Dear Keith, >> >>You agreed to review Manuscript Number JQSR-D-06-00173 for >>Quaternary Science Reviews on Oct 09, 2006. Your completed review >>was due by Nov 20, 2006. >> >>Your review is now 29 days late. Therefore I would be grateful if >>you would submit you review as soon as possible at the Elsevier >>Editorial System at http://ees.elsevier.com/jqsr/. Please login as a Reviewer: >> >>Your username is: KBriffa-255 >>Your password is: briffa5873 >> >>You may access the submission record in the "Pending Assignments" >>folder on your Main Menu page. Please click on the "Submit Reviewer >>Recommendation" link to submit your reviewer comments to the author and Editor. >> >>Thanks in advance for your cooperation. >> >>Kind regards and seasons greetings, >> >>Neil >> >>Neil Roberts >>Editor >>Quaternary Science Reviews >> >>****************************************** >>For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier >>Reviewer Support at reviewersupport@elsevier.com > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1358. 2007-01-24 17:58:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Klein Tank, Albert" date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:58:24 +0100 from: Geert Jan van Oldenborgh subject: Re: Precipitation trends statement IPCC 4AR SPM to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Geert Jan, > The bullet points come from Fig 3.14 not > from the maps. The time series show large area > averages. This is what the models give. I thought the models gave gridded output (Fig SPM-6), and we are discussing observations here, not model output. The boxes are not defined for someone just reading the SPM, without access to the full report that will be released much later. A reader will interpret the statement that the Mediterranean became drier as meaning that all of the Mediterranean area became drier. If you see on the map (not available to the reader of the SPM) that it only pertains to the southern half, why not make the more accurate statement that Northern Africa became drier? > To get every grid box in one of the regions > to all show the same sign of a trend is impossible. > We used the large regions to show the bigger picture > as I said earlier. I am not complaining about not all grid boxes having the same sign. I am complaining about the whole statement based one or two grid boxes in a large area, with the reader who is not yet immersed in Chapter 3 interpreting this as a trend in the whole area, when in fact this is not the case. Especially when the grid boxes have a much higher climatology this can easily happen. I am also curious why you left out the big trends in southern South America (shown explicitly in Fig 3.14) and western Australia. Is this because they are not in the model results? > Talk to Albert!!!!!!!!!!!!! He told me to contact you. Geert Jan 3890. 2007-01-25 09:51:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jerry Meehl , Jonathan Overpeck , Phil Jones date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:51:05 -0700 from: Caspar Ammann subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Recommended reading?]] to: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth Tom and Kevin, below the summary I just sent to a few realclimate folks for further comment. I will keep you posted on any additional information that is coming. Caspar Well, if I recall right the most recent 'venting' on climateaudit did go towards the hurricanes and sea level. Currently their site is not responding, and it might just be strategic... I would assume that they are going to launch a multi-pronged approach trying to undermine a string of arguments that are currently either in the chain to link to GHG forcing and/or that have one of the biggest impacts in the popular perception. Its going to be in their usual fashion: Stir up a lot of dust and move to the next thing before anybody can answer. In the end there is little left... Trying to interpret a priority list from my personal feeling of this guy. I do this based on a google-cash because his site is down or something. So here is my hunch/speculation. I'll see if I can get the document somewhere but I'm not very optimistic about this. By the way, I'm also going to forward this to Susan an few others that might have heard the rumor. Before I do send it to Susan, you might chip in on this list for "internal and IPCC use": - keeps bugging away about the HadCRUT3 data, looking at some individual grid cells. - stationarity in the climate system (see below; but my hunch is that they go for much larger real world variability than in most models, and thus there is a chance that its all noise; so their argument. Of course the space-time-geophysical process framework is much stronger, but at least this is a direction they might go; key is that models are only one way to do detection-attribution). - declining temperatures in Antarctica: inconsistent with polar amplification ... not sure if he knows that central Antarctica has no sea ice feedback, but more importantly what circulation changes can do (difference vortex inside and outside) - "Statistics of Rekordbreaking Temperatures": human landuse/heat island effect; also check this paper that McIntyre has been looking at (single point: Philadelphia and record breaking temperatures): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0509/0509088.pdf - hurricanes are a poisson process not driven by a systematic underlying forcing increase. - Arctic ice shelves: break off individual parts not unusual. Arguments might come that initial breakup started 1930s not now and "everybody" knows that it has been warm then when CO2 was low... etc. - Satellite record (Mears-Wentz and also Christy): Not uniform warming at all... he points out that S-Hem is flat. - solar: well one could only hope that he follows the so-idiotic-that-its-already-funny versions that Haemeranta is sending around. Sun is as active as never before, and then the predictions are for cooling... I think MM will try to simply say that solar contributions have been not well included and are actually much more important. By the way: Ammann et al. has now been accepted by PNAS, should have a say in the solar influence... - climate reconstructions 1 (the obvious and usual): key issues are bring proxies up to date, contamination of all reconstruction with bad data that is shared and thus all are wrong, secrecy in proxy data - climate reconstructions 2: Maybe the "bomb" is their claim of non-stationarity. Maybe they want to show that calibration on present day is tainted with problems, jumping on the bandwagon of VS that degrees of freedom are limiting stats. My answer of course is think physically and use time history... (some paper by Sonechkin, which really doesn't understand how field reconstructions work, but the stationarity issue is more difficult to blow off the table with arguments... maybe we should be prepared for that one). - climate reconstructions 3: Tree line and glaciers as indicators: It was "warmer" before so why bother now. My answer generally is that we have a GW signal of 30 years. If in medieval times there would have been current temperatures for the durations as it had in these times (different actual timing in different locations) then the so called signal of Medieval Warm Period would be much stronger. Currently almost nothing is in equilibrium. Glaciers are collapsing (mass!) not simply melting and the trees take many decades to change the tree line. - sneaking in papers into AR4 that were past deadline -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 1427. 2007-01-28 09:11:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 09:11:32 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: Re: info about upcoming documentary] to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Please see Monbiot's attached message. Do you have any further information about when Channel 4 might be planning to air this? Thanks in advance for any info, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Message-ID: <45BCAEE7.3070102@meteo.psu.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 09:10:47 -0500 From: "Michael E. Mann" Reply-To: mann@psu.edu Organization: Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: g.monbiot@mail.zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: info about upcoming documentary References: <380-220071028114545388@M2W016.mail2web.com> In-Reply-To: <380-220071028114545388@M2W016.mail2web.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear George, Thanks so much for your message, this one got through just fine. I don't have any idea when they plan to air this. The two messages I forwarded (the first from Durkin's assistant, the second from Durkin) are the only ones I received. All I know is that they were still prepared to shoot an interview when they contacted me a little more than a week ago. So I suspect this must be at least a month or more away from airing. Its possible that Phil Jones of UEA knows more. Phil mentioned to me that he had also heard from them months ago. Will double-check w/ Phil and get back to you w/ any information. Thanks again so much for pursuing this, Mike g.monbiot@mail.zetnet.co.uk wrote: > Dear Michael, > > for some reason my emails don't seem to have got through to you - I've been > having some problems with my server. Please let me know if you receive > this. I'm intending to mention Durkin's latest tomfoolery in my column in > the Guardian on Tuesday. Do you have any idea when Channel 4 intends to > broadcast it? > > With my best wishes, George > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: Michael E. Mann mann@meteo.psu.edu > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:17:33 -0500 > To: g.monbiot@zetnet.co.uk > Subject: info about upcoming documentary > > > Dear Mr. Monbiot, > > My previous attempts to reach you (through the Guardian and your > monbiot.com email) have failed, so I'm hoping this email address > (courtesy of George Marshall) does make it through. > > This has to do with a denialist-leaning documentary being filmed by > Martin Durkin for Channel 4 TV in Britain. I saw that you had written > about Durkin before in the Guardian, and was hoping that you might > potentially have some interest in exposing this latest disinformation > effort. > > I am forwarding messages from Durkin and his assistant, which I'm > forwarding separately. > > I hope to hear back from you. > > best regards, > > Mike Mann > > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3709. 2007-01-29 13:57:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:57:14 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: odd question to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Phil Jones Stefan/Phil, An NGO contact of mine had an odd question, and I was hoping you might know the answer. Were there any Israeli scientists involved as lead authors (or contributing authors if not) of AR4? thanks in advance for any info, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1432. 2007-01-30 01:27:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:27:32 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" Michael, Here is another reply as I wasn't sure the first one got through. I know the time is ridiculous, but I can't sleep. See below. Cheers Phil Dear Michael, I am in Paris at the IPCC meeting, which will last for rest of the week. I will be back in CRU on Feb 5, probably very exhausted. Im sending a reply this way, as I have had difficulty connecting to UEA, and the line keeps breaking. I have tried writing this email at least twice. I must investigate this as well when I get back. I would suggest you contact the Met Office, to get their view on the use of FOIA on this. If you email David Parker (david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk) he will give you the name of their contact on FOIA. This will be a worthwhile contact who may have dealt with more issues like this. The data requested are not on our site or theirs. What is there, as youve found out, is gridded data where we combine the station data, with marine data (which the Hadley Centre, Met Office only have) into a more convenient form the HadCRUT3 data set. As you have also realized, the volume of data is large. There are over 5000 stations, each having on average about 60 years worth of monthly temperature averages. I suspect this request is from a climate change skeptic who wishes to try and discredit me, by finding some bad data or bad stations which we likely shouldnt have used. The law of large numbers, however, means that the average is amazing robust to a few outliers. We have also spent years of effort trying to reduce these outliers to a minimum. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to exactly reproduce what we have with the Met Office jointly produced. There are two other files that they would need, which I can explain more about later. I will likely need some advice from UEA on this and also from the Met Office. The data have been collected over many years, and in come cases we have been given data from national met services (NMSs) on the proviso that we do not pass on the raw data to third parties, but we can use them in derived products such as HadCRUT3. Finally, Im not sure this data are mine to pass on. I do pass small subsets of the data onto fellow scientists, but never the whole dataset. None of the data are collected by us. We assemble it from what NMSs in all the countries provide over a system called the CLIMATE network. The Met Office have a link to this system, and send us the data once a month for scientific use. Almost all of it isnt British there are about 20 British sites the rest is from other countries. Variants on this dataset can be got from sites in the USA. These are the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC (called the Global Historic Climate Network, GHCN) and also from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder CO. Here it has a dataset number, which I can get when I am back. I hope this gives you a few things to get started upon. As you might have guessed this is probably not something I want to waste much time on. Almost all the funding for the work on developing these datasets has come from the US Dept of Energy. They are happy with me not passing on the station data, as we make the gridded products, which are much easier to use. Also the raw station data have been modified by use, and we dont still have the original data (as received, or as digitized by us in the 1980s). Cheers Phil > Dear Phil, > > > > The University has received a FOIA request as follows: > > "I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in > the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw > data for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead > author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate > Research Unit." > > > > I am the Science Faculty contact for FOIA requests and co-ordinate the > requests and responses with the University's FOIA officer (who is > located in the library). > > > > I have had a quick look on the web and have come across the Met Office > and CRU links to the data. I am guessing that these sites contain the > collated data rather than the data as requested by the enquirer (which > must be a massive data set). > > > > Met Office: > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/ > > > > CRU: > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ > > > > > > With FOIA requests we can point the enquirer to another website if the > information is in the public domain elsewhere. Is there somewhere that > the information which they have requested is available? > > > > The request may be what is called an "ill defined" request, in which > case we can go back and ask for clarification - I am guessing that on > this occasion it is a fairly specific request (but let me know if you > feel otherwise). We have a timescale within which we are required to > respond (by 22 Feb) - which can be lengthened if we require > clarification from the enquirer. > > > > If the information requested is not publicly available, what would be > the time and cost of us providing this? We can charge the enquirer if > it would take more than 18 hours to provide the information. We would > then respond that the information would be made available at a cost of X > and give them the choice of paying and getting the information or > redefining their enquiry or saying no. > > > > Sorry to bother you with this. If there is someone else in CRU who you > would rather I deal with please let me know. And do give me a call on > 3229 if you want to discuss this. > > > > Regards > > > > Michael > > > > > > Michael McGarvie > > Senior Faculty Manager > > Faculty of Science > > Room 0.22C > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich NR4 7TJ > > tel: 01603 593229 > > fax: 01603 593045 > > m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk > > > > > > > > 3526. 2007-01-30 09:43:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Nora Dennehy" date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:43:00 -0000 from: "David Shukman" subject: RE: Paris next week to: Phil, We may want to grab you for a very quick interview after the press conference. By the sounds of it, it's all very slow going. US? Saudis? David -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 29 January 2007 21:11 To: David Shukman Subject: RE: Paris next week David, I'm at the meeting and staying at the Hilton nr the Eiffel Tower. No idea when we will finish going thru the SPM. At the present rate it could be late. Leave a message at the hotel. I'll be at the press conference on Friday and then till I have to leave about 3pm to come home. Cheers Phil > Hi > > We'll be around in Paris on Thursday. > > Of all the rumours, I haven't heard your US one. I'd have thought the > opposite. The last draft I've seen was from October 27 so I imagine > things have moved on a lot. > > All the best > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 26 January 2007 16:03 > To: David Shukman > Subject: Re: Paris next week > > David, > I'm in Paris now and will be till Feb 2. > I've not got a mobile here, so look me up when you're around at the > meeting. The meeting will be quite hectic - we start with 2 closed > days tomorrow and Sunday. I've just signed up for a week of email at > the hotel, so email might be the best way to contact me till you arrive. > > We're not supposed to talk until the end of the meeting. There are > lots of rumours going around about what some countries want. The best > of these, if correct, is that the US wants the conclusions beefed up > - which is a complete change of their stance. > > Cheers > Phil > > > >> Dear Phil, >> >> I'm sure you're very busy but I'd love a quick chat if you get the >> chance. I'll be over in Paris from Wednesday to get ready for our >> coverage of the IPCC. >> >> Mob: 07713 265725 >> >> Many thanks >> >> David >> >> David Shukman >> Environment & Science Correspondent >> BBC News >> >> Office: +44 (0) 208 624 9048 >> Mobile:: +44 (0) 7713 265725 >> Fax: +44 (0) 208 624 9097 >> Email: david.shukman@bbc.co.uk >> >> Room 1260, BBC Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ >> >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain >> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically > stated. >> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. >> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in >> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. >> Further communication will signify your consent to this. >> >> > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. 1256. 2007-01-30 13:57:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:57:08 +0000 (GMT) from: Erik Buitenhuis subject: Action against climate change to: env.all@uea.ac.uk Turn everything off On February 1st between 7:55 p.m. until 8 p.m. Urgent: action against climate change On February 1st you can participate in the worldwide greatest action against climate change!!! Various environmental organizations are asking the peoples of this planet to hold 5 minutes of .silence.: Everyone should turn off all lights, electricity etc. between 7:55 until 8 p.m. to bring attention to other inhabitants, the media and politicians about the daily waste of energy. An act which takes only 5 minutes, which costs nothing, but shows the governments that climate change should be on the top agenda of world politics. Why this date? On February 1st the United Nations is publicizing the newest results and knowledge base on climate change. -- Curiously, peace time appeals for idividuals to make some small sacrifice in the rate at which they increase their standard of living seem to be less effective that war time appeals for individuals to lay down their lives. Richard Dawkins http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/green_ocean/positions/Buitenhuis/ UEA:0(044)1603-592648 BAS:0(044)1223-221347 3425. 2007-01-31 05:33:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Clare Goodess" date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:33:07 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Thank You to: "Rem" Ramzah, Thanks. I will reply when I have more time in Norwich next week. The IPCC meeting is progressing very slowly and we are likely in for some evening sessions today and tomorrow. The Malaysian delegate here is Wan Azli, so I've let him know you have passed and also had some conversations with him. In the meantime, best regards and more next week. Phil > Dear Phil & Clare, > > I would like to say thank you for all the supports and guidance > throughout my PhD process -- from the beginning, until everything is > finally completed. I know that the process took longer (and probably > more complicated) in my case as compared to how it typically should have > been. For this, I'm very grateful that both of you had been there to > keep motivating and pushing me. I don't know how to put it in words -- > to show my appreciation because both of you had, patiently, put up with > all the hassles. > > The entire experience has been truly rewarding for me -- in terms of > learning process. And I honestly have to say here that regardless of how > the final outcome may have turned out --- I would still treasure the > experience as very enriching (in all aspects of my life). I'm glad that > I've eventually earned the degree, but even if I hadn't --- having the > opportunity to work with both of you (and being associated with a > reputable centre like CRU) is still a precious experience. > > Looking back at the ciurcumstances (and I'm not only referring to the > death of my father at the most critical moment -- but also, all the odds > against me right from the beginning) -- I'm still shocked and couldn't > believe that I eventually made it. I guess, the main reason behind this > almost-improbable achievement, apart from the very effective supporting > system in CRU (not only technically, but emotionally and spiritually -- > e.g. everyone there had been very empathic during my 'hard times') is > because of the faith that both of you have in me. Without these, I could > have easily gived up long time ago. > > Thank you very much, and please send my gratitude to everyone in CRU -- > especially Mike Salmon who had done so much for me (and all the other > PhD students). I will definitely do my bits in promoting UEA, and > especially CRU to Malaysian students (who are interested to further > their studies abroad). > > Ramzah > > > > > > --------------------------------- > The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address > from your Internet provider. 792. 2007-01-31 05:39:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:39:58 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: An alternate SPM !!! to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, n.gillett@uea.ac.uk Tim, Nathan, I'm trying to send the attachment, but speeds are not that great. If this doesn't get thru then contact Caspar Ammann for a copy. This is from the Canadians (McKittrick et al). It is sort of opposite to the proper SPM - highlighting all the uncertainties. They are scheduling a press conference for London on Feb 5, so may be worth alering Annie, but once you've scanned it you'll see that it is likely best to just refer any press to the true SPM. Evening sessions likely today and tomorrow. No it is virtually certain, certain is virtually certain. Cheers Phil Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\McKitrickSPM.pdf" 3616. 2007-02-01 13:59:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Juckes , anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:59:11 +0000 from: Nanne Weber subject: Re: mitrie: revision to: Tim Osborn Hi Martin, started to look at your replies. Below follow my suggestions for the reply to referee 1. I think that it could be more precise and also stress more that we do present new results (this person is over-presumptuous about the Jones/Mann and Mann papers, which are purely review and repeat each other). I was also wondering about Tim's point. Just 1 referee is below CPD standards. What did the editor say? That is all for now, Nanne Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Martin -- will look in detail at this soon. I looked on COPD and > could find comments from only one solicited reviewer and no feedback > from the editor, plus a number of unsolicited comments. Did you get > more reviews and/or editors comments directly to you? Apologies if > you did and already circulated them, but I couldn't find them on COPD > or in my email. With regards climate2003.com, I suspect this may be > just temporary downtime as it has disappeared at times in the past > only to subsequently re-appear. I don't think it's worth making much > of an issue over it. Cheers, Tim > ============================================================================== REPLY to referee #1. The format is point of criticism, followed by reply to that point. 1) First of all, in my opinion this paper does not provide much new results Sections 2 and 3 are purely intended as reviews of recent reconstructions and the criticism of the IPCC consensus, respectively. As such, they do not contain new results. We do take a line of approach which is different from earlier reviews by Jones and Mann (2004) and Mann (2007) and for this reason our review is included in the paper. In section 4 we compare the impact of varying methods versus varying data collections. We are not aware that this issue is covered by the review papers of Jones and Mann (2004) and Mann (2007) or in any other published study. 2) Actually the introduction until page 20 is quite interesting and gives a nice overview, however, also here there is not much new. It does possibly not need to be so as it should be a review. See reply to 1) 3) The authors selected two reconstruction techniques and compared them with each other. That choice is arbitrary and the results and interpretations are not convincing. What are the arguments that one method should be used in favor of the other? The two selected methods (inverse regression and scaled composites), or variants thereof, are used in all reconstructions considered except those based on low-resolution records alone (HPS2000 and OER2005). Scaled composites is used by JBB, ECS, MSH and HCA (?), inverse regression by MBH (?). A trawl through a sample of text books on statistical theory will reveal a huge range of potential techniques, some of which are listed by the reviewer. However, they have not been used in NH temperature reconstructions up till now and therefore we do not discuss (or evaluate) them. The two reconstruction techniques represent different assumptions about the quality of the data. This needs to be explained more clearly in the manuscript (change [1] below). In our comparison it appears that, for millennial reconstructions, the simplest technique, which makes the smallest number of assumptions about the data, works best. What about filtered uncertainties??? 4) The second related point to check whether a specific method seems to perform 'better' would be to use coupled paleo runs. There are two 1000 year long runs which can be used. The difficulty with using model paleo runs to test the method is that we do not have a comprehensive predictive model of how the proxies respond to temperature. Such tests typically model the proxies by prescribing a linear dependence on temperature and adding random (white or red) noise. Reality is clearly more messy. There are, however, important issues which can be addressed with such paleo runs (see eg Mann, 2007). As explained in the Appendix, it is possible to construct a situation in which one or the other method is optimal. 5) I suppose, the authors show annual averaged temperature data? That is not clear. Further, I have my doubts about the choice of the predictor data in the new union reconstructions. Yes, we show annual averages (now clarified in the introduction). What about the choice of predictor data??? 6) Other issues that might be worth addressing are: Sensitivity to the calibration period, whether to detrend or not as well as the color of noise related to the model data. We do not aim to address all issues involved in millennial temperature reconstructions. That would indeed be repeating work that has been done by others (and references are given in our paper). Sensitivity to calibration period: we refer to one sensitivity test, extending the calibration period to 1985. This issue has been dealt with in more detail in a paper by Zorita, Gonzalez-Rouco and von Storch which is now accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate. 7) It would also help if the authors could come up with some recommendation concerning the use of those methods for different applications. Also, how do those methods perform if, like in the case of Moberg et al. (2005, Nature) proxies with different temporal resolutions are combined? Could the authors say anything about the methods that aim at sub-hemispheric reconstruction, resolve seasons and other climate parameters such as rainfall? We do give a clear recommendation on the choice of method (eg in the abstract). What about the combination of high/low resolution proxies??? We do not intend to talk about sub-hemispheric reconstructions or rainfall reconstructions in this study. There is clearly valuable work being done in that direction. 3600. 2007-02-01 17:46:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:46:13 -0500 from: "Peter Mayes" subject: Very likely, eh? to: "Phil Jones" Phil - Oh! that's really strong language for the IPCC to use. I'm shocked! Pete 872. 2007-02-02 12:34:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:34:31 -0000 from: "Ogden Anne Ms \(MAC\) k319" subject: Guardian story - URGENT - please ring to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\) f028" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\) f023" Dear Phil and Keith, The EDP are following up the story in today's Guardian about scientists being offered money by the AEI to write reports critical of the IPCC report. Dave V is quoted in the Guardian article. See: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html The EDP understand from Dave that people at UEA may have been approached in this way. Is this true - and, if so, are you willing to confirm and comment to the press? Be grateful if one of you could give me a ring urgently. By the way, it's going well media-wise this end. At last count, Nathan was doing 5-Live Drive (we have another story on tonight too - about cloning the smell of the sea), Sky, LBC, the Guardian - and Newsnight! Tim is doing Capital Radio, but got bumped off Channel 4 by Blair... Mike Hulme is also doing Sky (at a different time) and has done World Service. He got bumped off Today prog by Blair too. More later, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Communications Manager University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press ............................................ 5317. 2007-02-02 16:32:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:32:57 +0800 from: K L Wong subject: Reducing Emissions to: "'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'" Dear Phil, I am KL Wong, President of an investment group in Hong Kong. I read with great interest an article published in The Guardian (and republished here in Hong Kong) on 15 December 2006 that quoted your views on climate change. The reason I am writing to you is simply to let you know of a particular palm-oil based product made in Malaysia which I believe is revolutionary, and which if used on a wide scale, could significantly reduce emissions levels in the world. Essentially, this product (called "XXL") is a 'cracking catalyst' that works on a nano level to break the hydro-carbon chains in fuels into shorter chains, thereby enhancing the quality of the fuels. This improvement in the fuel quality results in more complete combustion, which in turn results in reduced emissions (which as you know is caused by incomplete combustion), by up to 60%. Very significantly, sulphur levels are also reduced - a lab test done recently in the Philippines showed sulphur reductions of 8%. And the icing on the cake for all this is that, because of the more complete combustion caused by the fuel quality enhancement, the power generated is also increased, and there are fuel savings as well (less fuel needed). The intrinsic qualities of palm oil also gives a detergent/cleaning and lubrication effect on the engine. Please note that this is NOT an additive, but a catalyst which becomes ONE with the fuel (you will find no trace of the substance after insertion). Also, unlike most additives, this product is 99.99% natural (based on palm-oil). Please see the attached ppt for more information if you are interested. This product was developed by a team of scientists in Malaysia after 16 years of research, but it has not been marketed very well (scientists sometimes do not make very good marketers!). I was therefore wondering whether you might know of any prominent institutions or government bodies in the UK (or even elsewhere) which may find this product interesting. If so, I would be more than happy to send some samples over for it to be tested, and for the claims to be verified. If you like the product and have your channels, you may even wish to be an official/unofficial agent for this product when the time comes. In any event, I hope to receive your feedback on this product when you have a spare moment. Thanks and regards, KL <> ------------------ KL Wong President Softbank Investment International (Strategic) Limited 5/F SBI Centre 56 Des Voeux Road Central Hong Kong Email: kl.wong@softbank.com.hk Direct: (852) 2155 2627 Fax: (852) 2155 9896 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\XXL for Fuel Blender - 2007Jan.ppt" 3699. 2007-02-05 14:59:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 5 14:59:47 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: short visit from Russia to: "Short visits" Dear Elizabeth I hope I have now accepted this correctly. Thank you for the notification and help best wishes Keith At 16:22 26/01/2007, you wrote: Dear Professor Briffa, You have not yet accepted the short visit funding for Dr. Vladimir Shishov from Russia, offered on 11 August 2006. Payment cannot be made until we have received your formal acceptance. You should log into e-GAP using your email address and password. Then: click My applications click view application click Offers (left navigation bar) then formal offer If you accept the award, you are required to: enter the actual sum claimed provide a unique reference code (This should be obtained from your finance office and will be used to identify the payment for your award along with your name) If you would like to decline the award, please enter 0 under actual sum claimed and click decline. Please note any awards not claimed within the required period may be withdrawn. Many thanks, Elizabeth Tinsley International Grants Officer Tel: +44 (0)20 7451 2559 Fax: +44 (0)20 7451 2543 web [1]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk The Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Registered Charity No 207043 The Royal Society - excellence in science ****************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this e-mail. -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 112. 2007-02-05 20:13:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.] to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , "Raymond S. Bradley" , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report, first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email:mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Return-Path: X-Original-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Delivered-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:53:07 -0800 (PST) From: Curt Covey Subject: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc. To: Christopher Monckton , Fred Singer Cc: Jim Hansen , mann@psu.edu, Clifford Lee In-Reply-To: <20061229145211.611FC1CE304@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com> Christopher and Fred, Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the above-referenced subjects. It is indeed striking that IPCC's estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario (not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have taken a pass on Hansen's argument. The IPCC says their estimates are "excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is lacking." In this one respect (sea level rise) I agree with today's Journal editorial that the science is not yet settled. Unfortunately, the editorial runs completely off the tracks thereafter by (1) comparing 2006 vs. 2001 surface temperatures, among all the 150 or so years on record, and (2) asserting a "significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003" based apparently on one published data-set that contradicts all the others. It is not appropriate to cherry-pick data points this way. It's like trying to figure out long-term trends in the stock market by comparing today's value of the Dow with last Tuesday's value. Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann's without showing alternates. Phil's Jones' data was also available at the time. Focusing so exclusively on Mann was unfair in particular to Mann himself, who thereby became the sole target of criticism in the Wall Street Journal etc. It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last year's NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so. Of course, like any good scientist Mann argues that his methods get you closer to the truth than anyone else. But the bottom line for me is simply that all the different studies find that the rate of warming over the last 50-100 years is unusually high compared with previous centuries. Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says on Page 8, "Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in [pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . ." The wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph. If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation -- and would appreciate seeing both Christopher's report mentioned in the Journal editorial and Fred's comment on Rahmstorf's article published in Science last week. Best regards, Curt Christopher Monckton wrote: Dear Mr. Covey - Many thanks for coming back to me so quickly. You mention Hansen's recent papers. I have recently been looking at an (attached) earlier projection of his - the projection of temperature increase which he made to the US Congress in 1988, effectively starting the "global-warming" scare. Updating his graph shows that annual global mean land and sea surface air temperature is not rising anything like as fast as his attention-grabbing but now manifestly-misconceived Scenario A suggested. Indeed, it is beginning to look as though temperature is beginning to fall below his estimate based on CO2 having been stabilized in 1988. Morner, the world's leading authority on sea level, has been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC's sea-level projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996 report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely defines whatever t he IPCC says as the "consensus", then not only does the "consensus" not agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics. As to future world population, I did some research on this several years ago, because the UN was making alarmist noises and this alerted me to the likelihood that we were being fed political propaganda masquerading as science. I learned that the prime determinant of dP in any population is the general level of prosperity in that population. As prosperity increases, dP tends to zero. The prosperity factor is many times more potent as an influence on dP than even enforced, artificial contraception or child-killing. Since I expect world prosperity to increase in the coming century, I regard it as near-certain that dP will tend to zero in the next half-century. The reason for the plummet thereafter is the widespread availability and use of artificial methods of birth-control. The combined effects of rising general prosperity and the general availability of artificial birth-control on depressing indigenous population are already discernible in all those Western European populations not having to cope with mass immigration from poorer countries. In Russia, the indigenous population is falling so fast that Muslims will soon form more than half the population. As to the "hockey-stick" problem, the NAS report does state very clearly that, though the conclusion of Mann et al. is "plausible", evidence going back more than 400 years before the present is increasingly unreliable, and that very few reliable conclusions can be drawn if one goes back more than 900 years. This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses: but anyone with diplomatic knowledge of the fast-emerging, fast-growing fast-polluters such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil will tell you that the ruling regimes in these countries will not try to prevent their people from enjoying the fossil-fuelled economic growth we have already enjoyed unless and until the science is honest, the uncertainties are admitted and the case is strengthened by the accumulation of measurements and the improvement of analytical techniques in the coming years. Finally, you are right to take me to task for using words such as "rubbish" and "useless". I apologize. That said, a validation skill not significantly different from zero indicates that no valid scientific conclusion may be drawn from the "hockey-stick" graph. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curt Covey" To: "Christopher Monckton" Subject: Sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc. Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:05:51 -0800 (PST) Dear Dr. Monckton, Thanks for copying me on your correspondence with Fred and prompting me to look again at IPCC sea level rise estimates for 2100. I agree you are comparing like-for-like. The 2001 report has an upper limit of 0.7 meters for the A1B scenario. If the 2007 report lowers this to 0.43 meters (or if the number gets raised again before the report is made final) it will certainly be appropriate to ask why. After reading Hansen's recent papers, I don't see how to justify such small upper limits. It also seems obvious to me (and apparently to you but not to Fred) that the A2 scenario would entail more sea level rise than A1B. Regarding the relative likelihoods of scenarios, I don't agree with you that it's "almost certain" that world population will "plummet" in the second half of this century. Regarding the issue of recent vs. earlier global warming, when I look at the totality of data compiled by North et al. this year for their NAS / NRC report (see attached graphic), it seems clear that most of the warming since about 1850 (or 1900) occurred in recent decades. Going farther back in time, the data are of course more uncertain and estimates vary, but it appears that the warming rate for the 20th century was unusually high compared with the past 2000 years. This conclusion follows whether or not one includes Mike Mann's data. For the record, I must add that I do not share your characterization of Mann's work as "rubbish" or "useless." Nor do I see a situation of "flagrant dishonesty in which the UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme claims has been properly demonstrated." Sincerely, Curt Covey Christopher Monckton wrote: Dear Fred, - Many thanks for sending me this exchange. Some comments: Temperature: This question, like so many others to do with supposed "climate change", is bedevilled by the recency of reliable, instrument-based observations. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be attempted. The Dalton Minimum is generally considered to have come to an end in 1910. The five-year mean global land and sea surface air temperature anomaly for 1908-1912, calculated from NCDC annual figures, was --0.3579K. By 1940 there had been a rapid increase of 0.4700K to +1121K. By 2004 (again taking the five-year average, including 2006) there had been a further increase of +0.4413K to +0.5534. The mean annual increase in the 30 years 1010-1940 was thus 0.0157K more than two and a quarter times greater than the 0.0069K mean annual increase in the 64 years to 2004. Mean global temperature has hardly risen at all in the five years since the IPCC's last report. And the fact of the 20th-century temperature increase tells us nothing of the cause. It is interesting, for instance, that the polar icecaps on Mars are receding, inferentially in response to increased solar activity. At any rate, it is certain that anthropogenic planetary warming is not responsible. It is possible, therefore, that most of the warming both before and after 1940 was heliogenic. Sea level: Your correspondent does not disagree with my statement that the IPCC has revised its upper-bound estimate of sea level rise to 17 inches (0.43m). He says, however, that this upper bound is based on the A1 scenario, by which world population will peak in mid-century at ~9bn and fall thereafter. So was the 2001 report's upper bound of 0.88m. I was correctly comparing like for like. The Sunday Telegraph, which reported these figures, has been told that the revisions arise from "better data" now available to the IPCC, supporting skeptics' conclusions that the IPCC's figures are little better than exaggerated guesses. Morner (2004) concludes firmly that there is little evidence for sea level rising any faster now than it has in geologically-recent times. Your correspondent says that the A2 scenario is "business-as-usual": in fact, it is an extreme scenario regarded by very nearly all serious demographers as absurdly unrealistic, in that it posits an increase in world population to 15bn by 2100, when it is now almost certain that rising prosperity and the consequent decrease in birth rates will cause population to peak somewhere between 9bn and 10bn in mid-century, and plummet thereafter. Reliability of the IPCC's reports: I understand that the IPCC's 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero". In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus". The supposed scientific "consensus": Your correspondent seems unaware of the letter written by 61 Canadian and other scientists in climate and related fields to the Canadian Prime Minister. At the end of the attached commentary on Al Gore's recent attempt to rebut my articles on climate change in the Sunday Telegraph, beneath the references, I have appended the full text of the letter and the names, qualifications and then-current affiliations of all 61 scientists. Al gore and others tend to lean rather more heavily than is wise upon a single, rather bad one-page essay in Science for their contention that there is a scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was anthropogenic. The essay was by Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928 abstracts mentioning "climate change" published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the "consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some 12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117 articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes"; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his had been widely reported on the internet, his paper would not be published. As far as I can discover, Science has not published any corrigendum to this day, providing further confirmation of what I have long suspected: that the leading peer-reviewed journals, having unwisely taken strongly-political editorial positions on the question of climate change, are no longer objective. The need for honest science: It was only after years of increasingly-public pressure that Nature was induced to oblige Mann et al., the authors of the useless "hockey-stick" graph that starred in the IPCC's 2001 report, to publish a mealy-mouthed, partial and unsatisfactory corrigendum. In such an environment of flagrant dishonesty in which the UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme claims has been properly demonstrated, it is in my view unreasonable to expect China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-polluting countries to deny to themselves the fossil-fuelled economic growth which we in the West have been fortunate enough to enjoy. Until there is honest science, no one will believe either the UN or the journals to the extent of adopting the expensive and (on my calculations) probably futile remedial measures which they and their supporters so stridently advocate. - Christopher ----- Original Message ----- From: "S. Fred Singer" To: "Curt Covey" Subject: Re: Belated response to "Say You're Sorry" Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:37:25 -0500 At 07:15 PM 12/18/2006, Curt Covey wrote: Received your 5 May 2006 e-mail via Andy Revkin last week. Regarding the Wall Street Journal and "other forums that substitute quips, showmanship, hyperbole, and conjecture for substantial discussion," the following recent quips from their Letters to the Editor may interest you: Fred Singer's claim (13 December) that "more than 70% of the warming observed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2." Fred has been saying this for a long time. I think it was true 20 years ago. Up-to-date records (e.g. this year's NAS report from North et al.) show that much more than half the warming since c.1850 has occurred after 1940. Dear Curt, I am sure you are aware of the fact that such ratios depend entirely on the choice of time intervals. I don't want to quibble but surely the relevant fact is that most agree (incl IPCC -- but not Tom Wigley) that the pre-1940 warming was mostly due to natural causes. Lord Monckton's claim (13 December) that "The U.N. [presumably IPCC] is about to cut its high-end estimate of sea-level rise in 2100 from three feet to just 17 inches." We are not supposed to discuss IPCC reports before they become final, but the last draft I saw does indeed project 17 inches (0.43 meters) of sea-level rise as the high-end climate model estimate from Emissions Scenario A1B. The scenario itself, however, is one in which (to quote IPCC) "global population peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies" has atmospheric CO2 leveling off by the end of the century. A business-as-usual scenario (like A2) would give much higher sea-level rise by 2100. I don't think so. But you will have to read my forthcoming response to Rahmstorf (in SciencExpress). Meanwhile, peruse the attached. Senator Inhofe's comment today (18 December) that "60 scientists" together with "Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist who is a member of both the U.S. and French National Academies of Sciences" have concluded that agreements like Kyoto are "unnecessary" because "the cause of global warming is 'unknown.'" Presumably true, but so what? Allegre is an award-winning geochemist; the other 60 scientists are unidentified. There are tens of thousands of members of the American Geophysical Union alone (many of whom are petroleum geologists). I'm sure you can find a few hundred to support any claim you want to make about global warming. I am one of the 60 -- and I am sure you know most of the other 59. Best for 2007! Fred S. Fred Singer, President Science & Environmental Policy Project 1600 S. Eads St, #712-S Arlington, VA 22202-2907 Tel: 703/920-2744 [1]http ://[2]www.sepp.org Read about what is really causing warming Unstoppable Global Warming : Every 1500 Years (Natural climate cycles as seen in the geological record) by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery Rowman & Littlefield (2007) 260 pp. $25.00 plus $5 S&H Send tax-deductible donations to SEPP << Supreme arguments2.doc >> -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com << nrc_2006_figS1.jpg >> -- ______________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. [3]Get started! Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\covey_glwarm_Feb07.pdf" 38. 2007-02-06 13:10:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:10:48 +0100 from: "D.HISTAGEO - Manola Brunet-India" subject: Re: did you turn off power ? :-) to: Phil Jones Hola Phil, Be careful and don't eat chicken or turkey meat and keep away of farms in Suffolk ;-) I was looking on Sun at Climate Audit web site and I got really upset ! How it is possible that "intelligent" people dedicate their time and energies to audit scientific work and not to work in a more positive way for making real scientific analysis and contributing to push science and knowledge ahead. There are really miserable attitudes among these sceptics! They could use money coming from i.e. Exxon and make reliable contributions ;-) Anyway, their consciences and not the ours will have to respond before thousand of humans beings affected by our changing climate! Here all media have intensively tracked IPCC's meeting and SPM release. It has been the main news on TVs and newspapers, and all of them highlighted menaces related to a warming world. Nothing about sceptics! Our left-ring governments are on the side of the standard IPCC science! In this regard, I am optimistic as this morning had a long chat with the current sub-director of our Met Office in charge of climatological issues and reached an initial agreement to work together in putting actual data in the instrumental context. I'll try to get some kind of official agreement for collaborating on this following your agreement between the HC and CRU. Any clue/advise on this? [[[redacted: chitchat]]] 2217. 2007-02-06 14:27:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:27:39 +0100 from: Gerd Brger subject: Re: O&B 2006 to: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa Hi Tim & Keith, I have just submitted the attached technical comment to Science. I wonder if it is not too technical to be accepted. It will definitely throw me into the camp of contrarians, a place where I had never dreamt to be. Anyway, I wanted to say thanks especially to Tim for his very productive cooperation. And I hope you find some scientific value in it. Ciao, Gerd Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ob.pdf" 4352. 2007-02-06 16:25:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:25:43 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Your renewal proposal to: "Phil Jones" Phil, Things are moving, but slowly. The house approved an omnibus appropriation, still awaiting the Senate approval. House mark for DOE is couple hundred million less than the President's budget. Don't know final numbers yet. The current CR ends Feb 15. If we have an appropriations by then, we will have a DOE FY 07 budget, however it will take time before it trickles down to program budgets. Regarding the status of your proposal, it now lies in Chicago Operations. They have the final expending authority. All we program managers do is recommend an award be made. Right now Chicago is waiting for the CR to be lifted. My recommendation lies in the queue there. It may take a while for things to straighten, even after the CR is lifted. There is a 90-day pre-award spending that Univ of East Anglia might grant you at their discretion, but given the uncertainty in start date, not sure they will be inclined to do so since it's not clear action on this will be completed within the next 90 days. I wish I could be more helpful. Feb 15 we will know if the CR is continued (further delay at Chicago) or we have appropriations (translating to program budgets and Chicago acting on pending action items). It'll be nice to get first-hand impression of the Paris meeting from you, perhaps at the IDAG next month. I watched on C-SPAN and recognized faces. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:16 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: Your renewal proposal Anjuli, I heard whilst in Paris last week, that some parts of the US Depts will soon be off continuing resolution including DoE. Is this correct? If so when do you reckon you might be able to issue a new contract? I hope you are all pleased with the IPCC outcome. Those of us there were very happy, even if completely exhausted at the end of the week. The US wasn't the problem - concerns mainly came from China. Best Regards Phil At 00:55 16/12/2006, you wrote: >Phil, > >Thanks to your email response to the reviewer concerns. I believe you >have given careful consideration to the issues raised by them. I'm >recommending an award at the requested level. I look forward to >continued contributions to CCPP from your team. > >There is further processing and approvals that need to take place. I'm >going to be on annual leave Dec 18-Jan 12, so I'm requesting Wanda to >keep the paperwork moving.(Thanks Wanda, file is in Karen's inbox). > >We are still on Continuing Resolution and don't have FY 07 program >budgets yet. We don't expect to receive these in the near future. I >hope this will not affect renewals. I'm not sure what an extended CR >implies. > >Happy holiday season and best wishes for the new year. > >Anjuli Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 1765. 2007-02-07 10:31:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:31:10 -0000 from: "Janice Darch" subject: Re: RE: Your renewal proposal to: "Phil Jones" HI Phil, This is worrying in terms of staff contracts . Do you have any other funding for David Lister? If not I must start redundancy proceedings ,which I'm loathe to do but I am also duty bound to do. Janice _____________________________________________________________________________ Dr J. P. Darch Research Manager School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel :+44 (0)1603 592994 Mobile:+44 (0)7796932595 Fax: +44 (0)1603 592535 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:28 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: Your renewal proposal > > Janice, Clare, > Here's the latest news on the USDoE renewal. I'll > be seeing Anjuli in the US the week of March 11-13 so > will check again then. > > Not sure what the language means below. > > Cheers > Phil > >>X-Server-Uuid: 87BB9E4A-4151-4022-A858-5442C0A5AC6D >>Subject: RE: Your renewal proposal >>Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:25:43 -0500 >>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>Thread-Topic: Your renewal proposal >>Thread-Index: AcdKDXgE0lVxII8yReKWaFU9SGWSqgAA8phg >>From: "Bamzai, Anjuli" >>To: "Phil Jones" >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2007 21:25:43.0620 (UTC) >> FILETIME=[5BBD4040:01C74A35] >>X-WSS-ID: 69D62DDD2C41056565-01-01 >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >>Phil, >> >>Things are moving, but slowly. The house approved an omnibus >>appropriation, still awaiting the Senate approval. House mark for DOE is >>couple hundred million less than the President's budget. Don't know >>final numbers yet. >> >>The current CR ends Feb 15. If we have an appropriations by then, we >>will have a DOE FY 07 budget, however it will take time before it >>trickles down to program budgets. >> >>Regarding the status of your proposal, it now lies in Chicago >>Operations. They have the final expending authority. All we program >>managers do is recommend an award be made. Right now Chicago is waiting >>for the CR to be lifted. My recommendation lies in the queue there. It >>may take a while for things to straighten, even after the CR is lifted. >> >>There is a 90-day pre-award spending that Univ of East Anglia might >>grant you at their discretion, but given the uncertainty in start date, >>not sure they will be inclined to do so since it's not clear action on >>this will be completed within the next 90 days. >> >>I wish I could be more helpful. Feb 15 we will know if the CR is >>continued (further delay at Chicago) or we have appropriations >>(translating to program budgets and Chicago acting on pending action >>items). >> >>It'll be nice to get first-hand impression of the Paris meeting from >>you, perhaps at the IDAG next month. I watched on C-SPAN and recognized >>faces. >> >>Anjuli >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:16 AM >>To: Bamzai, Anjuli >>Subject: Re: Your renewal proposal >> >> >> >> Anjuli, >> I heard whilst in Paris last week, that some parts of the US >> Depts will soon be off continuing resolution including DoE. >> Is this correct? If so when do you reckon you might be able >> to issue a new contract? >> >> I hope you are all pleased with the IPCC outcome. Those of >> us there were very happy, even if completely exhausted at the >> end of the week. The US wasn't the problem - concerns mainly >> came from China. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Phil >> >> >>At 00:55 16/12/2006, you wrote: >> >Phil, >> > >> >Thanks to your email response to the reviewer concerns. I believe you >> >have given careful consideration to the issues raised by them. I'm >> >recommending an award at the requested level. I look forward to >> >continued contributions to CCPP from your team. >> > >> >There is further processing and approvals that need to take place. I'm >> >going to be on annual leave Dec 18-Jan 12, so I'm requesting Wanda to >> >keep the paperwork moving.(Thanks Wanda, file is in Karen's inbox). >> > >> >We are still on Continuing Resolution and don't have FY 07 program >> >budgets yet. We don't expect to receive these in the near future. I >> >hope this will not affect renewals. I'm not sure what an extended CR >> >implies. >> > >> >Happy holiday season and best wishes for the new year. >> > >> >Anjuli >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>---- > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3660. 2007-02-07 11:46:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:46:20 -0000 from: "Sykes, Chloe" subject: Ralph Cicerone Lecture to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Dear all As you will be aware, following day 1 of next month's IPCC discussion meeting here at the Royal Society (Thursday 1 March), there will be a dinner for all speakers, chairs, organisers and panel members. The aim of the dinner is to provide an opportunity for more informal discussion about the findings of the report and to give policy makers the opportunity to meet some of the authors of the report and other scientists active in the field of climate change research. The dinner will be preceded from 6.30-7.30pm by a keynote public lecture to be given by Dr Ralph Cicerone, President of the United States National Academy of Sciences, entitled How humans cause global climate change. I would be grateful if you could please confirm your attendance at this dinner and also let me know if you would like to attend the lecture beforehand. Could I please also remind you that abstracts for the meeting are due by 16 February 2007. I look forward to meeting you all next month. With best wishes Chlo Chlo Sykes Events Officer tel: +44 (0)20 7451 2575 fax: +44 (0)20 7451 2543 web [1]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk The Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Registered Charity No 207043 The Royal Society - excellence in science Royal Society events are often broadcast on the web. Visit the video archive at [2]www.royalsoc.ac.uk/live to watch lectures and debates featuring David Attenborough, Bill Bryson, Jared Diamond and many others. ****************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this e-mail. 5046. 2007-02-08 13:23:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:23:24 -0000 from: "Alexandra Woodsworth" subject: Invite - new climate action group in Norwich to: ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Invite - new climate action group in Norwich From: "Rising Tide Norwich" Date: Wed, February 7, 2007 8:40 pm To: norwich@risingtide.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please forward far and wide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Norwich Rising Tide - Taking Action to Stop the Fossil-Fuelled Madness First meeting: 27th February, 7pm Fed up with watching governments and corporations fail to take serious action on climate change? Uninspired by sending 3 a month to Charity X, but not sure where to put your energy? Want to help build just, sustainable solutions here and now? Then come to the first meeting of Norwich Rising Tide! Be part of a national network committed to taking creative direct action against the root causes of climate change, and promoting local, community-run solutions to our energy needs. For five years, Rising Tide groups around the country have taken action to prevent airport expansion, end oil industry sponsorship of the arts, stop construction of dodgy BP and Shell pipelines, start construction of urban community gardens and much, much more. We all know its time to act, so come along to kick-start an energetic new group that can help bring about the radical change thats needed. First Meeting: When - Tuesday 27th February, 7.30 - 9.30pm Where - The Greenhouse, 42-46 Bethel Street, Norwich, NR2 Contact - norwich@risingtide.org.uk, 07961 917535 More Info www.risingtide.org.uk/norwich Be part of a Rising Tide for Climate Action! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2044. 2007-02-08 19:00:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:00:19 -0600 from: Marty Hoffert (by way of Michael Schlesinger) subject: Samuelson: The Dirty Secret About Global Warming to: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu Bob: You have the guts and honesty to say what many climate/energy researchers and science reporters know but scarcely dare to utter: "The Emperor Has No Clothes." (cf. your piece below.) We six billion Homo sapiens are going boldly forth into the uncharted waters of this century with very little "on the shelf" to address the most disruptive energy technology challenge since we left East African savannas a hundred thousand years ago. The challenge of building a sustainable energy infrastructure capable of running high tech civilization at 50 to 100 terawatts, a level required for equity of the world's population at a western lifestyle, and at the same time achieving phaseout of CO2 emissions by midcentury -- the objective global warming mitigation problem -- is so daunting many fear even speaking of it will paralyze the masses. This is a huge job. Don't expect to work around global warming and keep civilization's business as usual by "adaption" without an energy revolution either. Most adaptation paths -- building seawalls, massive indoor air conditioning, irrigation previously rain-fed agriculture in drought regions -- require massive amounts of energy. Is it better to live with the delusion that solutions are at hand? There have, of course, been prior forecasts of civilization's collapse as its life support systems break down; as did happen, for example, on Easter Island and other places. But the moral of "The Boy who Cried Wolf," isn't that there is no wolf. The moral is that we should not be lulled into thinking the wolf won't come because he hasn't so far. We scientists and engineers optimistic enough to think the problem is doable, but hard, even if we disagree on specific approaches, believe the problem can be solved if we face it as an objective problem of planetary engineering; a discipline that we will need, but one that doesn't yet exist. In light of the historic failure of experts to predict which technologies will succeed, and which will fail, and on what time scales, a big danger is prematurely ruling out approaches that could work. We have to research and develop on a great deal of innovative ideas and test them, some of which might seem "crazy," knowing in advance that many will fail. Our guide has to be scientific plausibility, which gets back to education (see below). In any case, technology evolution is like biological evolution insofar as both need mutations. Most mutations fail in the battleground of natural selection. But without them evolution stops. Our best chance for a hopeful outcome from the crunch ahead in is to treat the climate/energy challenge as a war of survival in which failure isn't an option. Anyone who thinks we can muddle though should think again. If we believe our magnificent civilization, built upon the ideas of the Enlightenment and the scientific method, is worth saving, even with its evident flaws, a civilization on which we stand, in the words of Newton, on the shoulders of giants, we've got to stop dissembling about our technological readiness to solve the climate/energy problem. We have to stop saying technical solutions are here; that they basically exist, without defining what "exist" even means. It's brain-deadening to say "Cap and Trade," or carbon taxes alone, will solve the problem, because it distracts from the question of where carbon-neutral primary power will come from capable of running civilization. We simply don't have the luxury of scientific illiteracy, particularly of leaders, who in the US tend to have legal, not scientific, education, when science and technology underpin our very existence. It was precisely the belief that creative accounting trumps creative engineering that characterized the Enron Ponzi scheme. What's really scary is the thought that Kenneth Lay may have really believed he had a business plan. Economics in its predictive mode is closer to astrology than to the hard sciences. Much of it's predictions are ideological delusions (some of my best friends are economists, really)! Tell that to Harvard MBAs. To survive, we will need to educate ourselves about how the life support systems that sustain us on planet Earth work, and how they could work, to run high tech civilization without savaging the remaining nonrenewable energy resources and precious biodiversity legacy of Earth. Is there a chance in Hell this complex message can be conveyed to the public and to legislators? That appropriate R & D policies can be put in place with inspired and competent administrators in time to be serious options for the next Presidential election? If so, the media will be crucial (the reason for this cc. list). And kudos again to you Bob Samuelson, along with a few others who are media heros in my book. You know who you are. On that happy note: Cheers, Marty Hoffert Professor Emeritus of Physics Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics Room 525, Mail Code 1026 4 Washington Place New York University New York, NY 10003-6621 NYU Phone: 212-998-3747 NYU Fax: 212-995-4016 Home Phone: 516-466-9418 Home Fax: 516-487-0734 Cellphone: 516-972-4779 Email: marty.hoffert@nyu.edu Web page: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:34:44 -0600 From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Samuelson: The Dirty Secret About Global Warming To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu Original-recipient: rfc822;mih1@mail.nyu.edu http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17025081/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ MSNBC.com Samuelson: The Dirty Secret About Global Warming From politicians to the corporate world, everyone's talking about saving the planet from disastrous climate change. But for now, it's just talk. By Robert J. Samuelson Updated: 10:40 a.m. MT Feb 7, 2007 Feb. 7, 2007 - You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-an international group of scientists-concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand. Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which-in all modern societies-buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming. Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior. Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2 emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009. Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth-lowering poverty, fostering political stability-to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity. Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renewables" (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise. Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches, though the connection is unclear. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises from seven inches to almost two feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, frequent flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps). I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and trade." It's environmental grandstanding-politicians pretending they're doing something. Companies would receive or buy quotas ("caps") to emit carbon dioxide. To exceed the limits, they'd acquire some other company's unused quotas ("trade"). How simple. Just order companies to cut emissions. Businesses absorb all the costs. But in practice, no plausible "cap and trade" program would significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices. Neither outcome seems likely. Quotas would be lax. The program would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would also be a bonanza for lobbyists, lawyers and consultants, as industries and localities besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment. Hello, influence-peddling and sleaze. What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries-rich and poor-to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change. Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2 emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes. It's a debate we ought to have - but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17025081/site/newsweek/ 2007 MSNBC.com 3617. 2007-02-09 08:50:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 9 08:50:19 2007 from: Tom Melvin subject: Vlad to: sjf@ires.cn Jiangfeng, Vlad Shishov in on a three month visit to CRU and he mentioned you. We will be working on tree ring/climate relationships, discussing with Keith the possibilities of future collaboration, and also playing some table tennis. Tom Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 4436. 2007-02-09 09:39:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: no-cost extension to: "Phil Jones" Then I won't call. I may have more info by Feb 15. -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:34 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: no-cost extension Anjuli, There is probably no need to call. Knowing by April will be good enough. If you want to call then it is +44 1603 592090. The issues here are that UEA has little spare cash at the moment, and a few years ago an email from you saying it is coming would have been fine, but now it isn't. We can discuss more at IDAG, which is only just over 4 weeks off and you might know more by then. Cheers Phil At 14:04 09/02/2007, you wrote: Do you want me to call you to discuss? Please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Bamzai, Anjuli Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:14 AM To: 'Phil Jones' Subject: FW: no-cost extension Phil, There is still time for your current award to end. We hope Chicago will do the award by May 1. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Carlson-Brown, Karen Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 7:29 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: no-cost extension Anjuli, this grant is still in the third year of funding, and doesn't end until April 30, 2007. The start date for his renewal is May 1, 2007. There is no reason to request a no cost extension due to the CR. the grants are being awarded as CH receives funding, and he still has 2-1/2 months before his end date. Karen Carlson-Brown [1]karen.carlson@science.doe.gov 301-903-3338 fax: 301-903-8519 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Bamzai, Anjuli Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:19 PM To: Carlson-Brown, Karen Subject: no-cost extension Is there a website that the PI can be referred to. Phil Jones/Univ E. Anglia wants a no-cost extension. Their Office of Sponsored Programs doesn't seem to have done this before. Renewal is stuck at Chicago Ops because of CR. Anjuli Anjuli S. Bamzai Program Manager Climate Change Prediction Program SC-23.3 Germantown Building US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585-1290 (301) 903 0294 (voice) (301) 903 8519 (fax) For Courier Services: US Department of Energy SC-23.3 19901 Germantown Rd Germantown MD MD 20874-1290 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1400. 2007-02-09 10:42:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:42:55 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: Re: long European PDSI records to: Keith Briffa Keith, OK. Will try to get something acceptable by coming tuesday. I've compared the Wigley & Atkinson data a little better with the scPDSI for Kew. Turns out that the correlation between the records is -0.68. The PDF of scPDSI is nicely normal, that of the Wigley&Atkinson data not. About the IPCC chapter 3 conclusions: you're referring to conclusion that the increase in drought over Europe due to global warming? Sure, if possible I'd like to stay with you. If there is no bed to spare, then I'd be equaly happy to book a B&B though. Cheers, Gerard > basically yes - with the necessary caveats of course - also have you > looked at the IPCC Chapter 3 conclusions? Are you happy to doss at > mine next week? > Keith > > At 12:49 08/02/2007, you wrote: >> Hi Keith, >> >> About the paper on the long PDSI records for Europe: did I understand >> correctly that you'd like to see the spatial reconstruction back in >> the paper? >> >> Cheers, Gerard >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Gerard van der Schrier >> Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) >> dept. KS/CK >> PO Box 201 >> 3730 AE De Bilt >> The Netherlands >> schrier@knmi.nl >> +31-30-2206597 >> www.knmi.nl/~schrier >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/CK PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 3091. 2007-02-12 12:41:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:41:57 -0800 from: "Peter H. Gleick" subject: Integrity of Science testimony at Senate Hearing to: pgleick@pacinst.org Dear Friend and Colleague, In case you missed it, I submitted written testimony at last Wednesday's Senate Commerce Committee hearing on climate change and the integrity of science: [1]http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/20070207.html. Follow the links on that page to the actual testimony. Sincerely, Peter Gleick Dr. Peter H. Gleick MacArthur Fellow President Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security 654 13th Street Oakland, California 94612 510 251-1600 phone 510 251-2203 fax 20 Years of Research for People and the Planet: 1987-2007 [2]www.worldwater.org (World Water site) [3]www.pacinst.org (Pacific Institute site) 3579. 2007-02-13 08:39:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:39:24 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: I'm not taking overall slowness as any guide/leeway for me personally. I want to get a draft to Caspar within a week if at all possible. THere really seems to be the possibility of a sea-change here in the US with the release of the IPCC SPM (AR4). There is overall readiness in the populace. I am more hopeful in this way than in many years. Time will tell -- one way or the other! Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tue 2/13/2007 5:20 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder Gene, The paper is progressing slowly. I have bits on coral and will get ice cores soon. I have something from Mike, but nothing else so far. I am trying to push people here - Keith and Tim - but having little success. Mike has tried to chivvy Gavin and Caspar, but I haven't seen any results yet. Cheers Phil At 23:25 12/02/2007, you wrote: >Hi Phil: > >Just to let you know that I've been working away on the 6.1 section. >I've been seeking to set up a relatively formal test protocol, somewhat >similar to what an engineer would develop. This focus has turned out >more difficult than I expected, although I still think it is the correct >way to proceed, as there are many branches that should reasonably be >followed, each with their proper nuances also. > >I expect to get a draft to the co-authors soon. > >Peace, Gene > > >******************************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred NY, 14802 > >607.871.2604 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:17 AM >To: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; >Eduardo Zorita; jan.esper@wsl.ch; Janice Lough; Juerg Luterbacher; Keith >Briffa; Tim Osborn; Ricardo Villalba; Kim Cobb; Heinz Wanner; Jonathan >Overpeck; Michael Schulz; Eystein Jansen; Nick Graham; Francis Zwiers; >Caspar Ammann; Michael E. Mann; Gavin Schmidt; Sandy Tudhope; Wahl, >Eugene R >Cc: Williams, Larry; Thorsten Kiefer >Subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder > > Dear All, > I spent some time over the weekend adding pieces of text from >people. > I've also just got some text from Mike Mann. I've added the text on >corals from > Janice, and also text from Juerg on European documentary sources. The > latter is probably too long. Mike's text is there, but not >co-ordinated >in yet. > > Main aim of sending is to show that some progress has been made, >and to > spur the rest of you into action. > > Cheers > Phil > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2000. 2007-02-13 09:07:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:07:24 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Second Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173 to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk >From: "Quaternary Science Reviews" >To: >Subject: Second Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:55:08 -0000 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2007 22:55:08.0845 (UTC) >FILETIME=[5D775DD0:01C73E78] >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.2 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: + >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-06-00173 >Title: Hemispheric changes of internal and forced variability >recorded in regional climate - imprints of Medieval Warm Period, >Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based >temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe >Quaternary Science Reviews > >Dear Keith, > >You agreed to review Manuscript Number JQSR-D-06-00173 for >Quaternary Science Reviews on Oct 09, 2006. We last sent a reminder >to you on Dec 19, 2006. > >Your review is now seriously overdue and this is a final reminder. >Therefore I would be grateful if you would submit your review as >soon as possible at the Elsevier Editorial System at >http://ees.elsevier.com/jqsr/. If this is not received within the >next two weeks, I will be obliged to remove you from the review >process for this paper. Please login as a Reviewer: > >Your username is: KBriffa-255 >Your password is: briffa5873 > >You may access the submission record in the "Pending Assignments" >folder on your Main Menu page. Please click on the "Submit Reviewer >Recommendation" link to submit your reviewer comments to the author and Editor. > >Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > >Kind regards, > >Neil >Editor >Quaternary Science Reviews > > >****************************************** >For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier >Reviewer Support at reviewersupport@elsevier.com -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 168. 2007-02-14 13:43:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:43:55 -0000 from: "Carey, Gerald" subject: RE: to: 'Keith Briffa' Hi Keith, Thank you.I have sold 1,984 Scottish Power @ 771.666p for proceeds of 15,074.20.The profit is 7,245. For reinvestment,I suggest investing 6,000 in European Assets Trust which invests in medium sized companies across developed European countries excluding the UK.The managers have consistently achieved an impressive growth record and a high distribution policy enables a dividend yield of over 5%.The share price is 10.32. Inclusion of the fund would increase the exposure to European equity markets across your portfolio;PEP and ISA to about 6% which is more appropriate. I also investing 6,000 in BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace)where the removal of the uncertainties over Saudi Arabia orders for Eurofighter caused by the SFO investigation( which allegedly might have involved the Saudi royal family)now leaves the way clear for a re rating of the shares.The share price and gross yield are 441.75p and 2.69%. I am not sure if you are willing to invest in China but ,if so,I suggest investing 6,000 in Gartmore China Oportunities Fund?The economic development of China seems set to contiue at high pace.The price is 424.28p. I also suggest investing 6,000 in UK Commercial Property Trust which invests for growth and income from a diversified portfolio of UK commercial property.The gross yield is over 5% and the outlook for the sector remains attractive.The tenants are high quality giving a very low risk profile to the rental income coming into the fund to finance the dividends.The share price is 102p. These recommendations,therefore,total 24,000.In addition to the sale proceeds of Scottish Power we have recently received 8,679 from the cash takeover of your former holding of AWG.The total cash figure available is 26,751.04. I hope these ideas will be helpful.I will be very happy to discuss any of them in more detail if you wish or to put forward alternatives? Kind Regards. Gerald. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 February 2007 12:40 To: Carey, Gerald Subject: Re: At 11:32 14/02/2007, you wrote: >Dear Keith, HI Gerald >I have now sold 700 JP Morgan Fleming Mid Cap in your portfolio @719p >for proceeds of 4,919.86 and purchased 960 shares in the fund in your >ISA at 722 p at a cost of 6,970.86. >The procedure is that I transfer the sale proceeds plus 2,080.14 from >the deposit cash balance of 2,325.40 in your portfolio to your ISA to >fund the full 7,000.The excess of 29.14 is added to the deposit >balance in your ISA.I trust this is OK? Fine >On a separate matter,your PEP includes a holding of 1,984 Scottish >Power.As I am sure you know,Spanish utility has made a recommended take >over offer for the company .The terms are .1646 Iberdrola share and 400 >p in cash for every one Scottish Power share.Based upon the Iberdrola >share price of 23.36,the terms value Scottish Power at about 784 >p.This compares with the Scottish Power share price of about 772 p in >the market.The 12p differential reflects the expected timescale before >acepting shareholders would receive the shares and cash.The basic offer >is accompanied by a mix and match facility under which shareholders can >elect for all cash or all shares( or loan notes for those with a CGT >problem). >We like Iberdrola as a company.All options under the offer are quite >attractive.The difficulties,though,are that one would receive an >allocation of Iberdrola shares only about one half of the size of the >current Scottish Power holding and which would be expensive to sell if >one ever wanted to sell under the basic offer.Under the elections for >all cash or all share,these are subject to the wishes of all other >shareholders and one may not get all the cash or all the shares elected >for. >Scottish Power shares have performed very well and have risen even >further in response to the bid.The profit on your holding is about >7,250.I suggest the cleanest option is to sell them in the market.The >proceeds would be about 15,000 after dealing expenses.The gains are >CGT exempt of course being in a PEP.If you agree,I will be pleased to >put up reinvestmnt suggestions? Please sell and your suggestions for reinvestment are welcome - thanks Keith >Kind Reagrds. >Gerald. > >Gerald Carey >Divisional Director-Private Clients >Tel:0845 213 3288 >Fax:0845 213 3627 >e mail:gerald.carey@brewin.co.uk > > > >Any views expressed in this e-mail message are those of the individual >sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the >views of Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. >This e-mail message and any attachment is intended only for and is >confidential to the addressee. If you are neither the addressee nor an >authorised recipient from the addressee please notify us of receipt, >delete this message from your computer system, and do not use, copy or >disseminate the information in or attached to it in any way. We do not >accept liability to any person other than the addressee arising from >such a person acting or refraining from acting on such information. Our >messages are checked for viruses, but please note that we do not accept >liability for any viruses which may be transmitted in or with this >message. >BREWIN DOLPHIN SECURITIES LTD >A member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The >Financial Services Authority. >Regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the JFSC for >the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the >GFSC for the provision of investment business. >Registered office 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD. Registered in >England. 2135876 > >14/02/2007 11:23:14 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Any views expressed in this e-mail message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. This e-mail message and any attachment is intended only for and is confidential to the addressee. If you are neither the addressee nor an authorised recipient from the addressee please notify us of receipt, delete this message from your computer system, and do not use, copy or disseminate the information in or attached to it in any way. We do not accept liability to any person other than the addressee arising from such a person acting or refraining from acting on such information. Our messages are checked for viruses, but please note that we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted in or with this message. BREWIN DOLPHIN SECURITIES LTD A member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority. Regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the JFSC for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the GFSC for the provision of investment business. Registered office 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD. Registered in England. 2135876 14/02/2007 13:34:15 3111. 2007-02-14 15:13:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Tim Lenton'" , date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:13:33 -0000 from: "Andrew Watson" subject: Re: re; IPCC and RAE to: "Jacquie Burgess" , I'd agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual scale. But the "big climate picture" includes ocean feedbacks on all time scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the question of how the climate will change in many decades time. Cheers Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Jacquie Burgess To: [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk Cc: [3]'Andrew Watson' ; [4]'Tim Lenton' ; [5]c.lequere@uea.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:23 AM Subject: re; IPCC and RAE Dear Phil, Andy, Tim and Corinne, I came across the following comment in New Scientist Editorial this week - you probably saw it (?). A quote from Kevin Trenberth (US NCAR) saying we want seamless predictions that can go from weather forecasts, through predicting the ocean processes behind variables like El Nino and Atlantic hurricanes, right up to the big climate picture. Just a query - how close would we be to being able to deliver that? Jacquie Jacquie Burgess Centre for Environmental Risk School of Environmental Sciences UEA , Norwich NR4 7TJ tel: (0)1603 593129 fax: (0)1603 593739 [6]www.uea.ac.uk/env/cer 2978. 2007-02-14 17:26:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: DAARWG.NCDC@noaa.gov, Tom Adang , Rick.Vizbulis@noaa.gov date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:26:22 -0500 from: "Bruce A. Wielicki" subject: Re: Teleconference summary to: Ferris Webster Ferris et al: Sorry I missed this telecon but I read through the minutes. I agree with the summary but with one serious concern: the document attached summarized: At the moment, CLASS is still focused on large arrays. It must evolve into an enterprise solution. To achieve that, an enterprise statement of requirements must be developed, rather than simply organizational statements of requirements. Since the original motivation or CLASS was making NOAA able to handle new large data storage commitments like NPOESS, I am puzzled on why CLASS should be expanded to an enterprise solution for all NOAA data sets. We clearly saw that the diversity of NOAA types of data is shockingly diverse. Developing a one-size-fits-all "enterprise" solution seems like the wrong way to go. It is likely to be very expensive, very complex, very inflexible, and will please no one. Since the original congressional logic was dealing with new large data volumes: it seems to me that the focus of CLASS on large data sets makes perfect sense. As the "Death March" book reminds us: 80% of the functionality comes from 20% of the requirements. Pick the big new problem (NPOESS) and do it right. It won't be well suited to fish guts data or to individual surface site temperature records: and thats a GOOD thing. From the outside it looks like CLASS is way underfunded in NOAA to even do that one thing: large satellite data sets. If that was the original motivation, and that is the tallest pole, and funding is very tight: there are only two things to do: spend all the money on a glorious architecture that will never be built (death march), or triage the requirements down to the really critical thing that must be done. If CLASS is successful, build on and extend it. I think congress is leading noaa down the death march path of requiring way to much for way too little time or resources. For any of you that have not read this book: I highly recommend it (an easy find on amazon and a used paperback copy is cheap). Lots of that rare common sense stuff. After living through EOS, EOSDIS, and CERES with ~ a million lines of code, I can confirm his conclusions. Given that CLASS is trying first to do new large NPOESS satellite data sets: I'm rather shocked to hear nothing about using lessons learned from the NASA EOS satellite system which is flying instruments with very similar data rates, volumes, data products, and users (from science to commercial). The Terra mission alone in 2006 delivered about 12 million data files to 25,000 unique users. The CERES data products on Terra alone in 2006 shipped out 40,000 Gbytes of data products to users. The IPCC policymaker summary has just come out. The full report is later this spring. The NRC Decadal Study has just come out. Climate change and the global data sets needed to support it are going to increase in importance. This panel should be comfortable that CLASS will be ready to catch the huge ball called NPOESS and be able to serve it up in nice sized chunks to the user community. This should be priority 1 for this panel to verify as something on track. I don't see it yet. I'm hoping I just missed it because I missed the telecon. Is that it? cheers bruce At 3:58 PM -0500 2/14/07, Ferris Webster wrote: Dear colleagues, Attached is a summary of this week's DAARWG teleconference. If any of you who attended feel that I have missed something or have misinterpreted your statements, please let me know and I will modify it. DAARWG members, please note that the document sent out on Monday, the GEO-IDE Concept of Operations, is a key document, that summarizes the approach being taken. It should have been circulated earlier, but there was (understandable) confusion about which documents to send us. I urge you to take a look at it. Regards, Ferris Webster Content-type: application/msword; name="0702 notes.doc" Content-disposition: attachment; filename="0702 notes.doc" Content-description: 0702 notes.doc Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:0702 notes.doc (WDBN/IC) (001AE4A5) -- Bruce A. Wielicki Mail Stop 420 NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-2199 Phone: (757) 864-5683 FAX: (757) 864-7996 4311. 2007-02-14 18:08:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "'David Frank'" , "'michele'" , "'Maurizio Maugeri'" , "'"'Wolfgang Schner'"'" , "'Kurt Nicolussi'" , "'Michael Grabner'" date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:08:11 +0100 from: "Reinhard Boehm" subject: AW: AW: to: "'Phil Jones'" , "'Reinhard Boehm'" Phil, Fine, Wolfgang and I have reserved Monday, 16^th April 2007 for early instrumental discussion in Vienna. We hope to have then a "version 2 instrumental dataset" ready for use and some comparisons with glaciers. Of course anybody else from the EI-group participating at the EGU is welcome too. Right now only some clarifications: 1) version 2 homogenising: We want to homogenise all early t-series, not only the cold ones - but we intend to more likely use the cold ones as reference and less the majority (as we did so far). We will then see what the results will be. 2) The mass balance modelling: We will use (and Wolfgang has already done so, but with the "warm" early temperatures and with too negative MB-results in the early 19^th century) HISTALP monthly temperatures, Dimitrios' 10'-precip - both adjusted to a finer orography (necessary to better represent the glaciers). Using our (non linear tanh-) relation between monthly mean temperature and the percentage of solid precipitation we then calculate the real monthly amounts of snow- and of liquid precipitation at the glaciers (for all months, not only for winter - summer snowfall have a strong influence via the albedo, winter precip is not very effective, as we learned from our 25 years summer and winter mass balancing in the Sonnblick region). .... at the end Wolfgang could reproduce pretty well already measured mass balances of alpine glaciers in recent years - therefore we assume that the (expected) positive mass balances based on the "cold" HISTALP version should be kind of an independent argument in deciding between the warm and the cold version of HISTALP summer temperatures. Please note that the differentiation between solid and liquid precip is not trivial due to the non-linearity of the precip[solid] (temp) function 3) Going the "number 2 homogenising"-path we do not directly include the treering-evidence, but we hope at the end to come nearer to the early TR-evidence that with the warm instrumental version. Cheers Reinhard and Wolfgang ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2007 17:17 An: Reinhard Boehm Cc: jan.esper@wsl.ch; 'David Frank'; 'michele'; 'Maurizio Maugeri'; "'Wolfgang Schner'"; 'Kurt Nicolussi'; 'Michael Grabner' Betreff: Re: AW: Reinhard, Some thoughts. Obviously possibility 2 is the right way to go scientifically. Have you considered developing an Alpine series based just on the cooler stations (like Kremsmunster, Basle and Geneva and one or two others? Then try this with the glacier modelling. In the latter, there is likely to be much sensitivity to snowfall amounts, so you could test what addition precip you might need to get the glaciers at the right positions and right times, so it is play-off between summer T and winter P. The latter could have serious undercatch problems, which you've done your best to allow for. I guess I'm saying can you determine what you need to do to T and P to get agreement - sort of 2D surface. I have many things on between now and the EGU, so I look forward to discussing it more in Vienna. I'll only be there for the first two days. On the Tuesday pm I'll be going out to dinner with the Hans Oeschger medallist, and I have to run CL28 most of the day, so can we get together on the Monday? Cheers Phil At 12:51 13/02/2007, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Phil, As you proposed earlier, I also think we should first concentrate on the early instrumental topic, produce an alternative version of early temperatures and then proceed with the WP-9 paper. Concerning the early temperatures I (and also you I suppose?) received a number of treering series from David Frank which should be useful to at least have a good basis from this kind of summer data. I myself am just having a look in my spare-time on hourly temperature comparisons of the two Kremsmnster sites - leading at the end to much more information on possible biases. This will be useful as an argument for a "colder alternative" for early instrumental temperature series. I still have not made up my mind on how to proceed then: There are two possibilities: 1) simply adjust all early series in the same way (like I did in the example I sent some time ago) - this would be easier and would lead to homogeneous results 2) try to re-homogenize the whole early temperature series station by station, using the "colder stations" like Basle, Geneva, Kremsmnster, and one or two Italian sites as reference. The second alternative would be "scientifically more correct" but I am not sure whether there will get a solution leading to a satisfying state in terms of homogeneity tests and fit as well to the treering series. In any case I do not plan to completely withdraw the "summer-warm solution" we have now, I only want to add another alternative (could be called a TR-version) which will somehow stand for a rather summer-cold early period. The two together will then span a range within which real climate should be supposed to be. At last Wolfgang and I will try to produce some glacier mass balance series for the early period calculated with the HISTALP temp and precip series - here we believe that the summer-cold version will produce results nearer to the glacier evidence we have (with positive mass balances for most of the early 19^th century - necessary to explain the massive advances in the 1810s and 1840s). We have already tried it for the uncorrected early temperatures, it did not work, so the final conclusion will be in favour of colder early instrumental summer temperatures I suppose. Anyway, it would be fine to discuss this at the occasion of your stay in Vienna at the EGU Since then we should have all the calculations done and can decide on what to finally write in which paper... Cheers Reinhard P.S. I send this for information also to the treering group and the others concerned ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Februar 2007 11:31 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: Reinhard, Not sure where we are on the paper from WP-9. I've been too busy with IPCC up the end of last week. I have quite a bit of travel during March, so may not be able to make much progress. We need to try and come to some sort of agreement on how to proceed. I will be in Vienna for the first 2 days of the EGU meeting. Cheers Phil At 14:08 10/01/2007, you wrote: Dear early instrumentalists, I pass on two things to the "plenum" in charge of the early instrumental adjustment: 1) David and I agreed yesterday on a 2 weeks "moratorium" until the next and definite resolutions about adjusting the early instrumental temperature series. The TR-group is going to use this time to agree upon which TR-series (or which sample of different TR-reconstructions) should be used best as the "warm-season TR-reference". This may be a single reco, a mean of some recos or (best) a mean plus error bars. I am going to use the time to produce some more information on our Kremsmnster comparison (taking into account Phil's question about the way of calculating the means). 2) Some of You have already got a preliminary version of a Diploma thesis on the early instrumental problem. Johann Hiebl has sent us today the definite version he submitted yesterday (already containing the pre-reviews of Anders Moberg, Wolfgang Schner and myself). I think it is, for a diploma thesis, a quite "mature" piece of work which is closely related to our topic and may be well usable for our little paper. Please use it confidentially for the time being, because it has not been formally approved yet. I would like to draw your attention to the chapter dealing with the ERIK-model run of the GKSS guys. Do you think this to be adviseble for our purposes too? It would be kind of an independent information, but I am somewhat sceptical whether we should use such a "reconstruction". Anyway I ask Phil if the colleagues from the Hadley centre can also contribute such a model run and his opinion on it. Best regards Reinhard Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1266. 2007-02-15 09:37:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Feb 15 09:37:48 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: EJ on hockey stick to: Eystein Jansen Thanks Eystein the sceptic troupe are fading away At 07:58 15/02/2007, you wrote: Hi Keith, I was asked about AR4 and the Hockey stick by a journalist. This was picked up by McIntyres blog. You can see the issue here: [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1131 The last comment gives an Ok translation from Norwegian of what i said. Eystein _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [2]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no [3]www.bjerknes.uib.no -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3793. 2007-02-16 02:52:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:52:17 -0000 from: hilst-epsl@mit.edu subject: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00142 to: Ms. Ref. No.: EPSL-D-07-00142 Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Temperatures in Europe Authors: Jean-Louis Le Moul; Elena Blanter; Mikhail Shnirman; Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot, PhD Journal: Earth and Planetary Science Letters Dear Dr. Phil Jones, I would very much appreciate your help with evaluating the above-mentioned manuscript, which has been submitted for publication in Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The abstract is attached below. The authors have been taking a controversial view on this important topic, but I would very much like to know if their analysis is scientifically sound and if the conclusions, even when provocative, are supported by the data shown. Could you please let me know if you are available to review this manuscript? If you are, please click on the link below: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/l.asp?i=17795&l=95KD0SVK If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would return your review within 21 days. If you are not available to review this manuscript, please click on the link below. We would appreciate receiving suggestions for alternative reviewers: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/l.asp?i=17794&l=9OD6HGQD If you prefer, you may register your response to this invitation online, by accessing the Elsevier Editorial System for Earth and Planetary Science Letters as a REVIEWER: url: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/ Your username is: PJones-929 Your password is: jones26322 Please select the "New Invitations" link on your Main Menu, then choose to "Accept" or "Decline" this invitation, as appropriate. If you accept this invitation, you may submit your completed review online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor and comments for the author. To assist you in the reviewing process, I am delighted to offer you full access to Scopus* for 30 days. With Scopus you can search for related articles, references and papers by the same author. You may also use Scopus for your own purposes at any time during the 30-day period. If you already use Scopus at your institute, having this 30 day full access means that you will also be able to access Scopus from home. Access instructions will follow once you have accepted this invitation to review *Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of research information and quality internet sources. With kind regards, Rob D. van der Hilst Editor Earth and Planetary Science Letters ABSTRACT: Application of a novel nonlinear filtering technique to time series of daily temperatures in 48 meteorological stations from Europe yields the "lifetime" (akin to "correlation time") of temperature curves. This lifetime displays sharp primary and lesser secondary maxima at the times of extrema in sunspot number. A phase shift occurs around 1960, when primary maxima of temperature lifetimes shift from sunspot maxima to minima. This may correspond to a major change in state of the solar engine. Although the worldwide validity of these observations remains to be demonstrated, these strong correlations emphasise the role of the Sun as the forcing factor of a significant part of the global temperature signal. 169. 2007-02-16 11:26:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Manning , Susan Solomon , IPCC-WG1 date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:26:14 -0700 from: Melinda Marquis subject: Copy-edited Ch. 3 files to: Kevin Trenberth , Phil Jones Dear CLAs, Thank you very much for your invaluable assistance during the recent SPM plenary meeting. As you will realise there are a few remaining steps that need to be completed before final completion of the WG1-AR4 but these should now be straightforward. This is to ask for your help in the next of these steps which is to check the copy-edited version of your chapter. A professional copy-editor has reviewed all chapters of the AR4 and made some revisions. In most cases, her suggestions implement our style guide (see attached) for consistency in punctuation, spelling, grammar and language style across all chapters, points at which acronyms are spelled out, etc, etc. In a few cases, she has suggested revised wording for the sake of clarity, improved grammar or such. All these changes that might have some effect on the meaning of a sentence are shown in track-changes mode. We would be grateful if you would now go through these edited chapter files and either accept, reject, or modify the copy-editor's tracked revisions and return "cleaned up" files to the TSU. During this step you should also: * make any remaining necessary and minor corrections to text or tables; * ensure that any corrections or updates provided to the TSU since the distribution of the final draft in October 2006, have been included; * update references that have been published recently by inserting volume and page numbers, etc; * add any adjustments to your chapter that arose from the SPM approval process in Paris. Please return a checked file to us with all tracked changes removed. Please also remember to check your figures and figure captions carefully including the axis labels, units used, etc. Annotated text should already have been edited to follow the styles used in the tex t where appropriate. In some cases we will be doing further improvements to the text fonts used in f igures but this is your last chance to ensure that the wording is correct in all places. If you wish to make any small revisions to figures, please contact Kristen Averyt ([1]averyt@ucar.edu) as soon as possible. Please remember that no substantive changes, or new references, can be made to your chapter at this stage. The time line for delivering the camera-ready copy to the publisher is quite tight. We ask that you please return your final text and figures files to the TSU by Friday, March 9. You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site. server: [2]ftp.joss.ucar.edu account: wg1_gnrl password: EQ0KW0WG (Please note that these are zeros - not letters.) directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX The file names currently contain "_TSU." We ask that you change these characters to "_CLA" in the files you return to us. Finally please notify us at [3]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov when you have uploaded the checked files. Best regards, Melinda Marquis -- Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4_Style_v12.doc" 3838. 2007-02-16 13:07:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thomas C Peterson , David Easterling date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:07:59 -0500 from: "Russell.Vose" subject: Re: Climate Audit and Rewriting History! to: Phil Jones I saw the HCN bit this morning. These people have an obscure hobby -- I certainly don't give HCN thought in my spare time! Matt Menne probably has a plot of v2 minus v1. He's working on two papers, which should be done about end of March. We want to get things in the pipeline before the Peilke paper comes out. Phil Jones wrote the following on 2/16/2007 12:05 PM: Russ, Dave, There is a new USHCN bit on the Climate Audit website. They have picked up some series from John Daly's website (the guy who died 2 years ago), differenced them from your new one and produce a difference plot, then said this... The effect of the adjustments since 2000 has been to bring the USHCN history more in line with the CRU version. One wonders exactly what adjustments have been performed by CRU and the recent admission by Brohan et al 2006 that original versions of many series have been overwritten leaving only the adjusted versions is extremely disquieting. Now, guys I know we're good........ so they seem to believe you've adjusted your new version to be like ours. This gets funnier and funnier...... I reckon Daly's version, which is from Jim Hansen may be pre-v1. By the way do you have a plot of v2 minus v1? Is there a paper coming on v2? Cheers Phil At 14:04 16/02/2007, Russell.Vose wrote: Hadn't looked at this in a while. Thanks for a reminder, as I needed a laugh to start the day! Phil Jones wrote the following on 2/16/2007 7:46 AM: Haedline might be. 2006 no longer warmest year over the lower 48 states. It is now 1998, but we just missed it at the time! I presume you'll have error bars and good explanations! Cheers Phil [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ Dear All, Occasionally I get to the end of a week and have a little spare time. I then look at Real Climate and Climate Audit. Look at the link above and the story about the USHCN. I began to look at the comments and said to myself - how long will it be before the CRU data are dragged into this. Answer - not long! What Brohan et al were getting at was the issue you know well. Country X or Scientist Y sends some data - saying its been homogenized. We added this data to the database as it looks fine (after some checks). Most of the data were for new stations. They may or may not contain adjustments but we use them, and we don't have the raw data, just what we've been sent! I bet you'll get many more accusations of manipulating the data. The skeptics don't seem to want to accept that techniques get better and new ideas come along. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Russell S. Vose, Chief Climate Analysis Branch National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: (828) 271-4311 Fax: (828) 271-4328 E-mail: [3]Russell.Vose@noaa.gov Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Russell S. Vose, Chief Climate Analysis Branch National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: (828) 271-4311 Fax: (828) 271-4328 E-mail: [5]Russell.Vose@noaa.gov 1581. 2007-02-16 16:44:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:44:19 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: FYI: Futuristic fleet of 'cloudseeders' to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk WRT our coffee time discussion this AM. There will be a TV program about it ! Phil Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:27:47 -0600 To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Futuristic fleet of 'cloudseeders' X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6354759.stm Futuristic fleet of 'cloudseeders' VIEWPOINT Professor John Latham Some experts are proposing radical ideas to save us from disastrous climate change. But would they work? Professors John Latham and Stephen Salter have designed a fleet of yachts that would pump fine particles of sea-water into clouds, thickening them to reflect more of the Sun's rays. Here, Professor Latham talks about the proposal. Five Ways To Save The World Monday 19 February 2007 2100 GMT on BBC Two Programme preview It was in 1946 that scientists first began trying to manipulate clouds. They found that by firing tiny particles of silver iodide into rain-bearing clouds, they could induce rainfall. Our idea of a fleet of "cloudseeders", however, was largely born from a remark made by my son Mike, decades ago. We were on a mountainside in North Wales, looking west towards Ireland. He asked why clouds were shiny at the top but dark at the bottom. I explained how they were mirrors for incoming sunlight. He pondered for a while, then grinned: "Soggy mirrors, Dad," he said. The idea my colleagues and I are pursuing is to increase the amount of sunlight reflected back into space from the tops of thin, low-level clouds (marine stratocumuli, which cover about a quarter of the world's oceanic surface), thereby producing a cooling effect. Calculations show that if we can increase the reflectivity by about 3%, the cooling will balance the global warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere (resulting from the burning of fossil fuels). Cloud-seeding yachts In order to deploy our scheme and produce adequate cooling, we would need to spray sea-water droplets continuously over a significant fraction of the world's oceanic surface, at a total rate of around 50 cubic metres per second. Professor Stephen Salter has developed plans for a novel form of spray-droplet production (involving high-velocity propulsion of sea-water droplets), and has designed a wind-powered unmanned vessel which can be remotely guided to regions where cloud seeding is most favourable. Instead of sails, these vessels use a much more efficient technique to power the yacht - Flettner rotors. These spinning vertical cylinders mounted on the deck, are named after their inventor Anton Flettner. They also house the spraying system which sprays sea water droplets from the top of the rotors. The power required for spraying, communications and so on, comes from electricity generated by turbines dragged along by the vessels. We envisage that about 1,000 such vessels would be required to make the scheme effective. Under control The ideal solution to the global warming problem is that the burning of fossil fuels be drastically reduced. But our scheme offers the possibility that we could buy time within which catastrophic warming could be staved off while carbon dioxide levels are being reduced to acceptable levels. One advantage of our plan is that it is ecologically benign, the only raw material required being sea-water. The amount of cooling could be controlled, via satellite measurements and a computer model, and if an emergency arose, the system could be switched off, with conditions returning to normal within a few days. In addition to global temperature stabilisation, we also envisage that the technique could be used to remedy more regional problems, such as the dying of the coral reefs as a result of ocean warming. Long road ahead But while it is all very well spraying the clouds, what effect will this have on the world's fragile eco-system, and do we have the right to interfere with the planet in this way? Before we could justify deploying such a scheme on a global scale we would need to do several things. We would have to complete the development of the required technology, and conduct a limited-area field experiment in which the reflectivity of seeded clouds is compared with that of adjacent unseeded ones. We would also have to perform detailed analysis to establish whether there might be serious or harmful meteorological or climatological ramifications (such as reducing rainfall in regions where water is scarce) and if so, to find a solution for them. But bearing all this in mind, we have been encouraged by the consistent response we have received to our scheme - for example at a recent Nasa meeting - and it seems likely to be a strong contender in the fight to improve the current global warming problem worldwide. When the planet is in such a dire situation, I am convinced it is simply irresponsible not to at least examine our options. Professor John Latham is an atmospheric physicist at the University of Manchester & NCAR, Colorado, US. Professor Stephen Salter is an engineer at the University of Edinburgh. Story from BBC NEWS: [2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/6354759.stm Published: 2007/02/15 14:25:07 GMT BBC MMVII Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3113. 2007-02-16 23:09:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:09:50 +0100 from: Valrie Masson-Delmotte subject: (pas de sujet) to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cirse.extra.cea.fr id l1GMAVNm004545 Dear Phil, It was nice to see you shortly at the IPCC meeting in Paris. I know that you are invited to a lecture in the Academy of Sciences on March 5th. The meeting is organised by Academicians such as Vincent Courtillot, who is popularizing alternative views on climate change in the earth science communities in France, and a good friend of Claude Allegre, another geochemist who took positions arguing that there is no demonstration on the role of human activities on climate, that climate models have no demonstrated capabilities and that a global warming of 2C has no meaning. I am just writing this email to you after some arguments with these two scientists (who are leading scientists of their own research fields). I would just like to suggest that it would be nice to come prepared for such a meeting, and give you a few arguments developed by these two scientists : 1) C. Allegre : global temperature estimates are not possible, there were only 10 thermometers in the world 100 years ago (published 3 times in 2006 in French newspapers such as l'Express or Le Monde) (it would be interesting to show a map with the location and number of thermometers used for your estimates) 2) V. Courtillot : has published a few papers on solar activity, magnetic field and climate. The latest one is attached. He claims to have used a global temperature dataset of yours but I have some doubts, since the initial citation is from a paper by Solanki (it is somehow indirectly, probably through a collaboration with Russian scientists). He is working on temperature records from the Arctic (I guess local data) and suggests that the 1940s period is warmer than the last decades. We have interacted by email last week and apparently he wants to show that your temperature series is not correct. (it would be interesting to show the comparison between the global temperature record and the estimates for various latitude bands). Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Courtillot EPSL Climat.pdf" 2361. 2007-02-19 11:35:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:35:14 -0500 from: "thomas.c.peterson" subject: Re: Climate Audit and Rewriting History! to: Phil Jones By the way, Phil, we (Tom Smith, Dick Reynolds, Jay Lawrimore and I) are in the process of revising our global temperature number approach. We've added in satellite data over the ocean. This tends to slightly cool 1998 and a couple other years, but 1998 the most (all the differences are in the Pacific 40-60 degrees S). We treat buoys and ships differently. As the buoys are reading colder than ships (which was first pointed out by the Hadley Centre I believe) this warms the recent record as more and more buoys come on-line. It looks like it will be a couple months before we have this all operational and completely tested and ready to make it public. The skeptics aren't going to like it one bit so we're making sure we have all our ducks and tests lined up and ready to show that this is, indeed, a better process and why. We've also improved the earlier record by using different size boxes and cut offs for when to use data and when not to which cools 1880 somewhat compared to our previous version, again with objective tests that clearly indicate why this is better. Just thought I'd give you a heads up on it. Tom P. Phil Jones wrote the following on 2/16/2007 7:46 AM: Haedline might be. 2006 no longer warmest year over the lower 48 states. It is now 1998, but we just missed it at the time! I presume you'll have error bars and good explanations! Cheers Phil [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ Dear All, Occasionally I get to the end of a week and have a little spare time. I then look at Real Climate and Climate Audit. Look at the link above and the story about the USHCN. I began to look at the comments and said to myself - how long will it be before the CRU data are dragged into this. Answer - not long! What Brohan et al were getting at was the issue you know well. Country X or Scientist Y sends some data - saying its been homogenized. We added this data to the database as it looks fine (after some checks). Most of the data were for new stations. They may or may not contain adjustments but we use them, and we don't have the raw data, just what we've been sent! I bet you'll get many more accusations of manipulating the data. The skeptics don't seem to want to accept that techniques get better and new ideas come along. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 211. 2007-02-19 14:18:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:18:29 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Paper and Mexico meeting to: "Simon" early next week would be good ... how about you Tim? At 14:14 19/02/2007, you wrote: >Hi Keith, > >Thanks for replying so fast to the AGU. I now need to submit an abstract for >the conference in Mexico. Have you had a chance to look at my paper? As it >is the same material I will be presenting in Mexico, your comments would be >very useful in writing the abstract. Perhaps we could arrange a meeting to >go through the paper. How about early next week? The abstract for Mexico >needs to be submitted by March 1st. > >Thanks, > >Simon > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------- > >Simon Busby >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------- > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 19 February 2007 13:38 >To: s.busby@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Fwd: 2006JD008318 (Editor - Ruth Lieberman): Review Overdue - First >notice > > > >X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.23; Q2.21) > >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:21:10 UT > >To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk > >Subject: 2006JD008318 (Editor - Ruth Lieberman): Review Overdue - First >notice > >From: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org > >Reply-To: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.2 > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > >Content-Disposition: inline > >Content-Length: 1089 > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary > >Content-Type: text/plain > > > >Dear Dr. Briffa: > > > >On January 04, 2007, you agreed to review "A matter of divergence - > >tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree-ring data" > >by Rob Wilson, Rosanne D'Arrigo, Brendan Buckley, Ulf > >Büntgen, Jan Esper, David Frank, Brian Luckman, Serge > >Payette, Russell S. Vose, and Don Youngblut [Paper # 2006JD008318] > >and submit your comments by today. We have not received your > >review. Please let us know whether you will be able to submit these > >comments within the next week. > > > >To view the manuscript and complete the review form, click the below link. > > > >5F7A9ylCpPkyx1xmwlUN7nw9hzAZ> > > > > > >(NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and > >password. If you wish to share this link with colleagues, please be > >aware that they will have access to your entire account for this journal.) > > > >Thank you for your continuing assistance and support of Journal of > >Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. We look forward to receiving > >your comments. > > > >Sincerely, > >Ruth Lieberman > >Editor, JGR-Atmospheres > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3452. 2007-02-20 07:38:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" , Neil Plummer , wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:38:42 -0500 from: Pasha.Groisman@noaa.gov subject: Re: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990 to: Phil Jones Dear All: I remember this paper. Many years ago (around 1991), I brought the annual temperature from the western USSR rural network data set to the US and offered it to the first compendium of the GEWEX data on CD that was compiled by Dr. Shiffer. I honestly do not remember if they included it or not (only one region, only annual temperature data, while there were so "many" global data sets around). But, what is sure we have never made secret from this data and (if I'll be lucky) I can try to restore and update the data set to 2000 for Russia and/or ask my Russian and Ukrainian colleagues to help to update it to the presence. By reading the text of the Mr. McIntire I simply do not understand his point. A slight difference in the region selected will generate a slight difference in the trends. So what? We showed that there are no large differences in temperature trends BETWEEN rural and major globally used data sets. Later (in 1991), Vica Koknaeva and I published our analyses for the Western USSR separately (both available in English): Groisman P.Ya., Koknaeva V.V.: 1991, "The influence of urbanization on the estimate of the mean air temperature change in the 20th century over the USSR and USA territories obtained by the State Hydrological Institute network", Ch.9 in Parker D.E. (editor) "O b s e r v e d C l i m a t e V a r i a t i o n s a n d C h a n g e: Contributions in support of Section 7 of the 1990 IPCC scientific assessment". Publ. by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. p. 1X.1-1X.11. Groisman P.Ya., Koknaeva V.V.: 1991, "On the urbanization influence on the global warming estimates", M e t e o r o l o g y a n d H y d r o l o g y , No.9, 5-11 (in Russian, in English in Soviet Meteorology and Hydrology). Pasha P.S. In Russia, we have a proverb: "Na kazhdyi chih ne na zdrastvueshsya". A vague translation is: "You will never be able to say enough "God bless you" phrases for each coughing around". ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:01 am Subject: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990 > Dear All, > > Remember this paper ! > > Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. > and > Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time > series of > surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172. > > Well on this web site, the work is being hotly debated! > http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > Their renewed interest seems to stem from modifications NCDC are > making to USHCN and as I hear from Tom Peterson to their global and > hemispheric averages. Ridiculous statements are being made about > the NCDC work modifying data to make recent warming greater - and > more like the CRU data! On the Russian part of our study, the old > chestnut of > temperature data being modified in Soviet days to make the data > cooler during the 1930s and 1940s! Also the Russian network > failing apart when > the Soviet Union came to an end. > > No doubt this will surface somewhere when the Chapter from AR4 > comes out. We still refer to this paper, but there are more recent > studies by > Tom Peterson and David Parker. These studies and some earlier > ones by > Tom Karl are still the only ones to look at the issue over large > scales. > Anyway, I'd just thought I'd warn you all in case they ever > get their act > together (and stop their diatribes). > > I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but > you're all > reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work! > Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day. > > It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field, > most of us > writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder! > > 1990 seems a long time ago ! By the way, I do have the data > from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first > requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the > study if I had that rare commodity - time. > > The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by > Tom - thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood! > > Neil - can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > 715. 2007-02-20 08:42:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Pasha.Groisman" , Neil Plummer , wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu, Russell Vose , Thomas C Peterson date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:42:16 -0500 from: "Thomas.R.Karl" subject: Re: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990 to: Phil Jones Thanks Phil, We are struggling a bit with a new adjustment scheme to USHCN w/r to indirect vs direct adjustments for urban heat islands. GHCN is another issue still, but all this is clearly in the noise. An important correction we are working on is the cool bias introduced by a greater percentage of bouys lately compared to just a decade or two ago. This effect is at least comparable to the urban effect in my view. Dick Reynolds is working on that one. I am hopeful that Russ Vose and Tom Peterson can work to develop a strategy for us soon. I will ask them to send you a copy for you comments. Regards, Tom Phil Jones said the following on 2/20/2007 4:01 AM: Dear All, Remember this paper ! Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172. Well on this web site, the work is being hotly debated! [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ Their renewed interest seems to stem from modifications NCDC are making to USHCN and as I hear from Tom Peterson to their global and hemispheric averages. Ridiculous statements are being made about the NCDC work modifying data to make recent warming greater - and more like the CRU data! On the Russian part of our study, the old chestnut of temperature data being modified in Soviet days to make the data cooler during the 1930s and 1940s! Also the Russian network failing apart when the Soviet Union came to an end. No doubt this will surface somewhere when the Chapter from AR4 comes out. We still refer to this paper, but there are more recent studies by Tom Peterson and David Parker. These studies and some earlier ones by Tom Karl are still the only ones to look at the issue over large scales. Anyway, I'd just thought I'd warn you all in case they ever get their act together (and stop their diatribes). I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but you're all reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work! Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day. It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field, most of us writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder! 1990 seems a long time ago ! By the way, I do have the data from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the study if I had that rare commodity - time. The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by Tom - thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood! Neil - can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1270. 2007-02-20 10:30:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:30:56 +0000 from: jen.hardwick@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: HadCRUT to: Phil Jones Hello Phil, We have already archived January data. Dave Croxall is still adding in more historical data and a few more stations for December 2006, so I suspect the update will be done at the end of March. I haven't seen ClimateAudit before ; there is a lot about HadCRUT3 there. It seems very like other climate message boards though in that it is more of a blog space for the user's particular issues rather than a open discussion forum. It does need a 'good' troll to direct readers to paper. Jen On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:08 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > Jen, > I assume this means that you'll use the file I sent when you do > January updates? Let me know when done and I'll collect files > next week. > > FYI - there is a lot on the Climate Audit site. > http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > This stems from work at NCDC where they have made some mods to > US HCN and also according to Tom Peterson to their global and > hemispheric data as well - partly with adjustments to marine data to > account for > the greater numbers of buoy obs now. Tom says they have papers > nearly complete and ready to go - as I would expect. I'm just surprised > they would results on the web site before they have been reviewed. > > If only these people would just read the papers - especially Brohan et al., > rather than assume what we've done. One blogger (called Lee) tried to > defend us but even he began to misinterpret later. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 08:50 20/02/2007, jen.hardwick@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > >Hello all, > > > >Phil is right the code can handle extracting early data. I suggest that > >we do it as part of a complete monthly run through. When Dave fills in > >the last historical gap, we update the CRUTEM3, then the HadCRUT3 series > >with the early data and the anders file at the end of the month; when we > >would usually do the update. We can archive all data prior to that point > >and check the new monthly data files to see how the data has changed. I > >suspect that there may only be some regional differences, but we may > >need to put out a note on the webpages to let users know, > > > > > > > >Cheers > >Jen > > > > > >On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:02 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Mark, > > > It should be possible to rerun the software for the last > > > few months even couple of years. As I understand it Philip > > > set up the system to run the whole lot so if some > > > files are updated then you'll get any extra data included. > > > If you're going to do this, then here's the update of the > > > file called the 'anders' file for the period from 1991 onwards. > > > > > > I updated this file with all MCDW data we have through Nov06, the > > > CLIMAT through Dec06. This also has all the additional and > > > altered data for Australian and NZ stations and all the manual updates > > > for Antarctic stations. On the latter, I've just added a few more for > > > some of the Antarctic sites from the BAS web site. > > > > > > The file has a line of missing data for 2007, but the South Pole > > > value is there as that has already come through. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 08:25 16/02/2007, mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > > > >Actually Dave has been looking at data gaps much earlier than the 2-3 > > > >month lag of MCDW, which we also routinely add. He has been getting data > > > >from a number of sources (e.g. Maldives paper reports from our own > > > >library). This does not affect the routine CLIMAT messages files, but > > > >supplements our decoded database. My question was whether it would be > > > >possible to re-run the HadCRUT software to include new data for the last > > > >X years (Dave can advise on how far back this should go). > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Mark > > > > > > > >On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 18:02 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > Mark, > > > > > Point taken. We are adding in MCDW data - with a 2-3 month lag > > time - > > > > > so this will pick up most of the back data issues. > > > > > However, will the file with the uncoded monthly CLIMAT > > > > > messages still be produced? And will the software that runs > > > > > HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 still run at your end each month? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 11:11 15/02/2007, mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > > > > > >Jen, Phil, > > > > > > > > > > > > Over the last few years Dave Croxall has been actively filling > > in gaps > > > > > >in the historical CLIMAT archive. He is reaching the end of this work. > > > > > >Therefore, once Dave has finished, it might be an opportune moment to > > > > > >reprocess the HadCRUT dataset to bring in these additional data. > > > > > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Mark McCarthy Climate Research Scientist > > > > > >Met Office Hadley Centre Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB > > > > > >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884672 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > > > >Email: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > >For Hadley Centre climate data visit http://www.hadobs.org > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > > > University of East Anglia > > > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > > > NR4 7TJ > > > > > UK > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Mark McCarthy Climate Research Scientist > > > >Met Office Hadley Centre Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB > > > >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884672 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > >Email: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > >For Hadley Centre climate data visit http://www.hadobs.org > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >-- > >Jen Hardwick, Climate Information Scientist > >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research > >Hours: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday Morning > >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884288 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > >jen.hardwick@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > >Data available from http://www.hadobs.org > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Jen Hardwick, Climate Information Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Hours: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday Morning Tel: +44 (0)1392 884288 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 jen.hardwick@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Data available from http://www.hadobs.org 136. 2007-02-20 11:19:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , yvind Paasche date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:19:14 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: AR4 Final Input Please check this mail to: drind@giss.nasa.gov, Bette Otto-Bliesner , Fortunat Joos , Valrie Masson-Delmotte , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Hi friends: We're writing to get your FAST help with a very important part of our final IPCC chapter production - checking the copy-edited text. Please note the the deadline for this task is soon, and that we would like to coordinate all edits centrally in Bergen. Please read the email from Melinda at the TSU carefully, and send all proposed edits to Eystein and: [1]tordis.leroen@bjerknes.uib.no), where we will collate them and get in the final suggested edits to the TSU by the deadline. NOTE: You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site. server: ftp.joss.ucar.edu account: wg1_gnrl password: EQ0KW0WG (Please note that these are zeros - not letters.) directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX We're hoping that you will read the ENTIRE document AND associate FIGS/TABLES carefully for errors, but that you spend extra time making sure the sections (AND associated FIGS/TABLES) for which you are the lead are checked extra carefully. These assignments are: ES/6.1/6.2 - Eystein, Peck 6.3 David, Peck 6.4 Bette, Fortunat 6.5 Valerie, Bette 6.6 Keith, Tim and Fortunat Again, please address all the issues listed listed in the TSU email below. And, since we have to collate all the edits by March 9, please send your comments to Bergen ([2]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no AND [3]tordis.leroen@bjerknes.uib.no) by (March 5). Please pay particular attention to the references - to make sure they are correct and updated, we expect some in press are now printed! Also, the figures and tables. We (Eystein and Peck) will make the tiny changes necessitated by the process in Paris. See the attached table for these. Paleo for the most part whizzed through the approval process faster than any other parts of the SPM. Thanks, Eystein and Peck Hi Peck, many thanks for Paris picture. See you are cited in major Norwegian newspaper today based on a story in the Uk paper The Guardian... Back to AR4 - how should we handle the proof thing? I can have someone here edit the corrections as they come in, but we need to decide who of the LAs we should involve if any. I think our idea was to use a few of them: Keith, Bette, Valerie, Fortunat. Still want to do it this way? Cheers, Eystein Videresendt melding: Fra: Melinda Marquis <[4]marquis@ucar.edu> Dato: 17. februar 2007 03.30.45 GMT+01:00 Til: Jonathan Overpeck <[5]jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <[6]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no> Kopi: Susan Solomon <[7]ssolomon@al.noaa.gov>, Martin Manning <[8]mmanning@al.noaa.gov>, IPCC-WG1 <[9]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov> Emne: Copy-edited Ch. 6 files Dear CLAs, Thank you very much for your invaluable assistance during the recent SPM plenary meeting. As you will realise there are a few remaining steps that need to be completed before final completion of the WG1-AR4 but these should now be straightforward. This is to ask for your help in the next of these steps which is to check the copy-edited version of your chapter. A professional copy-editor has reviewed all chapters of the AR4 and made some revisions. In most cases, her suggestions implement our style guide (see attached) for consistency in punctuation, spelling, grammar and language style across all chapters, points at which acronyms are spelled out, etc, etc. In a few cases, she has suggested revised wording for the sake of clarity, improved grammar or such. All these changes that might have some effect on the meaning of a sentence are shown in track-changes mode. We would be grateful if you would now go through these edited chapter files and either accept, reject, or modify the copy-editor's tracked revisions and return "cleaned up" files to the TSU. During this step you should also: * make any remaining necessary and minor corrections to text or tables; * ensure that any corrections or updates provided to the TSU since the distribution of the final draft in October 2006, have been included; * update references that have been published recently by inserting volume and page numbers, etc; * add any adjustments to your chapter that arose from the SPM approval process in Paris. Please return a checked file to us with all tracked changes removed. Please also remember to check your figures and figure captions carefully including the axis labels, units used, etc. Annotated text should already have been edited to follow the styles used in the text where appropriate. In some cases we will be doing further improvements to the text fonts used in figures but this is your last chance to ensure that the wording is correct in all places. If you wish to make any small revisions to figures, please contact Kristen Averyt ([10]averyt@ucar.edu) as soon as possible. Please remember that no substantive changes, or new references, can be made to your chapter at this stage. The time line for delivering the camera-ready copy to the publisher is quite tight. We ask that you please return your final text and figures files to the TSU by Friday, March 9. You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site. server: ftp.joss.ucar.edu account: wg1_gnrl password: EQ0KW0WG (Please note that these are zeros - not letters.) directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX The file names currently contain "_TSU." We ask that you change these characters to "_CLA" in the files you return to us. Finally please notify us at [11]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov when you have uploaded the checked files. Best regards, Melinda Marquis -- Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA ? _______________________________ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744; name=Ch6_adjustments to chapters.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Ch6_adjustments to chapters.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch6_adjustments to chapters.doc" _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [12]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no www.bjerknes.uib.no 3163. 2007-02-20 21:54:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:54:57 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: review of proposal to DOE to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, We received a renewal proposal from Bradley/U Mass Amherst and Diaz/NOAA ESRL. Is there anyone in your group who would be able to review this for CCPP? Please let me know, thanks. Best, Anjuli P.S. The CR has been lifted, so hopefully you hear soon from Chicago Operations Office. 3666. 2007-02-21 11:10:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:10:21 +0000 from: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: Something funny on Climate Audit to: Phil Jones Hi Phil. Thanks - I hadn't spotted this. It's impressively mad. Steve McIntyre's clearly putting a lot of effort into these posts - but he's badly let down by the people adding their comments. I don't think many of them have actually read the papers. At one point I was going to download the GHCN station data, feed it through the same processing steps we used on your station records, and make an equivalent to CRUTEM3. It would be interesting to look at the differences in detail. However, on reflection this might not be a good idea - we don't want the two datasets to get too incestuous. Cheers, Philip On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 17:10 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > Philip, > I know you're doing something else now, but the exchanges on > Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/) may amuse. There are > two current discussion on revisions NCDC have made to the US HCN > data - and the average for the lower 48 US States. > The later one seems to imply NCDC has modified their data to > conform to ours !!!! I've sent some emails to NCDC to find out > what is going on. I know they have improved homogeneity checking > now and more recent years to check problems induced in the late-90s > from instrument changes. > > It is all highly amusing reading - you can see how conspiracy theories > start. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Philip Brohan, Palaeoclimate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 3025. 2007-02-21 17:20:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:11 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: review of proposal to DOE to: "Phil Jones" Awaiting response... Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Bamzai, Anjuli Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:09 PM To: 'Phil Jones' Subject: RE: review of proposal to DOE Phil, Since you have worked with Ray (collaboration, joint papers) over the years, you are conflicted to review the proposal. I was wondering if you had someone else in your group who is not conflicted and who'd be willing to review the proposal. If you haven't collaborated within the last 5-7 years, then it'd be OK for you to review. Please let me know if this is the case. Then I'll send you the materials electronically. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:09 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: review of proposal to DOE Anjuli, I could review this proposal. I do know Ray and Henry very well, as do most people in CRU - as they have visited quite often over the last 25 years. I have a number of meetings over the next few weeks, so if you're happy getting a review by the end of March, then email the relevant files. Thanks for the update on proposal status. There should now be time to get things in place by the end of April. Cheers Phil At 02:54 21/02/2007, you wrote: >Dear Phil, > >We received a renewal proposal from Bradley/U Mass Amherst and >Diaz/NOAA ESRL. Is there anyone in your group who would be able to >review this for CCPP? Please let me know, thanks. > >Best, >Anjuli > >P.S. The CR has been lifted, so hopefully you hear soon from Chicago >Operations Office. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 5271. 2007-02-22 14:21:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:21:41 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: review of proposal to DOE to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk If it's been that long, then you are not conflicted to review the proposal. Will send across the pdf, conflict-of-interest form, and evaluation form first thing tomorrow. Thanks for your help. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:45 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: review of proposal to DOE Anjuli, Not written a paper with Ray or Henry since the mid-1990s. If this is collaboration, then I haven't. Phil > Awaiting response... > > Anjuli > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bamzai, Anjuli > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:09 PM > To: 'Phil Jones' > Subject: RE: review of proposal to DOE > > > Phil, > > Since you have worked with Ray (collaboration, joint papers) over the > years, you are conflicted to review the proposal. I was wondering if you > had someone else in your group who is not conflicted and who'd be > willing to review the proposal. > > If you haven't collaborated within the last 5-7 years, then it'd be OK > for you to review. Please let me know if this is the case. Then I'll > send you the materials electronically. > > > > Anjuli > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:09 AM > To: Bamzai, Anjuli > Subject: Re: review of proposal to DOE > > > > Anjuli, > I could review this proposal. I do know Ray and Henry very > well, as do most people in CRU - as they have visited quite > often over the last 25 years. > I have a number of meetings over the next few weeks, so if > you're happy getting a review by the end of March, then > email the relevant files. > > Thanks for the update on proposal status. There should now > be time to get things in place by the end of April. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 02:54 21/02/2007, you wrote: > >>Dear Phil, >> >>We received a renewal proposal from Bradley/U Mass Amherst and >>Diaz/NOAA ESRL. Is there anyone in your group who would be able to >>review this for CCPP? Please let me know, thanks. >> >>Best, >>Anjuli >> >>P.S. The CR has been lifted, so hopefully you hear soon from Chicago >>Operations Office. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > > > > > 2365. 2007-02-22 14:43:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:43:53 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: Bradley proposal to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, If you have trouble opening the files, let me know In case you need me to send everything hard copy, I can do so. In which case, I'd need your mailing address Anjuli Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\DOE-CH2007012514437.zip" 3270. 2007-02-23 09:29:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:29:37 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: proposals received? to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, Yes, receiving by end March would be perfect. Good weekend to you as well. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:26 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: proposals received? Anjuli, I have received the emails with all the attachments. I am away from UEA today and logging on remotely. I picked the files up and they seem OK. Will a review by the last week of March be OK? I will likely begin reading on the way to Duke. Best Regards for the weekend. Phil > > Phil, > > You got the proposals, evaluation forms, etc intact...right? Please > confirm, thanks > > Anjuli > > > > > > > > > 945. 2007-02-23 12:31:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:31:52 +0000 from: Sophie McCook subject: Re: expert needed to: Tim Osborn Dear Dr Osborn, Thank you very much! This piece was inspired by 2 things - the first was an advert I saw in an old National Geographic. The second is, that although I consider myself very eco-aware and guilt-laden. I cannot manage to get myself plus 3 kids on to the bus, instead of opting for the much simpler car journey. I think there must be something fundamentally wrong - my suspicion is that deep down, it seems unnatural to make things harder for myself. And if I of all people can't change my behavior, how can I hope other people will? I have highlighted my 'made up dialogue' in blue. I have posed questions to a real anthropologist so they will soon be replaced, hopefully with real information. As you can see, I have added my own imaginary expert talking about climate change - I have cobbled together info which I gathered from the internet. My questions to you would be: How long do you think it will be before the West notice the devastating changes that we have seen around the Northern and equatorial regions? Are we naturally buffered from change? And: If mankind refuses to go backwards, do you think he will think his way out of trouble? Are we better at trying to find innovations? Do people only re-act to financial incentives (as in the Stern Report which focussed on economic reasons for going green)? Finally: Are we too late? If Siberia is pumping bog methane at a rate of tons do we all pack up and leave now? Can we combat it? Or should we try and persuade a couple of volcanoes to blow up and cool the planet for a few years? I would like to leave a concluding view from you if possible. Many thanks, in anticipation, Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\How Soon Is Nowdoc" Sophie McCook On 23 Feb 2007, at 11:00, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Sophie, > > I don't mind taking a look at your copy, though I'm not on expert on > why humans are not panicking about global warming! Will you email it? > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 10:04 22/02/2007, you wrote: >> Dear Dr Osborn, >> >> I am a freelance journalist who yesterday started to write a piece >> discussing the reasons humans are not panicking about global warming. >> I wrote the piece (around 900 words) straight away and filled in my >> 'expert' bits with my own made-up expert commentary. I do this so I >> can complete a first draft but of course I then make sure I replace >> my 'fill-ins' with real feedback from a real expert! >> >> Saying that, the things that my own imaginary, out-of-my-brain expert >> was saying seemed very good (I am a screenwriter by trade) and for a >> second I thought - gosh, I am a loss to climatology. >> >> Is there any chance you could take a look at my copy? I really would >> like to have a qualified scientist to appear in my piece! >> >> Many best wishes, >> >> Sophie McCook > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > 2581. 2007-02-27 11:31:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Pasha.Groisman" , Neil Plummer , wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:31:50 -0500 from: "Thomas.R.Karl" subject: Re: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990 to: Phil Jones Thanks Phil, We are going to develop a white paper over the next few weeks describing what we do and why for urban corrections. I can see a Congressional inquiry on this! Tom Phil Jones said the following on 2/27/2007 11:22 AM: Dear All, An update. If you look again you will see even more - first on the Russian network, now the Chinese - they have yet to get to the Australian networks! They probably won't get to Australia, as they won't be able to bring out all their prejudices about life in Russia and China. Pasha will have heard of all the stupid things said about Russia in the Soviet days. I have had a request for the data from McIntyre, but I am not sending the data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no point in sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two and move onto something else. There is a clear thread running through the comments. By the way, CRU isn't changing any of the current data that is coming in on the CLIMAT system, except where it is wrong. We are getting Australia directly as their CLIMAT messages don't calculate monthly means as they used to pre-1994, and for a few sites in eastern Canada, where Lucie Vincent developed homogeneous series - but adjusted them to the pre-1960 period. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil Dear All, Remember this paper ! Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172. Well on this web site, the work is being hotly debated! [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ Their renewed interest seems to stem from modifications NCDC are making to USHCN and as I hear from Tom Peterson to their global and hemispheric averages. Ridiculous statements are being made about the NCDC work modifying data to make recent warming greater - and more like the CRU data! On the Russian part of our study, the old chestnut of temperature data being modified in Soviet days to make the data cooler during the 1930s and 1940s! Also the Russian network failing apart when the Soviet Union came to an end. No doubt this will surface somewhere when the Chapter from AR4 comes out. We still refer to this paper, but there are more recent studies by Tom Peterson and David Parker. These studies and some earlier ones by Tom Karl are still the only ones to look at the issue over large scales. Anyway, I'd just thought I'd warn you all in case they ever get their act together (and stop their diatribes). I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but you're all reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work! Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day. It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field, most of us writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder! 1990 seems a long time ago ! By the way, I do have the data from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the study if I had that rare commodity - time. The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by Tom - thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood! Neil - can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2730. 2007-02-27 11:59:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:59:59 -0500 from: "Thomas.R.Karl" subject: Re: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990 to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Current plans are to be there Monday and Tuesday, but the way things have been going --- I could be called out to DC, but as of now that would be a good time to talk, e.g., Monday night. Regards, Tom Phil Jones said the following on 2/27/2007 11:58 AM: Tom, It seems you might be in Duke in the week of March 12 at IDAG. Am I correct? If so we could discuss this a little. Cheers Phil At 16:31 27/02/2007, you wrote: Thanks Phil, We are going to develop a white paper over the next few weeks describing what we do and why for urban corrections. I can see a Congressional inquiry on this! Tom Phil Jones said the following on 2/27/2007 11:22 AM: Dear All, An update. If you look again you will see even more - first on the Russian network, now the Chinese - they have yet to get to the Australian networks! They probably won't get to Australia, as they won't be able to bring out all their prejudices about life in Russia and China. Pasha will have heard of all the stupid things said about Russia in the Soviet days. I have had a request for the data from McIntyre, but I am not sending the data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no point in sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two and move onto something else. There is a clear thread running through the comments. By the way, CRU isn't changing any of the current data that is coming in on the CLIMAT system, except where it is wrong. We are getting Australia directly as their CLIMAT messages don't calculate monthly means as they used to pre-1994, and for a few sites in eastern Canada, where Lucie Vincent developed homogeneous series - but adjusted them to the pre-1960 period. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil Dear All, Remember this paper ! Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172. Well on this web site, the work is being hotly debated! [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ Their renewed interest seems to stem from modifications NCDC are making to USHCN and as I hear from Tom Peterson to their global and hemispheric averages. Ridiculous statements are being made about the NCDC work modifying data to make recent warming greater - and more like the CRU data! On the Russian part of our study, the old chestnut of temperature data being modified in Soviet days to make the data cooler during the 1930s and 1940s! Also the Russian network failing apart when the Soviet Union came to an end. No doubt this will surface somewhere when the Chapter from AR4 comes out. We still refer to this paper, but there are more recent studies by Tom Peterson and David Parker. These studies and some earlier ones by Tom Karl are still the only ones to look at the issue over large scales. Anyway, I'd just thought I'd warn you all in case they ever get their act together (and stop their diatribes). I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but you're all reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work! Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day. It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field, most of us writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder! 1990 seems a long time ago ! By the way, I do have the data from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the study if I had that rare commodity - time. The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by Tom - thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood! Neil - can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [3]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3161. 2007-02-27 15:57:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,n.gillett@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:57:04 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Possible media interviews in relation to IPCC showcase to: s.dunford@uea.ac.uk,a.ogden@uea.ac.uk Dear All, I am going to a Royal Society meeting March 1-2 this week. This is about the IPCC Report that was released in Paris on Feb 2. The media are supposed to at the meeting, and the RS are arranging interviews for me and others talking on Thursday (March 1 between 9 and 10am). It might be that the press may ring UEA or CRU. If they do, then give them the same material they had on Feb 2. By the way this meeting was fully booked in 24 hours when first opened. The RS have since arranged for the talks to be beamed into two other rooms in their building. Cheers Phil Subject: Possible media interviews in relation to IPCC showcase meeting at Royal Society Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:28:50 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Possible media interviews in relation to IPCC showcase meeting at Royal Society Thread-Index: Acdae5k/fc5otuhPTOeUZS17Oo3KYw== From: "Windebank, Sue" To: , , , , , , , , , , , , Cc: "Garthwaite, Rachel" , "Newton, Rachel" , "Hartnett, Bill" X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-07-06-90 ([1]www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.66.1.117 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear all, Hello I am the Senior Press Officer at the Royal Society. I wanted to alert you to the fact that some UK and international journalists may approach you - through the Society's press office - for interviews during the IPCC showcase meeting later this week. We are hoping to concentrate any such interviews between 9 - 10am on Thursday - before the meeting starts - but I may have to catch you during breaks or lunch if requests come in later. Some of you may not be able to arrive so early on Thursday but I just wanted to give you forewarning that I may approach you if we get an interview request in. We will endeavour to give you as much information about each journalist and what angle they might be taking. Obviously you can then decide if you are 'available' for interview. If you have any questions or concerns please let me know. Also, if you are able to provide me with a cell phone/other number that we might be able to contact you on at short notice over the next few days that would be great. With regards Sue Sue Windebank Senior Press & PR Officer Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7451 2514 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615 ****************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this e-mail. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1081. 2007-02-27 16:59:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:59:00 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2006JD008318 (Editor - Ruth Lieberman): Review Overdue - Third to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 1241 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dr. Briffa: On January 04, 2007, you agreed to review "A matter of divergence - tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree-ring data" by Rob Wilson, Rosanne D'Arrigo, Brendan Buckley, Ulf Büntgen, Jan Esper, David Frank, Brian Luckman, Serge Payette, Russell S. Vose, and Don Youngblut [Paper # 2006JD008318] and submit your comments on possible publication in Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. To date, we have not received your review, which was due February 3, 2007. Please let us know when you will submit your comments. Please advise us immediately if you will not be able to complete this review. To view the manuscript and complete the review form, click the below link. (NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to share this link with colleagues, please be aware that they will have access to your entire account for this journal.) Thank you for your continuing assistance and support of Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. We look forward to receiving your comments. Sincerely, Ruth Lieberman Editor, JGR-Atmospheres 2655. 2007-02-27 17:04:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:04:53 -0000 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" subject: FW: FW: Jones et al 1990 (FOI_07-09) to: Phil, Dave Palmer has responded as below. We have received a request and the issue is whether we deal with it under FOIA or the EIR mentioned below. As this may be the beginning of a stream of these I wonder whether half an hour round a table with you, Dave Palmer and myself might be useful and help us to focus what we should do here? If you agree I will try and arrange this. Thanks Michael ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) l212 Sent: 27 February 2007 14:40 To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364 Subject: FW: FW: Jones et al 1990 (FOI_07-09) Michael, Having looked at the site below (and found numerous other references to the requester online), I can understand Phil's reluctance to respond. However, unless the request is unclear, we have a valid request. However, how we deal with it is another matter. A number of issues present themselves 1. Do we 'hold' the data? - Is it UEA that actually holds this information? If it is on disks in Phil's possession outside the UEA, there might be an argument - comes down to a matter of control - if these were done as part of his work at UEA, the requester could argue that UEA effectively is the 'holder' of the data... 2. EIR vs. FOI... this is technically, actually an EIR (Environmental Information Regulations) request! There are some advantages to treating it as FOI as under EIR (eg. there is no 'appropriate limit') BUT there are more advantages to treating it under EIR. For example, we can extend response time to 40 working days, and, the only 'vexatious' test is manifest unreasonableness and I think that this might be a possibility depending upon the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the information (see DEFRA site for this issue at: [1]http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/eir/pdf/guidance-7.pdf) (General EIR guidance at: [2]http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/eir/guidance/index.htm) I would suggest that we treat as EIR and go from there.... we will either have to reject it completely as vexatious or answer it... there is NO appropriate limit under EIR but our chances of calling it vexatious are higher and we have longer to respond. We can also charge but there will be some work to pull that off (ie. create fee structure that we can send to the requester) Am happy to meet to discuss this further.... this is a complex request.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:25 AM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364; david.palmer@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: FW: Jones et al 1990 MIchael, David, I don't really see this as an FOI request. I am really loathed to send them the data even if I could find it. The paper was published in 1990 and the work done in 1989. The work was done years before there was the FOI. The data used were from the Soviet Union, Australia and China. One of the reason's for not helping them is this link. [3]http://www.climateaudit.org/ and then click on the story called 'Phil Jones and the Dutiful Comrades' The story (for want of a better way of describing it) was written by the person who has asked me for the data. I would ask you to skim the story and read the tone of it and some of the comments on the site. No matter what I do or say will make one bit of difference to their attitudes. It will just waste my time. If you want me to go through this pointless exercise then it is only me who can do this and with a number of trips away, I don't have the time before the last week of March. As an aside - the data we have for Malye Karamkuly is almost complete from about 1920 until 1988. This one happens to be the first one in the list. The 1990 paper had co-authors from Russia, China, Australia and the US. The Russian/Soviet data were received from the Russian. He is now working in the USA. Best Regards Phil At 08:44 23/02/2007, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364 wrote: Phil, Dave Palmer has logged the recent email to you (copied to him) as another FOIA request. I can see that we might be into a run of these given the website you directed us to last week. I am sorry that my optimism that the previous request was a one-off has been unfounded. Under FOIA we have 28 days to respond - the same principles apply as with the previous request (ie is data publicly available somewhere else; is the length of time to assemble these specific data sets too costly etc). Dave will respond formally on behalf of the University (and I guess that this may also end up posted on a website somewhere). Let me now how you want to proceed here. Best wishes Michael Michael McGarvie Senior Faculty Manager Faculty of Science Room 0.22C University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ tel: 01603 593229 fax: 01603 593045 [4]m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) l212 Sent: 22 February 2007 20:45 To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364 Subject: FW: Jones et al 1990 Michael, I will log this as another FOI request - different requester and different request I think.... Back to Phil for more input? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[5]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:15 PM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) f028 Cc: David Palmer Subject: Jones et al 1990 Dear Phil, a couple of years ago, I requested the identities and data for the Russian, Chinese and Australian networks studied in Jones et al Nature 1990 on urbanization. At the time, you said that it would be unduly burdensome to locate the information among your diskettes as the study was then somewhat stale. However, I notice that Jones et al 1990 has been cited in IPCC AR4 (in the section where you were a Coordinating Lead Author) and continues to be cited in the literature (e.g. Peterson 2003). Accordingly, I re-iterate my request for the identification of the stations and the data used for the following three Jones et al 1990 networks: 1. the west Russian network 2. the Chinese network 3. the Australian network For each network, if a subset of the data of the data was used, e.g. 80 stations selected from a larger dataset, I would appreciate all the data in the network, including the data that was not selected. In each case, please also provide the identification and data for the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study. Thank you for your attention. Steve McIntyre Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3314. 2007-02-28 13:15:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:15:40 -0600 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: Fred Singer's Hypothesis to: Phil Jones Phil: Attached are 2 papers by Gerard Bond that describe a 1470-year oscillation in the Holocene. What are your thoughts on these papers? Michael >Michael, > Not that I've ever seen. You have to believe the various > series for the last 1000 years, and then they aren't long enough. > I've just been looking at isotope series from some Greenland cores > for the last 10K years and there was no evidence to my eyes. > Not done any spectral analysis though ! > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:11 26/02/2007, you wrote: >>Phil: >> >>Is there any evidence for a 1500-year cycle in the Holocene? >> >>Michael >> >>>Mike, >>> The YD is a very distinct event. It is now almost exactly dated - >>> see this paper. >>> >>> Rasmussen et al. (2006) A new Greenland ice >>>chronology for the last glacial termination, >>>JGR 111, D06102, doi:10.1029/JD2005006079. >>> >>> Based on cross-dated Greenland ice cores, >>>the onset now dated to 12896 b2K 140 years >>>End dated to 11703 b2K 100 years >>>Duration of 1193 40 years >>> >>> b2k is AD 2000 >>> >>> The 8.2K event is a little less clear, but still has a duration that can be >>> estimated. >>> >>> These aren't the DO events, but they are similar. They are both very >>> abrupt and occurring in the space of a few years. The resolution >>> in the ice cores back before 21K is less good, that you can't see the >>> events so clearly, but the belief is that >>>they are abrupt events not cycles. >>> >>> Also, if he says the CRU data cool after 1998, tell him to work out >>> the trend for the period 1998 to 2005 or 2006. The trend is still upwards >>> despite starting with the warmest year! >>> >>> See you in South Korea, apparently. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>At 14:04 26/02/2007, you wrote: >>>>Phil: >>>> >>>>I will be on a radio program this (Monday) >>>>evening debating global warming with Fred >>>>Singer. >>>> >>>>According to Fred's book, Unstoppable Global >>>>Warming, Every 1,500 Years, the warming we >>>>have observed is due to the 1500-year DO >>>>'oscillation', not the greenhouse effect. >>>> >>>>But, as far as I know: (1) the DO's are an >>>>abrupt event, not an oscillation; and (2) the >>>>DO events ceased at the end of the last ice >>>>age, about 23K years ago. >>>> >>>>Accordingly, what are your thoughts on Fred's hypothesis? >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Michael >>> >>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Bond-etal-Science97.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Bond_etal-Science01.pdf" 930. 2007-03-02 09:45:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "John Zillman" , "John Church" , "Mark Stafford-Smith" , "Kevin Noone" , "Ann Henderson-Sellers" , "GCOSJPO" , "Stephan Bojinski" , "Valerie Spalding" date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:45:10 +0100 from: "David Goodrich" subject: Climate Research and Observation Strategies Workshop to: "Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj" , "Konrad Steffen" , "Francis Zweirs" , "Adrian Simmons" , "Han Dolman" , "Martin Parry" , "Gerald Meehl" , "Ed Harrison" , "Susan Solomon" , "V. Ramaswamy" , "David Karoly" , "John Stone" , "Stephen Schneider" , "Linda Mearns" , "Kevin Trenberth" , "Phil Jones" Dear Colleague, We had contacted you in December regarding possible dates for a workshop entitled Climate Research and Observation Strategies: Building on the 2007 Climate Change Assessment (A Joint GCOS/WCRP/IPCC Workshop). Following consultations with potential sponsors, we have agreed that the workshop will take place on 4-6 October 2007, at the Hilton Hotel, Sydney, Australia. The workshop will be held following the Greenhouse 2007 Conference (http://www.greenhouse2007.com/ ) at the same venue You had indicated your potential interest in participating, following my initial message to you in December, and I sincerely hope that you will be able to join us. Publication of the full IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) provides a unique opportunity to consider the climate research challenges and observing system implications for the future. The workshop will have a major input to the evolution of the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), and the research agenda for the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). We are planning for a meeting of around 50 attendees, with a primary focus on the lessons to be learned from IPCC Working Groups I and II. We are in the process of putting together a draft agenda for this workshop, and completing a full list of participants as soon as possible. Travel and local expenditure for the meeting would be supported. Please confirm again your participation in the meeting to gcosjpo@wmo.int by 9 March 2007. We look forward to working with you and using the IPCC efforts to shape the climate research and observation agenda. Yours sincerely, Dr. David M. Goodrich Director, GCOS Secretariat World Meteorological Organization Case Postale 2300 7 bis, Avenue de la Paix CH-1211 Geneva 2 41-22-730-8275 41-22-730-8052 (fax) 4037. 2007-03-05 13:09:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:09:05 -0000 from: "Penstone-Smith Claire Mrs \(MAC\)" subject: FW: Anglia request - climate change to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Dear Phil I wonder if you might be able to help with this request to ratify some facts about climate change. There may be an opportunity at some later stage for someone from the UEA to be interviewed druing Anglia's environmental campaign, but meanwhile if you are able to help, we will ask that the UEA gets some acknowledgement. Kind regards Claire Claire Penstone-Smith Communications Assistant Marketing and Communications Division Tel: 01603 593496 Please note my office hours are Monday & Tuesday. For queries on other days please contact my colleague Sundari at s.faraday-drake@uea.ac.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Williams, Sascha [mailto:sascha.williams@ITV.COM] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:44 PM To: cru@uea.ac.uk Cc: press@uea.ac.uk Subject: ANGLIA REQUEST CLIMATE CHANGE Hi there...further to our conversation, please find details as discussed I'm a journalist at ITV Anglia. In June the different parts of ITV are joining up to launch an `environmental campaign'. In short looking at the way we can save energy, live greener lives and looking at the damage climate change may have. Within the news (Anglia Tonight at 6pm) we're hoping to run a week long series looking at people in East Anglia who are being environmentally friendly. For example spending a day at Ipswich town FC (trying to be the country's first carbon neutral club)... and also visiting a church that's just had solar panels installed. BUT we're actually starting to promote this event on 8^th March off the back of David Milliband's proposed Climate Change Bill ). We're hoping to start with a few `hard hitting' facts about climate change in this region, highlighting WHY we're doing this campaign. It would be read by our presenters and represented by some graphics on screen - thus needs to be fairly simplistic. But before I go ahead and use this info, I was hoping someone in your climatic research centre may be able to check they are not wildly inaccurate. I have included them below in BOLD Thanks for your help Sascha ***By the 2050s, annual temperatures in this part of the world could be on average more than 2C warmer than they are now - 30 years later that may rise to more than 3C... could be bad news for farmers and agriculture here. ***There are predictions that global sea levels may rise between 12cm and 67cm ...By far the worst effects will be felt in low-lying areas of countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan - but there will also be some serious consequences for East Anglia, with the possibility parts of the fens and the broads will be lost to the sea. ***And despite some areas suffering summer droughts - there could also be more winter floods......Heavy rain has already increased by 50 percent over the last forty years...and could be linked to climate change. ____________________________________________ [image001.gif] Sascha Williams Reporter Office (01603) 753047 Mobile (07720) 598096 Fax (01603) 622574 ********************************************************************** Please visit the official ITV website at [1]www.itv.com for the latest company news. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmaster@itv.com Please think of the environment before printing this email. Thank you. ********************************************************************** Embedded Content: image0019.gif: 00000001,30545daa,00000000,60b15afa 1002. 2007-03-05 14:00:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: drind@giss.nasa.gov, Bette Otto-Bliesner , "Valérie Masson-Delmotte" , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , "Øyvind Paasche" date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:00:21 +0100 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: AR4 Final Input Please check this mail to: Eystein Jansen Hi, Here my comments as word attachment and below as ascii . With best regards, Fortunat Executive Summary: - All bullets should be formatted in the same way (e.g. with a leading ‘filled circle’) Main Text 1. 6.11 l9: ‘corresponding to’ seems fine to me, but a native English speaker may check. 2. 6.11 36-39 Change to: “For example, the CO2 increase from about 180 ppm at the Last Glacial Maximum to about 265 ppm in the early Holocene occurred with distinct rates over different periods (Monnin et al., 2001; Figure 6.4).” 3. 6.37 43-44 Add and to read “In recent years, sulphur dioxide emissions have decreased globally and in many regions of the NH (Stern, 2005; see Chapter 2).” 4. 6.38 3-4. This is a new sentence. I assume in request by the WGI plenary during the SPM approval. This is fine with me. 5. 6.72, l6 Bern CC = Bern Carbon Cycle-Climate Model 6. 6.73 l7 table 6.3 Models: Bern2.5CC =Bern 2.5D Carbon Cycle-Climate Model , References: Muscheler, R., F. Joos, J. Beer, S. A. Müller, M. Vonmoos, and I. Snowball. Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred from radionuclide records. Quaternary Science Reviews , 26, 82-97, 2007. Figures Fig. 6.3, line 13-14: Change to “Downward trends in the benthic 18O curve reflect increasing ice volumes.” Fig. 6.7: line 6 ARM is unitless (right Oyvind?) Line 2: Ca2+ is correct. Line 6: “SS09sea” is correct. Would prefer to keep the highlighted green text in the caption. I also think D-O should not be abbreviated in the caption. This will make it difficult to read for a general reader. Figure 6.15: line 9: Change to “The inset illustrates the influence of volcanic emissions and shows monthly sulphate data in ppm as measured…” Eystein Jansen wrote: > Hi friends: > > We're writing to get your FAST help with a very important part of our > final IPCC chapter production - checking the copy-edited text. Please > note the the deadline for this task is soon, and that we would like to > coordinate all edits centrally in Bergen. Please read the email from > Melinda at the TSU carefully, and send all proposed edits to Eystein > and: tordis.leroen@bjerknes.uib.no > ), where we will collate them and > get in the final suggested edits to the TSU by the deadline. > NOTE: You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site. > > server: ftp.joss.ucar.edu > account: wg1_gnrl > password: EQ0KW0WG (Please note that these are zeros - not letters.) > directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX > > > We're hoping that you will read the ENTIRE document AND associate > FIGS/TABLES carefully for errors, but that you spend extra time making > sure the sections (AND associated FIGS/TABLES) for which you are the > lead are checked extra carefully. These assignments are: > > ES/6.1/6.2 - Eystein, Peck > 6.3 David, Peck > 6.4 Bette, Fortunat > 6.5 Valerie, Bette > 6.6 Keith, Tim and Fortunat > > Again, please address all the issues listed listed in the TSU email > below. And, since we have to collate all the edits by March 9, please > send your comments to Bergen (eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no > AND tordis.leroen@bjerknes.uib.no > ) by (March 5). > > Please pay particular attention to the references - to make sure they > are correct and updated, we expect some in press are now printed! > Also, the figures and tables. > We (Eystein and Peck) will make the tiny changes necessitated by the > process in Paris. > See the attached table for these. > Paleo for the most part whizzed through the approval process faster than > any other parts of the SPM. > > Thanks, Eystein and Peck > > Hi Peck, > many thanks for Paris picture. > See you are cited in major Norwegian newspaper today based on a story in > the Uk paper The Guardian... > > Back to AR4 - how should we handle the proof thing? I can have someone > here edit the corrections as they come in, but we need to decide who of > the LAs we should involve if any. I think our idea was to use a few of > them: Keith, Bette, Valerie, Fortunat. Still want to do it this way? > > Cheers, > Eystein > > Videresendt melding: > Fra: Melinda Marquis > > Dato: 17. februar 2007 03.30.45 GMT+01:00 > Til: Jonathan Overpeck >, > Eystein Jansen > > Kopi: Susan Solomon >, Martin Manning >, IPCC-WG1 > > Emne: Copy-edited Ch. 6 files > > Dear CLAs, > Thank you very much for your invaluable assistance during the recent SPM > plenary meeting. As you will realise there are a few remaining steps > that need to be completed before final completion of the WG1-AR4 but > these should now be straightforward. This is to ask for your help in > the next of these steps which is to check the copy-edited version of > your chapter. > > A professional copy-editor has reviewed all chapters of the AR4 and made > some revisions. In most cases, her suggestions implement our style > guide (see attached) for consistency in punctuation, spelling, grammar > and language style across all chapters, points at which acronyms are > spelled out, etc, etc. In a few cases, she has suggested revised > wording for the sake of clarity, improved grammar or such. All these > changes that might have some effect on the meaning of a sentence are > shown in track-changes mode. > > We would be grateful if you would now go through these edited chapter > files and either accept, reject, or modify the copy-editor's tracked > revisions and return "cleaned up" files to the TSU. During this step > you should also: > > * make any remaining necessary and minor corrections to text or tables; > > * ensure that any corrections or updates provided to the TSU since the > distribution of the final draft in October 2006, have been included; > > * update references that have been published recently by inserting > volume and page numbers, etc; > > * add any adjustments to your chapter that arose from the SPM approval > process in Paris. > > Please return a checked file to us with all tracked changes removed. > > Please also remember to check your figures and figure captions carefully > including the axis labels, units used, etc. Annotated text should > already have been edited to follow the styles used in the text where > appropriate. In some cases we will be doing further improvements to the > text fonts used in figures but this is your last chance to ensure that > the wording is correct in all places. If you wish to make any small > revisions to figures, please contact Kristen Averyt (averyt@ucar.edu > ) as soon as possible. > Please remember that no substantive changes, or new references, can be > made to your chapter at this stage. > > The time line for delivering the camera-ready copy to the publisher is > quite tight. We ask that you please return your final text and figures > files to the TSU by Friday, March 9. > > You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site. > > server: ftp.joss.ucar.edu > account: wg1_gnrl > password: EQ0KW0WG (Please note that these are zeros - not letters.) > directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX > > The file names currently contain "_TSU." We ask that you change these > characters to "_CLA" in the files you return to us. Finally please > notify us at ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov when you > have uploaded the checked files. > > Best regards, > > Melinda Marquis > -- > Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit > NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 > 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 > Boulder, CO 80305, USA > ? > _______________________________ > = > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _________________________________ > Eystein Jansen, prof., Director > Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research > Allégaten 55 > N5007 Bergen > phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 > eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no > www.bjerknes.uib.no > > > > = -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_CopyEdit_corrections_fjoos_5mar07.doc" 967. 2007-03-07 11:58:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:58:57 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: proposals received? to: "Phil Jones" Phil, Yes, for collaborative proposals, the reviews can be identical (you can chose to address the budget and personnel from both institutions in a single review, or in the specific parts). I'd appreciate receiving electronically so I can forward the anonymous reviewer comments via email. The conflict of interest form needs to be hard copy signed. You could bring that to Duke. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:23 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: proposals received? Anjuli, I have done the reviews. As there is only one combined proposal the science is the same, so some responses are the same. They are different when it comes to budget and personnel. If I print these out and sign etc, can I give you these at Duke next week? Or should I post? Best Regards Phil At 14:29 23/02/2007, you wrote: >Phil, > >Yes, receiving by end March would be perfect. > >Good weekend to you as well. > >Anjuli > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:26 AM >To: Bamzai, Anjuli >Subject: Re: proposals received? > > > > Anjuli, > I have received the emails with all the attachments. > I am away from UEA today and logging on remotely. > I picked the files up and they seem OK. > > Will a review by the last week of March be OK? > I will likely begin reading on the way to Duke. > > Best Regards for the weekend. > > Phil > > > > > > Phil, > > > > You got the proposals, evaluation forms, etc intact...right? Please > > confirm, thanks > > > > Anjuli > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 812. 2007-03-07 15:52:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:52:11 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: 7RP / Environment (incl. Climate Change) to: Hugues Goosse Dear Hugues, I agree and what Damien said echoes what Keith is concerned about. We need to expand the timescale of Millennium AND focus much more on sensitivity and predictability. best wishes Eystein Den 7. mar. 2007 kl. 11.22 skrev Hugues Goosse: Hi Eystein, Thanks a lot for the information. I agree with you that it is very important that the topic "Earth system dynamics: Palaeoenvironmental analysis" includes explicetly our area of interest. By the way, I have briefly discussed with Damien Cardinal after the meeting yesterday. He tolds me that the EU has already funded recently a very big project over the last Millenium, so they will be reluctant to make a new call covering this subject but we can certainly sell our science in something more general like 'natural variability and climate predictability'. All the best Hugues Le 15:00 06/03/2007, vous avez crit: Hi Keith and Hugues, Here are two documents re. our discussion of FP7 topics. As you will see the plan is to have the following topic out in 2008 or later: · Earth system dynamics: Palaeoenvironmental analysis I think it will be important that the topic really comes in 2008 and that it includes the terms natural variability and climate predictability when it is described in the call. If possible our national program committee members should be contacted to propose this. As far as I know there will be a meeting later this spring to discuss the next calls. Cheers Eystein  _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allégaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [1]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no [2]www.bjerknes.uib.no Hi Keith and Hugues, Here are two documents re. our discussion of FP7 topics. As you will see the plan is to have the following topic out in 2008 or later: Earth system dynamics: Palaeoenvironmental analysis I think it will be important that the topic really comes in 2008 and that it includes the terms natural variability and climate predictability when it is described in the call. If possible our national program committee members should be contacted to propose this. As far as I know there will be a meeting later this spring to discuss the next calls. Cheers Eystein Content-Type: application/msword; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Articulating sub-activity 6 4 2.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Articulating sub-activity 6 4 2.doc" Content-Type: application/msword; x-unix-mode=0644; name=wp topics 2008.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wp topics 2008.doc" _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [3]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no [4]www.bjerknes.uib.no -------------------------------------- GOOSSE Hugues [5]http://www.astr.ucl.ac.be/users/hgs/index.html Institut d'Astronomie et de Gophysique G. Lematre Universit catholique de Louvain , Chemin du cyclotron, 2 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium e-mail: [6]hgs@astr.ucl.ac.be _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [7]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no www.bjerknes.uib.no 1414. 2007-03-07 22:24:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:24:16 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu Hi Richard - You certainly can count me in. I have a talk, a class lecture and a press event tomorrow, so can't think in detail about this now, however. My understanding of what we did in Paris is the same as Kevin's. The focus was on communication to policy-makers, not altering the science of the report. But, I'll read in more detail and will be open to any and all ideas. The main thing is to get set the record straight - the process was clean, and scientifically of the highest quality. We owe it to ourselves and Susan to make this clear. Thanks for being pro-active. Best, Peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:58:25 -0700 (MST) >From: "Kevin Trenberth" >To: "Richard Somerville" >Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves >X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >Reply-To: trenbert@ucar.edu >List-Id: >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu > >Richard > >I did not see where Susan Solomon was mentioned by name anywhere? The >report and editorial are not correct, as you say, and they seem not to >understand the process at all. But I did not feel as strongly as you. >Did I miss something? >A brief response along the lines that there were various drafts of the >report, but the final process of building a consensus among the political >delegates who were present in Paris is obviously not understood. It was >hardly a closed meeting or process. The SPM was indeed approved line by >line by governments in Paris from 29 January to 1 February, 2007. The >rationale is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the >governments help determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur >over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and >relevance to understanding and policy. But the basic scientific message >was not changed and Wasdell's claims have no basis in fact. > >I would sign such a short letter. I am also on travel. >Kevin > > >> Dear Fellow CLAs, >> >> The British magazine *New Scientist* is >> apparently about to publish several items >> critical of the IPCC AR4 WGI SPM and the process >> by which it was written. There is an editorial, >> a column by Pearce, and a longer piece by Wasdell >> which is on the internet and referenced by Pearce. >> >> I think that this attack on us deserves a >> response from the CLAs. Our competence and >> integrity has been called into question. Susan >> Solomon is mentioned by name in unflattering >> terms. We ought not to get caught up in >> responding in detail to the many scientific >> errors in the Wasdell piece, in my opinion, but I >> would like to see us refute the main allegations >> against us and against the IPCC. >> >> We need to make the case that this is shoddy and >> prejudiced journalism. Wasdell is not a climate >> scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was >> not in Paris, and is grossly ignorant of both the >> science and the IPCC process. His account of >> what went on is factually incorrect in many >> important respects. >> >> New Scientist inexplicably violates basic >> journalistic standards by publicizing and >> editorially agreeing with a vicious attack by an >> uncredentialed source without checking facts or >> hearing from the people attacked. The editorial >> and Pearce column, which I regard as packed with >> distortions and innuendo and error, are pasted >> below, and the Wasdell piece is attached. >> >> My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to > > New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as >> possible, would be an appropriate response. I >> think we ought to say that the science was >> absolutely not compromised or watered down by the >> review process or by political presure of any >> kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would >> be a mistake to attempt a detailed point-by-point >> discussion, which would provoke further >> criticism; that process would never converge. >> >> Please send us all your opinions and suggestions >> for what we should do, using the email list >> wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >> >> I am traveling and checking email occasionally, >> so if enough of us agree that we should respond, >> I hope one or more of you (not me) will volunteer > > to coordinate the effort and submit the result to >> New Scientist. >> >> Best regards to all, >> >> Richard >> >> Richard C. J. Somerville >> Distinguished Professor >> Scripps Institution of Oceanography >> University of California, San Diego >> 9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224 >> La Jolla, CA 92093-0224, USA >> >> >> -- >> >> >>>Here's the editorial that will appear in New Scientist on March 10. >> >> >> >>> >>>Editorial: Carbon omissions >>> >>>IT IS a case of the dog that didn't bark. The >>>dog in this instance was the Intergovernmental >>>Panel on Climate Change. >>> >>>For several years, climate scientists have grown >>>increasingly anxious about "positive feedbacks" >>>that could accelerate climate change, such as >>>methane bubbling up as permafrost melts. That >>>concern found focus at an international >>>conference organised by the British government >>>two years ago, and many people expected it to >>>emerge strongly in the latest IPCC report, whose >>>summary for policy-makers was published in Paris >>>last month. >>> >>>It didn't happen. The IPCC summary was notably >>>guarded. We put that down to scientific caution >>>and the desire to convey as much certainty as >>>possible (New Scientist, 9 February, p 3), but >>>this week we hear that an earlier version of the >>>summary contained a number of explicit >>>references to positive feedbacks and the dangers >>>of accelerating climate change. A critique of >>>the report now argues that the references were >>>removed in a systematic fashion (see "Climate >>>report 'was watered down'"). >>> >>>This is worrying. The version containing the >>>warnings was the last for which scientists alone >>>were responsible. After that it went out to >>>review by governments. The IPCC is a >>>governmental body as well as a scientific one. >>>Both sides have to sign off on the report. >>> >>>The scientists involved adamantly deny that >>>there was undue pressure, or that the scientific >>>integrity of their report was compromised. We do >>>know there were political agendas, and that the >>>scientists had to fight them. As one of the >>>report's 33 authors put it: "A lot of us devoted >>>a lot of time to ensuring that the changes >>>requested by national delegates did not affect >>>the scientific content." Yet small changes in >>>language which individually may not amount to >>>much can, cumulatively, change the tone and >>>message of a report. Deliberately or not, this >>>is what seems to have happened. >>> >>>Senior IPCC scientists are not willing to >>>discuss the changes, beyond denying that there >>>was political interference. They regard the >>>drafting process as private. This is an >>>understandable reservation, but the case raises >>>serious doubts about the IPCC process. A little >>>more transparency would go a long way to >>>removing those qualms. >> >> >> -- >> >> Here's the Pearce column: >> >>>Climate report 'was watered down' >>> >>>10 March 2007 >>>From New Scientist Print Edition. <>Subscribe and get 4 free issues. >>>Fred Pearce >>>BRITISH researchers who have seen drafts of last >>>month's report by the Intergovernmental Panel on >>>Climate Change claim it was significantly >>>watered down when governments became involved in >>>writing it. >>> >>>David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate >>>change who acted as an accredited reviewer of >>>the report, says the preliminary version >>>produced by scientists in April 2006 contained >>>many references to the potential for climate to > >>change faster than expected because of "positive >>>feedbacks" in the climate system. Most of these >>>references were absent from the final version. >>> >>>His assertion is based on a line-by-line >>>analysis of the scientists' report and the final >>>version, which was agreed last month at a >>>week-long meeting of representatives of more >>>than 100 governments. Wasdell told New >>>Scientist: "I was astounded at the alterations >>>that were imposed by government agents during >>>the final stage of review. The evidence of >>>collusional suppression of well-established and >>>world-leading scientific material is >>>overwhelming." >>> >>>He has prepared a critique, "Political >>>Corruption of the IPCC Report?", which claims: > >>"Political and economic interests have >>>influenced the presented scientific material." >>>He plans to publish the document online this >>>week at >>>www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm. >>> >>>Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis >>>was supported this week by two leading UK >>>climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean >>>physicist Peter Wadhams of the University of >>>Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic >>>ice has thinned by 40 per cent over the past 25 >>>years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC >>>report, told New Scientist: "The public needs to >>>know that the policy-makers' summary, presented >>>as the united words of the IPCC, has actually >>>been watered down in subtle but vital ways by >>>governmental agents before the public was >>>allowed to see it." >>> >>>"The public needs to know that the summary has >>>been watered down in subtle but vital ways by >>>governmental agents" >>> >>>Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government >>>adviser on climate and a former ambassador to >>>the UN, says: "I think David Wasdell's analysis >>>is very useful, and unique of its kind. Others >>>have made comparable points but not in such >>>analytic detail." >>> >>>Wasdell's central charge is that "reference to >>>possible acceleration of climate change [was] >>>consistently removed" from the final report. >>>This happened both in its treatment of potential >>>positive feedbacks from global warming in the >>>future and in its discussion of recent >>>observations of collapsing ice sheets and an >>>accelerating rise in sea levels. >>> >>>For instance, the scientists' draft report >>>warned that natural systems such as rainforests, >>>soils and the oceans would in future be less >>>able to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. It >>>said: "This positive feedback could lead to as >>>much as 1.2 C of added warming by 2100." The >>>final version does not include this figure. It >>>acknowledges that the feedback could exist but >>>says: "The magnitude of this feedback is >>>uncertain." >>> >>>Similarly, the draft warned that warming will >>>increase atmospheric levels of water vapour, >>>which acts as a greenhouse gas. "Water vapour >>>increases lead to a strong positive feedback," >>>it said. "New evidence estimates a 40 to 50 per >>>cent amplification of global mean warming." This >>>was absent from the published version, replaced >>>elsewhere with the much milder observation >>>"Water vapour changes represent the largest >>>feedback." >>> >>>The final edit also removed references to >>>growing fears that global warming is >>>accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice >>>sheets such as the Greenland sheet. This would >>>dramatically speed up rises in sea levels and >>>may already be doing so. The 2006 draft said: >>>"Recent observations show rapid changes in ice >>>sheet flows," and referred to an "accelerating >>>trend" in sea-level rise. Neither detail made >>>the final version, which observed that "ice flow >>>from Greenland and Antarctica... could increase >>>or decrease in future". Wasdell points out >>>recent findings which show that the rate of loss >>>from ice sheets is doubling every six years, >>>making the suggestion of a future decrease >>>"highly unlikely". >>> >>>Some of the changes were made at the meeting of >>>government invigilators that finalised the >>>report last month in Paris. But others were made >>>earlier, after the draft report was first > >>distributed to governments in mid-2006. >>> >>>Senior IPCC scientists contacted by New >>>Scientist have not been willing to discuss how >>>any changes took place but they deny any >>>political interference. However, "if it is true, >>>it's disappointing", says Mike Mann, director of >>>the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania >>>State University in University Park and a past >>>lead author for the IPCC. "Allowing governmental >>>delegations to ride into town at the last minute >>>and water down conclusions after they were >>>painstakingly arrived at in an objective >>>scientific assessment does not serve society >>>well." >>> >>>From issue 2594 of New Scientist magazine, 10 March 2007, page 10 > > -- >> -- _______________________________________________ >> Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list >> Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >> http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas >> > > >___________________ >Kevin Trenberth >Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >PO Box 3000 >Boulder CO 80307 >ph 303 497 1318 >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list >Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 2887. 2007-03-08 09:05:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:05:27 -0800 from: Ken Denman subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] [Fwd: Re: new scientist and IPCC] to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu HI All, I talked to Fred Pearce briefly in Paris after the press conference, but mostly to a lady from the New Scientist. Here is a response I sent yesterday to a query from him (below) a week or so earlier while I was on vacation. I also include at the bottom his terse response this morning. It is clear that he has an agenda and would not have used my email even if it had been last week. Ken Denman -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: new scientist and IPCC Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:33:01 -0800 From: Ken Denman To: pearcefred , Ken Denman , Guy Brasseur , Martin Manning , "Francis Zwiers (francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca)" References: <96A020E7C59DDF4DAC6560DAB6BEB95D06418D0E@ncrxbh.ncr.int.ec.gc.ca> Hi Fred, Sorry I have been on a much needed vacation for the last few days, intentionally without internet access. I have not seen your article, as our library only has access with 1 month delay, and I have not managed to get to the library yet. Others have seen the article and told me about it. I do not really want to contribute to your manufacturing a controversy about how our report has been watered down. Peer review is the backbone of good science and AR4 has been extensively reviewed. We are required to respond in writing to each and every comment submitted during the official review. It is not clear to me whether you are comparing material from earlier drafts of individual chapters with what has been selected for emphasis in the SPM, or whether you are talking about an earlier version of the SPM. In the 2 periods of official review, my own chapter (chapter 7) received ~3000 individual comments. At least 3/4 were constructive and we have endeavoured to respond to those comments by making the appropriate changes in our chapter. Because we anticipated vigorous scrutiny by the so-called 'skeptics', we have revised or removed statements that we could not defend with equal vigour. By the way each chapter has 3 'review editors' whose job is to ensure that the Lead Authors have taken the review comments seriously. In my chapter, one of the review editors for example is Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel Prize with Paul Crutzen and Sherwood Rowland for explaining the chemistry responsible for the 'ozone hole'. By the way, my understanding is that all the review comments and our responses to them will be posted on the web for public scrutiny. We were also under pressure by the IPCC to keep the SPM short, so some figures in earlier drafts had to be cut for us to reach our length target. You are concerned that "this positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 degrees C of added warming by 2100." disappeared, but we have stated on SPM p 14 "For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1C." - the message is essentially the same but now it is tied to a specific scenario which I think makes a more precise statement. With regards to the 'water vapour' and 'ice sheet flows' items, you would have to talk to the LAs involved (maybe Jonathan Gregory of the Hadley Centre for ice sheet dynamics). I do know that the 'ice sheet and sea level' item in the SPM received many review comments and was discussed extensively by the LAs involved, and Table SPM-3 was created to replace the same information that was only in text form (and as a result was apparently confusing), all before the plenary in Paris. During the Plenary, we presented for approval all changes that we had made in response to government reviews of the SPM done during the autumn of 2006. The line by line scrutiny of the SPM by governments during the Plenary is the necessary step by which the governments 'take ownership' of the AR4. That they do so is essential if the AR4 is going to have a maximal influence on future policy. These IPCC procedural rules for the reviewing process were well known before we started AR4. If you as an editor of New Scientist sent out an article for scientific review then made editorial comments, and the authors chose to ignore all the review comments, you would probably not publish the article. Then Nature or Science for example could publish a commentary how you are suppressing new knowledge on a particular scientific issue. I am not really trying to be adversarial here, but if we are not going to respond to reviews, then we might as well have published the 'Zeroth Order Draft'. I can assure you that the final version of AR4 is a much stronger and tighter document scientifically as a result of the extensive review process. I am also copying this to two other chapter Coordinators as well as to Martin Manning, head of the WG1 Technical Support Unit, so it is 'on the record'. Sincerely, Ken Denman pearcefred wrote: > Hi Ken, > > We met in Paris at the recent IPCC event. I quoted you in my piece for New > Scientist on the nuts and bolts of the week. > I have just received a copy of a critique of the report, based on a line by > line comparison of the published summary and the mid-2006 draft. It > suggests a fairly systematic removal during the editing process of > references to "positive feedbacks" and suggestions of accelerating climate > change and sea level rise. Here are some examples from my summary notes: > > The scientists' draft report, distributed in mid-2006, warned that natural > systems such as rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less > able to absorb man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It said that "this > positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 degrees C of added warming > by 2100." But the final version removes this figure. It acknowledges that > the feedback could exist, but says that "the magnitude of this feedback is > uncertain." > > Similarly, the draft report warned that warming will increase water vapour > in the atmosphere. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. "Water vapour > increases lead to a strong positive feedback," it said. "New observational > and modelling evidence estimates a 40-50 per cent amplification of global > mean warming". But this paragraph disappeared from the published version, > to be replaced elsewhere with a much milder observation that "water vapour > changes represent the largest feedback". > > The 2006 draft said that "recent observations show rapid changes in ice > sheet flows" as well as an "accelerating trend" in sea level rise. But > neither made the final version, which observed that "ice flow from > Greenland and Antarctica could increase or decrease in future". > > We are considering running an item on this, and I wonder if you would be > willing to comment (hopefully on the record, but off the record if you > insist!) on the veracity of this analysis. > > Regards > > Fred Pearce > New Scientist > >THIS BELOW RECEIVED TODAY 8 MARCH Thanks Ken, We've gone to press on this. In fact it is in today's magazine. I think the story is legitimate, especially combined with the leader, which I also wrote. Though I know some in the IPCC process will take a different view. Regards Fred Pearce -- Ken Denman, FRSC Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250) 363 8230 FAX: (250) 363 8247 email: ken.denman@ec.gc.ca Room 263 Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3 Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences Department of Fisheries and Oceans tel. 250 363 6335 web page: http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman -- Ken Denman, FRSC Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250) 363 8230 FAX: (250) 363 8247 email: ken.denman@ec.gc.ca Room 263 Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3 Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences Department of Fisheries and Oceans tel. 250 363 6335 web page: http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 3675. 2007-03-08 09:26:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Mar 8 09:26:32 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: REQUEST to REVIEW a Technical Comment and Response on 1135456 to: pmoore@aaas.org Dear Pat just back in my office and leaving at the weekend for a visit to teach and lecture in Sweden. Hence, I can not do this . The obvious reviewer would be Jonathan Gregory (Hadley Centre , but in Reading - see [1]http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~jonathan/) but Jason Lowe at Hadley Centre in Exeter (jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk) might be a more accessible/willing reviewer . At 00:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: March 6, 2007 Dear Dr. Briffa, Hello - I am the associate editor of the Technical Comments section of SCIENCE and I am writing to ask if you would have the time and interest to review a technical comment and response for us. The comment is by (Holgate, Simon et al.)and deals with the paper "A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea level rise" by Rahmstorf, Stefan, published on p. 368 of the January 19,2007 edition of SCIENCE. The Response is by Rahmstorf. The comment and response together are about 7 pages, double-spaced, in length. If you agree to review the comment, we ask that the review be completed within two weeks. Also, if you're unable to do the review, could I ask for your suggestions on alternative appropriate reviewers? Thanks for your time and help. Sincerely yours, Tara S. Marathe Associate Online Editor, SCIENCE [2]tmarathe@aaas.org 214-824-5470 Pat Moore Editorial Assistant [3]pmoore@aaas.org Fax 202-289-3649 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5152. 2007-03-08 16:33:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:33:06 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu Dear Colleagues, As a CLA of the TS, I am on the CLA mailing list and have had a chance to read your very helpful messages. I would like to personally thank each and every one of you for your very thoughtful remarks (including Richard Wood, who is the only one expressing reservations about replying - and I think that both Richard Wood and others who suggested the importance of care and dignity are absolutely correct). In fact I have been quite moved by this entire correspondence and found it to be one of those 'IPCC moments'. Thank you. I feel that your letter will be most helpful and have the greatest impact if it is prepared and signed by you and if the co-chairs and Dr. Manning (who also is a CLA of the TS) do not sign. Please ignore it as you like. Please make your own decision about what to say, or to not say anything at all is fine too, about the chair. I also agree with Ram that this is neither the first nor the last such piece we will be dealing with of this nature, so it is your call but I would like to suggest making this letter as 'versatile' as it can be. Again I want to emphasize that it is totally up to you but you might want to consider a short cover note sent to the editors of New Scientist (I believe Richard Somerville has their email addresses) that indicates concern over the fact that New Scientist would publish such inappropriate material, followed by a separate letter. Then the letter you could attach, and ask that they publish, since they have published so much wrong stuff could be broad rather than getting into specific rebuttals. It could be brief, indicating what was done to prepare the SPM by us as a group, and indicating in closing that anyone who has no personal knowledge of what occurred could refer to this letter in future if they wish to cite an informed source. Regarding Paris: If you wish to refer to the fact that you as a group feel that the changes that occurred in Paris were essentially editorial issues of language or presentation style, that you were indeed surprised by how minor the changes were (as many of you have said to me) this would be good to have in a document if you feel so. 'Presentation style' is good language, I think, since even the famous change regarding 'likely five times' and solar in the RF headline was a non-change, really, since we fully retained all the information in the figure and in the main text - so in essence even that was a matter of presentation in the end, which is a key reason why I didn't push harder to keep it. I don't suggest you get into details but this is FYI. Regarding earlier drafts: It could also be useful to state that at no point during any step in the drafting and revision process was there any inappropriate input by 'government agents' to the framing of the document that was the starting point for Paris (rather that it was prepared jointly by the authors in order to present the report clearly in the collective judgement of those authors). I had to write a short description of how the SPM was prepared in response to a question after our congressional hearing (and I add that Kevin, Jerry, and Richard Alley all saw this and agreed with it). A little more detail than I put in here could be useful for this. The fact that collectively the authors made choices based entirely upon their own expert judgements about clarity, conciseness, and accuracy, bearing in mind the need for brevity in the document could be helpful. I am not trying to put words in your mouth but rather make a suggestion about the type of thing to say - in fact it will be better if you rewrite this so it is your own words. Such a broad letter could have great utility: we could all use it whenever appropriate, rather than just for New Scientist. We might consider putting it on the WG1 web site too. The cover note could then also express your surprise at New Scientist using sources who cannot possibly have any personal knowledge of what occurred (Wadhams, Wasdell, and Mann), and that the writer of the New Scientist articles quite clearly ignored information that WAS sent to him by people who DID actually know what happened (Jones, Denman, and actually myself as well, probably more). Not only was none of what we gave them quoted, but our responses were misrepresented as 'lack of transparency' and such nonsense. You could cite a simple statement out of one of your messages regarding the fact that the substance of the SPM was not altered. You could then express your concern that New Scientist does not seem to following any proper standard of objective reporting. (I suggest not using the word 'biases' nor referring to early information and further data - that is not needed. Nor is the issue of 'emerging' conclusions needed - it was our judgement to look deeper as we went along and we should not be trying to explaining anything more than that. Short is probably best here...). Bear in mind that New Scientist could well choose to publish your cover note and not just your letter if you follow this route - so both could best be kept quite short and concise, as Kevin and others have suggested. My correspondence (two sets) with Pearce follows. I kept the second one deliberately short as he was obviously fishing for nonsense and my first response had already addressed how the report revisions were carried out. The first came to my attention because it was sent to NOAA public affairs, who forwarded it on to me. My response obviously did not stop him from making inappropriate statements in the article - cleverly by baiting Mike Mann and Peter Wadhams into doing it for him, and not properly quoting anything of what I told him (or what Phil or Ken told him). This is just for your information. I suggest taking something out of Phil's or Ken's responses to him rather than mine if you think that is helpful. But it isn't needed - doing the above seems to be 'dignified' and sufficient to me personally. I will stress in closing that this entire note is intended only for your consideration, and whatever you do it is a pleasure and honor to be your colleague. best regards, Susan ---------- Second message and response: >Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 06:30:16 -0700 >To: pearcefred >From: Susan Solomon >Subject: Re: fred pearce >Cc: >Bcc: > >This is a ridiculous assertion. >Susan Solomon > >>Susan, >>Thanks for your note. I am quite happy to accept, and publish, your >>assurance that there was no undue political interference in the drafting of >>the SPM. It is, as you say, signed off by 33 authors. I accept >>that reviewers do not have direct personal knowledge of how the >>draft was prepared. But they can compare different versions of the draft >>and apply textual analysis. >>I think what David Wasdell does highlight in his analysis is that there has >>been a fairly systematic removed from the April draft of certain types of >>statements and observations. Specifically, references to positive >>feedbacks and possible acceleration of climate change. >>It would be useful if we could include in our reporting of Wasdell's >>analysis your own interpretation of this. Is he right in his textual >>analysis? Did this happen in an ac hoc way or as the result of a stretagic >>decision about what should be included and excluded? And what were the >>scientific grounds? >>Regards >>Fred Pearce >>New Scientist ------------ First message and response: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:07:48 -0700 To: PEARCEFRED@compuserve.com From: Susan Solomon Subject: Assertions by Fred Pearce X-Rcpt-To: X-DPOP: Version number supressed The attached has come to my attention. All of the assertions below are utterly false, and it would be a disgrace to scientific reporting if they were to appear. Reviewers of the document do not have direct personal knowledge about how the draft was prepared and so do not represent appropriate sources. All drafts of the document you appear to be referring to (for the Summary for Policy Makers or SPM) were prepared and revised by a subgroup of 33 authors of the IPCC (2007) Working Group 1 report and reflect their joint evaluation and agreement upon all material. The list of names of those 33 scientists is given on the front page of the Summary. Susan Solomon > >I hope I have got the right person to ask for a comment on a story I have >on NOAA's role in the IPCC process. >I am based in London, UK, so I don't normally deal with NOAA and therefore >am relying on your web site for media contact names. >Maybe if you are not the right person you will pass this on. >I have a story quoting a British scientist involved in reviewing the IPCC >working group 1 report (which was, as I inderstand it, drafted within a >secretariat run out of NOAA). In it he charges that significant >watering down of the report took place >after the first draft was completed in mid-2006. Specifically, he says >references in the first draft to positive feedbacks and possible >acceleration of warming were removed or watered down. He characterises >this as governmental intereference in the scientific process. He >does NOT directly charge NOAA in this regard, but basically says it >happened under your watch, and you are a governmental agency. >I cannot give you the name of this scientist at this stage. But I thought >you ought to have the option to respond to the charge, which is backed by >some other researchers I have spoken to. >Specifically you might like to answer the following questions: >1. What role did NOAA and Department of Commerce officials who are not >working scientists play in the drafting of the IPCC working group 1 report >summary for policy-makers released in Paris earlier this month? None >2. As secretariat for the report, how do you respond to suggestions that >NOAA either initiated or was party to the watering down and removal of >references in the report to "positive feedbacks" from climate change (for >instance from water vapour and carbon-cycle changes) and the resulting >potential for accelerated warming, and of references to recent reports of >accelerated loss of ice sheets and resulting sea-level rise? Your assertions are utterly false >I have a deadline tomorrow (UK time) on this story. >Regards >Fred Pearce >Environment consultant >New Scientist >London >PEARCEFRED@compuserve.com Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Solomon_AnswerHallQuestion1.doc" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 1435. 2007-03-08 21:13:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 21:13:54 -0000 from: "Mark New" subject: RE: is that picture really you? to: "'Phil Jones'" Seems like there are a lot of people out there who still think that the IPCC is a conspiracy...see the comments after the article in the Observer on Sunday: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html Cheers, MN. > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 07 March 2007 16:28 > To: Mark New > Subject: is that picture really you? > > > > Mark, > The one on the Ch 4 site - ask the expert! > If you're the expert (along with Jim Skea) why have > made a program with 9 unnamed professors who > seem to be spouting the same sort of rubbish as before > - it's the sun, CO2 rises because T does etc. > > Anyway still have to watch the program - a different > room from Ruth, as she wants to watch the program rather > than hear me swearing at it. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > 2439. 2007-03-09 00:07:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:07:46 -0500 from: Francis Zwiers subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu Hi all - here are a few more edits. I agree with Gabi that we shouldn't include the "puppet" sentence. Also, I don't think we need to compare what Susan said in Paris (as quoted by Wasdell) with something that Sir John might hypothetically have said. I think that sends a message about Susan that we don't mean to send! I've tried to add a sentence indicating that the Paris process improved the way the document communicates our findings, but that it did not change the finding themselves. Cheers, Francis [1]hegerl@duke.edu wrote: Hi all, an attempt to some more edits removing the "puppet" sentence and another sentence that I worried about - now on to the chapter edits checking (although this is more fun - maybe - anything is more fun than page proofs apart maybe from doing the taxes). I admit I am frustrated by what at least one of our collegues said to the new scientist. He should know better! Gabi Quoting Ken Denman [2]: Hi Piers et al, I have taken the liberty to suggest a few changes (with change tracker turned on) - while you Europeans (oops, and Brits) at least are sleeping. And Piers and Richard, thanks a lot for getting this moving quickly. Regards, Ken ps. Piers - my salary is paid by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They are VERY uneasy when I speak or write letters to the press, but they get really upset when I don't credit them appropriately. C'est la vie. [3]piers@env.leeds.ac.uk wrote: Hi all This is the latest draft with Jerry's and Ken's edits. However, in addition I've deleted the para on the Paris meeting - as it was essentially repeated within the last paragraph, and slightly reordered the other paragraphs Again please make further edits. Also please could people approve the attachment of their name to such a letter. Non highlighted names are people who appear to have already given approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow highlighted name I think you are likely (or very likely) to sign! If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in the process of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of work at the end collecting approvals Cheers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [4]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [5]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- Ken Denman, FRSC Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250) 363 8230 FAX: (250) 363 8247 email: [6]ken.denman@ec.gc.ca Room 263 Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3 Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences Department of Fisheries and Oceans tel. 250 363 6335 web page: [7]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman __________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [8]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [9]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada Toronto: 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 Phone: (416)739-4767, Fax: (416)739-5700 Victoria: PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250)363-8229, Fax: (250) 363-8247 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NewScientist_2_Ken_gabi_francis.doc" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 2725. 2007-03-09 01:06:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'W Choi'" , , date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 01:06:53 +0900 from: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?v8HIv8GkKEh5byBKZW9uZyBPayk=?= subject: KMS Symposium Information to: "'Phil Jones'" , , , , "'Michael Schlesinger'" , Dear Speakers, We are kindly inviting you to Welcoming dinner hosted by LG Electronics on March 20, 2007. So we would like to ask of you to inform us whether you could participate or not. Dinner will be held at Korean Cuisine Restaurant which is not so far from your accommodation, Millennium Hilton Hotel. From and to transportation will be provided for participants who stay in the hotel. For your reference, on 21^st of March, the other dinner party is scheduled, too. It will be hosted by the Chair of KMS. Details for the dinner will be given on-site. Or if possible, it will be noticed sometime next week. Please send us your reply. We are looking forward to seeing you in Seoul at the Symposium. Sincerely yours, Hyo Jeong Ok Assisant Manager Exhibition & Convention Team EZ pmp Inc. Direct phone: 82 2 3475 2665 l Fax: 82 2 3475 2666 [cid:image002.gif@01C761E7.39A6F090] Address: Han Building 5F, #944-4, Bangbae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea 137-845 [cid:image002.gif@01C761E7.39A6F090] Email: [1]vicky0813@ezpmp.co.kr l [2]http://www.ezpmp.co.kr Embedded Content: image0022.gif: 00000001,070d7ff3,00000000,00000000 1677. 2007-03-09 07:32:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bai, Zhanguo" date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:32:39 +0100 from: "Dent, David" subject: RE: to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil Thank you for this helpful advice. Please let me know how we can get access to your updated record. Kind regards David ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: donderdag 8 maart 2007 17:48 To: Dent, David Cc: Bai, Zhanguo Subject: RE: David, The GPCC dataset is likely a better product than ours, so I would go with that one. They have tried to use a consistent set of stations through time. Their dataset is not updated in real time, and ours is. There are a few gripes in his email that I've not heard before. I didn't realize he was now at FAO. DWD did get all our raw station data and according to Bruno Rudolf they were merged in. Jurgen's gripes seem to go quite deep. We do have a slightly decreasing # of stations, but at least we get to the near present. At large scales it will not make that much difference. I have some examples from the upcoming 4th IPCC Assessment Report that I can send you after May 4. CRU data compares will with most US datasets and with the two DWD datasets. Here is one - don't pass on. It shows a number of different datasets. It isn't clear which is right if any are. Some contain satellite estimates , some don't. Cheers Phil At 15:37 08/03/2007, Dent, David wrote: Dear Phil Thank you for your kind reply. ISRIC - World Soil Information is undertaking a Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement within an FAO project: Land Degradation in Drylands. Initially, we are identifying black spots of degradation by trend analysis of the GIMMS data set of fortnightly NDVI at 8km resolution since 1981, as a proxy for net primary productivity. Because production depends upon climate as well as land, we are looking at both NDVI trend and rain-use efficiency. For calculation of rain-use efficiency, we have two climatic datasets - yours and VASClimO, GPCC Germany ([1]http://www.dwd.de/en/FundE/Klima/KLIS/int/GPCC/GPCC.htm). We shall use the data at 0.5 degree resolution. We have been using the CRU TS 2.1 dataset in our preliminary case studies in North China and Kenya to calculate the trends of rain-use efficiency from 1981 onwards. However, we have, since then, looked at the VASCLimO dataset: 50 years global precipitation data 1951-2000. Not being climatologists, we cannot make an informed choice, except that VASCLimO is not being updated. The GPCC Full Data Reanalysis Products might be considered - from 2001 onwards but it does not use the same stations as VASClimO - so this does not seem to be a good idea! One of the VASClimO creators, Dr Juergen Grieser, employed by FAO now, has comments on the datasets: 'My objections with respect to the CRU data are that they use record fragments of various lengths and have a continuous decreasing number of stations during both the last decades of the 20th century... 'GPCC usually provides gridded data on 1 or 2.5 degree resolution. This means 17,689 and 3,355 gridpoints for global land surfaces, respectively. In the latter case one had roughly 2-3 stations per gridbox if the stations were equally distributed in space. And they definitely are not. 'With 0.5 degree resolution of the VASClimO dataset we got 65,617 grid points with 9,343 stations! Now if you go for 8 km grid which I suppose is 5'x5' you would have 36 times that much grid cells, which is about 2.3 million locations but still less than 10,000 stations. What I am trying to stress is that the input information is much sparser than the resolution you are interested in. 'The VASClimO dataset was generated with special emphasis on data quality, homogeneity and shortness of gaps in the records. Our goal was to make about the same error for each month and not providing best estimates for each month individually (as it is usually done). The latter case leads to datasets which mix climate trends and data-availability trends. Therefore VASClimO is a unique dataset particularly suitable for precipitation change investigations. 'Unfortunately, the routines had to be programmed and installed on private computers since the subproject leader Dr. Bruno Rudolf refused to provide necessary programmable computer power to the project employees. Therefore, at the end of the project, the programs and the knowledge how to test and interpolate the data (beyond stupidly and suboptimally applying donated software) left the Met Service (DWD) with the employees. No extension of the VASClimO dataset is available. 'However, the GPCC full-data product just uses all available data which means that whole country specific subsets may be switched on in one year and off in another year, making time series analysis useless. No quality control at all is applied to the data used for the full-data product. Finally not relative precipitation is interpolated (as it should be the case in order to get realistic values and to keep the local long-term average in good agreement with the observations) but precip totals are interpolated. This leads to "interpolated" funny rain amounts especially in dry areas. Here at FAO, however, we have lots of fun with the GPCCs results. 'Also note that an extension of the VASClimO dataset would mean a new calculation, quality control, homogeneity testing and station selection, since e.g. the condition of only a certain fraction of gaps would be fulfilled for another subset of stations. 'As I said before the problem with the Full-Data Product is, as with all the other data sets except VASClimO (Does that include CRU?) that it uses a considerably different amount of stations for each month. Each month go the highest station amount available. 'The paper you attached clearly shows the jump in data availability in 1986 (the traditional start year of GPCC). Therefore I personally doubt that you could use the data for time series analysis, i.e. trend estimation, since trends at least in some regions may just result from the fact that in part of the time series the nearest sation is a different one than in other parts of the time series. Since precipitation is highly variable in space this makes quite a difference. Note that GPCC also does not use a base precipitation field (long-term means) and interpolate relative deviations as it is recommended by all the groups which have some understanding of precipitation and interpolation (although they could do) but simply interpolate rainfall observations as they are and by that transfer observations over hundreds of kilometers and across climate regimes an simply do not care whether or not they get reasonable values. 'Therefore, if you are not interested in a snapshot I very much recommend not to use the Full-Data Product. If you are very desperately looking for data you may which to correlate the time series of the Full-Data Product and the VASClimO Product gridpoint by gridpoint and learn about the use of a regression to fit them. Maybe in the region you are interested in and for the ration you are investigating this leads to usable results. 'However, our experience to correlate the records of the CRU grid with the ones of the Full-Data Product is bad. And we gave up merging these data for water balance calculations.' What to do? I seek your advice because we are about to undertake the global analysis of land degradation - a task of 30 months and need to start now. Kind regards David <> <> Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3965. 2007-03-09 10:43:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:43:15 -0000 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Phil Jones" Michael/Phil, An appeal that 'isn't' an appeal to the earlier request.... I am presuming that the answer we gave to the request still stands? The LC Code of Practice states that any expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint and our complaints procedure invoked. They suggest an informal approach to settling the matter first and if that fails, only then going the formal route. The latter involves a review by a person not involved with the original complaint - the UEA Code lays out a 3 stage process; one, informal, two, review by Director of Information Services, and three, review by a board that includes the Registrar. In reality, I have had but 2 appeals and since both involved the Registrar, the VC decided both... the feeling being that we can't have someone 'lower' in the organisational pecking order reviewing the actions of a 'superior'.... All the Act & Code really requires is that we have a review process and follow it. The appellant can't go to the ICO until all local review processes are complete... As to timelines, we have to tell the appellant our time limit and procedure & deal with the complaint within each stage within 28 days - this is in line with national guidance. To the substance of this, obviously if we can resolve this informally, that would be the preferred course... is there any way that we can convince this person that the information requested is available where we directed them to? Or can we give advice and guidance that would alter the request sufficiently to allow it to be fulfilled? I'm looking for a way to avoid the formal process as I fear this will end up with the ICO and take more of all our time & effort.... I hope my initial email to him will offer a way out of this without resorting to the formal process - I'm an optimist! Worth another meeting to discuss? Great timing eh? Cheers, Dave Michael - do you want me to send a copy of the UEA complaints procedure? ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) l212 Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) Dear Mr. Palmer: Thank you for your reply (attached below). However, I fear that it is totally unresponsive. I had asked for a list of the sites actually used. While it may (or may not) be true that "it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from [GHCN]", this is meaningless without an actual list of the sites that Dr. Jones and his team used. The debate about changes in the climate is quite important. Dr. Jones' work is one of the most frequently cited statistics in the field. Dr. Jones has refused to provide a list of the sites used for his work, and as such, it cannot be replicated. Replication is central to science. I find Dr. Jones attitude quite difficult to understand, and I find your refusal to provide the data requested quite baffling. You are making the rather curious claim that because the data "appears" to be out on the web somewhere, there is no need for Dr. Jones to reveal which stations were actually used. The claim is even more baffling since you say that the original data used by CRU is available at the GHCN web site, and then follow that with the statement that some of the GHCN data originally came from CRU. Which is the case? Did CRU get the data from GHCN, or did GHCN get the data from CRU? Rather than immediately appealing this ruling (with the consequent negative publicity that would inevitably accrue to CRU from such an action), I am again requesting that you provide: 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and 2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site's data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR. I find it somewhat disquieting that an FOI request is necessary to force a scientist to reveal the data used in his publicly funded research ... is this truly the standard that the CRU is promulgating? Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Willis Eschenbach ______________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Eschenbach FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_07-04) Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at: [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site. Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: [2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/ Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems). They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data. In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below Exemption Reason s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites If you have a complaint about the handling of your enquiry then please contact me at: University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 0160 393 523 E-mail foi@uea.ac.uk You also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at: Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Telephone: 01625 545 700 www.ico.gov.uk Yours sincerely David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia 1187. 2007-03-09 10:58:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:58:56 -0700 (MST) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign to: "Piers Forster" Looks better. Happy to go along. My preference would have been to simply leave out stuff like "The changes enumerated by Wasdell are largely minor corrections that eliminated those points that did not stand up to scrutiny. A case in point is the removal of statements about acceleration of sea level rise. Based on available data, sea level has risen as rapidly during periods of the past 50 years as it is rising today, so an assessment of acceleration would be premature." Kevin > > > OK, nearly there. > > This is what we've got. I will not send it into New Scientist until > Colorado > am today, in case anyone in the US wants to make any last minute changes. > Otherwise this will be the final version. > > > Cheers > > > Piers Forster (www.env.leeds.ac.uk/~piers) > T +44 113 343 6476; F +44 113 343 6716; E piers@env.leeds.ac.uk > School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Stocker [mailto:stocker@climate.unibe.ch] > Sent: 09 March 2007 10:14 > To: Piers Forster > Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign > > Dear Piers > > one last edit from my side - fine otherwise. > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > Piers Forster wrote: > >> >> Thomas et al. >> >> It would be good to get closure on this soon so we can get on with our >> day or night jobs! >> >> I like your shorter version - I've added some of Gabi's and Francis' >> points to it and made a couple of corrections >> >> I've also added two sentences >> >> One coming to Susan's defence - the personal attack on her is one of >> the worst things about the article. The other one in the last para >> tries to make the points that Susan suggested we bring out about the >> lack of interference >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> >> Piers Forster (www.env.leeds.ac.uk/~piers) T +44 113 343 6476; F +44 >> 113 >> 343 6716; E piers@env.leeds.ac.uk School of Earth and Environment, >> University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Stocker [mailto:stocker@climate.unibe.ch] >> Sent: 09 March 2007 07:45 >> To: piers@env.leeds.ac.uk >> Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign >> >> Dear Piers and fellow CLAs >> >> Thanks for taking the lead in this. I agree with many of you who >> prefer a shorter article with fewer emotional bits in it. Also, being >> more affirmative and less defensive might help. >> >> Attached is a shortened version (by about 1/3) for your examination. >> Please feel entirely free to reject or use parts of it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Thomas >> >> >> piers@env.leeds.ac.uk wrote: >> >> >>>Hi all >>> >>>This is the latest draft with Jerry's and Ken's edits. However, in >>>addition I've deleted the para on the Paris meeting - as it was >>>essentially repeated within the last paragraph, and slightly reordered >>>the other paragraphs >>> >>> Again please make further >>>edits. Also please could people approve the attachment of their name >>>to such a letter. Non highlighted names are people who appear to have >>>already given approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow >>>highlighted name I think you are likely (or very likely) to sign! >>> >>>If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in >>>the process of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of >>>work at the end collecting approvals >>> >>>Cheers >>> >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>-- >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list >>>Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >>>http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Thomas Stocker >> Climate and Environmental Physics stocker@climate.unibe.ch >> Physics Institute, University of Bern ph: +41 31 631 44 62 >> Sidlerstrasse 5 fx: +41 31 631 87 42 >> 3012 Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list >> Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu >> http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Thomas Stocker > Climate and Environmental Physics stocker@climate.unibe.ch > Physics Institute, University of Bern ph: +41 31 631 44 62 > Sidlerstrasse 5 fx: +41 31 631 87 42 > 3012 Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list > Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu > http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 3867. 2007-03-09 15:12:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:12:46 +0000 from: "James Garvey" subject: RE: FW: question about carbon to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, Sorry to bother you with this, but maybe you know something I'm missing. I'm looking for the largest answers going with respect to what to do about climate change, namely targets or general strategies. I'm certainly not asking for your opinion, just help with research. So far as I can tell, there's not much in the way of answers concerning what to do. Probably we don't know, beyond the fact that our emissions are increasing, and that's not good. But at least there's: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: 'stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'. Working out what that level is is the Big Question. I'm starting to think that there's no such level. European Union seem to be hoping to limit temp increases to 2 C. (Too late.) Contraction and Convergence: everybody aims for 450 ppmv by 2100. Lots of other proposals and promises, which smell ad hoc, aiming to reduce emissions by x% by some date or other. Um, is that it? A sentence or two pointing me in other directions, if they exist, would be very welcome. Many thanks, James >From: Phil Jones >To: osotogarvey@hotmail.com >CC: "Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) ks918" >Subject: FW: question about carbon >Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:57:26 +0000 > > >> James, > > Best place to look for the second answer is the CDIAC > web site in the US. This is at Oak Ridge Natl Lab in TN. > > On Q1, don't perpetuate the myth that there is a safe > level of emissions. This assumes we understand more than we do. > Also read the SPM of the latest IPCC Report. This has a few typos > changed, but still has a few more small mistakes - comes from > working long hours in Paris last week. > > Point of sending you this, is that this is the current final word. > For 'safe' read the points about Greenland near the end. Maybe not > in our generation or the next, but the current levels of CO2 in > the atmosphere will eventually cause Greenland to melt. > This would be dangerous, so the safe concept should be avoided. > > Cheers > Phil > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: James Garvey [mailto:osotogarvey@hotmail.com] >>Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:42 PM >>To: cru@uea.ac.uk >>Subject: question about carbon >> >> >>Hello, >> >>I'm an academic writing a book, partly about climate change. I would be >> >>very grateful if you could point me in the right direction for the >>answers >>to two questions. >> >>I'd like to know how much CO2 we (as a species) put into the atmosphere >>each >>year; and how much is considered 'safe' or how much we can put in the >>atmosphere without dangerous effects. I realise both answers might just >>be >>goodish guesses, but that's enough for me. >> >>I'm also finding all sorts of numbers on per capita emissions. Is there >>a >>good place to go for this data? >> >>Many thanks in advance, >>James Garvey >>Royal Institute of Philosophy >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail >>http://ideas.live.com > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ><< WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf >> _________________________________________________________________ Rate your skiving credentials with our Slack-o-meter http://www.slack-o-meter.com 3478. 2007-03-09 16:50:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:50:12 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: O&B 2006 to: Gerd Brger , Keith Briffa Hi Gerd, sorry I didn't have time to respond earlier, but I was busy with teaching etc. this term. Thanks for the direct communication -- it's much nicer than to suddenly receive a comment from the journal without advance warning! I have subsequently received a copy from Science, with a request to write a response, which we are still preparing (but will finish very soon). The issues of proxy selection and inclusion of the selection process in the significance testing stage are very relevant, though we will argue in our reply that the effect on our results is not as large as your comment suggest -- I'll be interested to hear what you think of our response when you see it. Best wishes Tim At 13:27 06/02/2007, Gerd Brger wrote: >Hi Tim & Keith, > >I have just submitted the attached technical comment to Science. I >wonder if it is not too technical to be accepted. It will definitely >throw me into the camp of contrarians, a place where I had never dreamt to be. > >Anyway, I wanted to say thanks especially to Tim for his very >productive cooperation. And I hope you find some scientific value in it. > >Ciao, > Gerd > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 3632. 2007-03-09 22:29:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:29:26 -0500 from: V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Letter to the editor regarding IPCC reporting to: Piers Forster Hi Piers, Thank you very much for undertaking this exercise on behalf of all of us, and patiently editing it. I am sorry I was not available the whole of today as I spent the day in Washington in climate change modeling briefings to a couple of Senators and their staffs. I did not have my laptop and so could not follow all of the exchanges in 'real-time'. I am reading all the e-mails of today now (10 PM, Fri night). I agree with the entire contents of the letter, and here is hoping that New Scientist will at least pause and reflect on their perpetration. Cheers, Ram ----- Original Message ----- From: Piers Forster Date: Friday, March 9, 2007 3:12 pm Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Letter to the editor regarding IPCC reporting > > Dear Drs Webb and Schneider > > Myself and the other Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs) of the recent > IPCC assessment report were horrified by the poor standard of > reporting in your 10 March issue (including your editorial). We > would kindly request that you publish the attached letter which has > been jointly written and signed by the CLAs of the IPCC report. In > the future we would hope that editors would do their job and not > let such shoddy journalism get into print. > > Yours sincerely > > > Piers Forster (www.env.leeds.ac.uk/~piers) > T +44 113 343 6476; F +44 113 343 6716; E piers@env.leeds.ac.uk > School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 > 9JT, UK > > > _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 2073. 2007-03-13 09:24:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:24:13 +0000 from: David Viner subject: Fwd: RE: to: cru.all@uea hello FYI Please respond if you wish D Begin forwarded message: From: "Julia Barry" <[1]julia.barry@bbc.co.uk> Date: 13 March 2007 09:03:19 GMT To: "David Viner" <[2]d.viner@uea.ac.uk> Subject: RE: can I just ask you if you think there's a growing number of scientists who are questioning whether man's activities responsible for global warming - or if the C4 docco just got together a handful of climate change deniers who don't represent anybody (be honest now??!!) j ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Viner [[3]mailto:d.viner@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 13 March 2007 08:53 To: Julia Barry Subject: Re: Julia very unlikely, unless it is about 8.50, as I should be in Norwich then with Children, however not willing to get into a discussion with an "idiot" Hope al is ok D +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr David Viner Climatic Research Unit Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 592089 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 13 Mar 2007, at 08:37, Julia Barry wrote: Hi David You around? Wondered what your take on that C4 documentary - Climate Change swindel was??!! Am thinking of doing something this Saturday (Breakfast BBC1) wondered if there was something you could do?? Julia Julia Barry Deputy Editor, Weekend Breakfast ( Work: 0208 624 9429 mobile: 07985980565 8 [4]julia.barryl@bbc.co.uk [5]http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. [6]http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. 1766. 2007-03-15 09:52:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:52:31 -0000 from: "C G Kilsby" subject: Global warming swindle : Mike Hulme speaks out! to: "Tom Bramald" , "Andrew Smith" , , "A C Ford" , "H J Fowler" , "Richard Dawson" , "Lucy Manning" , "Jim Hall" , "Nigel Penna" , "Ian Thomas" , "Aidan Burton" , "Geoff Parkin" , "Claire Walsh" Our glorious leader (of the Tyndall Centre) spoke out in yesterday's Grauniad. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html I'd be delighted if anyone can explain to me: "post-normal science", statements such as "Climate change is too important to be left to scientists" and where I've been going wrong all these years. Chris --------------------------------------------- The appliance of science Politicians and the public look to scientists to explain the causes of climate change and whether it can be tackled - and they are queuing up to deliver. But, asks Mike Hulme, are we being given the whole picture? Wednesday March 14, 2007 The Guardian Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality. Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science? Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare. This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C. The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false". Means of inquiry At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives. And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it. So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society. That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time. But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience. The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science. So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge. In this reading, Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's. Or indeed, if we are to make sense of polar opposites such as James Lovelock's recent contribution The Revenge of Gaia, in which he extends climate science to reach the conclusion that the collapse of civilisation is no more than a couple of generations away. The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Singer has this view of science, as do some of his more outspoken campaigning critics such as Mark Lynas. That is why their exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences. If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won. If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage. This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives. Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much". This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. Chink of weakness Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change. Such a perspective also opens a chink of weakness in the authority of the latest IPCC science findings. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy; it is whether we have sufficient foresight, supported by wisdom, to allow our perspective about the future, and our responsibility for it, to be altered. All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones. Mike Hulme, a professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, is writing a book, entitled Why We Disagree About Climate Change Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years, by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, is published by Rowman & Littlefield (21.72). The Guardian and Observer Climate Change Summit will take place in June 2007. For more details visit guardian.co.uk/climatesummit 4088. 2007-03-15 16:12:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:30 -0000 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Phil Jones" Gents, I won't be in tomorrow but I think you should take a look at what's going on .... Phil, you are quoted in a comment to the 9 March 2007 posting & might have a view on it.... I don't want to make this a big deal but if others in ENV are noticing this..... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:06 PM To: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB) Subject: FOI - CRU requests Importance: High Kitty, Got a call from Alan Kendall, ENV, expressing concern regarding UEA's 'visibility' on a Climate Audit website. He was quite concerned regarding the comments surrounding the publication on this website of our letters of response to requests. I have subsequently spoken to Annie Ogden because of potential media aspect to this story... Website is: [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ You will soon see the relevant articles and comments.... I'm not sure if this website has a limited readership or is something we need to be concerned with but the extent and nature of comments is multiplying rapidly. Not sure I wanted my '15 minutes of fame' this way... lol Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ 4550. 2007-03-16 13:43:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: "C Vincent" date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:43:12 -0000 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Re: FOI - CRU requests to: "Phil Jones" Phil, I'm sorry you take exception to my contacting David Palmer about this matter. I felt that, since the University was being "slagged off" on a much read website and people were advancing possible legal ways in which the information they request could be obtained from the university, it was important to warn David Palmer about this development. I assumed that you would be aware of what might be being said on that website, whereas David Palmer would not be expected to be so informed. In fact he was not, and thanked me for the information I'm not exactly sure what you are complaining about and if the same situation arose again I think I would act in exactly the same way again. What you do with your data is not my concern, nor was it ever. I would not presume to interfere in this area, nor have I done so. I am, however, concerned that UEA will be beset by possible legal challanges and I consider it only prudent to warn those involved. Here ends any further envolvement. Also please don't you presume to lecture me about what particular website I should or should not be consulting. I'll make my own mind up. In actual fact , I read both ClimateAudit and RealClimate. AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Phil Jones To: [2]a.kendall@uea.ac.uk Cc: [3]Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests Alan, I appreciate your concern about UEA and ENV's image, but I don't appreciate you calling our press office about what is happening on the Climate Audit website. The website is run by a self appointed group, who ignore most climate facts. They are not interested in getting at the truth.If you want to learn more about the subject I would suggest the Real Climate website. [4]http://www.realclimate.org/ I do occasionally look at Climate Audit. The group are clearly very right of centre, and just make things up to suit their arguments. I can tell you that we are not altering any of the data in the last 15 years. All that work was done years ago. If changes are occurring then they are because we have more station data going in now than we used to, or the gridding algorithm has changed. We put all the gridded data on the CRU web site. We have signed agreements with some national Met Services not to pass on the raw station data. Cheers Phil Subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:30 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FOI - CRU requests Thread-Index: AcdnG9I1fXPEzDveTPuufgoyc3swfQAAJ4bw Priority: Urgent From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" To: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Phil Jones" X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Gents, I won't be in tomorrow but I think you should take a look at what's going on . Phil, you are quoted in a comment to the 9 March 2007 posting & might have a view on it. I don't want to make this a big deal but if others in ENV are noticing this.. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:06 PM To: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB) Subject: FOI - CRU requests Importance: High Kitty, Got a call from Alan Kendall, ENV, expressing concern regarding UEA's 'visibility' on a Climate Audit website. He was quite concerned regarding the comments surrounding the publication on this website of our letters of response to requests. I have subsequently spoken to Annie Ogden because of potential media aspect to this story Website is: [5]http://www.climateaudit.org/ You will soon see the relevant articles and comments. I'm not sure if this website has a limited readership or is something we need to be concerned with but the extent and nature of comments is multiplying rapidly. Not sure I wanted my '15 minutes of fame' this way lol Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1429. 2007-03-16 14:16:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:16:54 +0000 from: "Clint Witchalls" subject: RE: Fwd: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk OK, thanks Phil. I'll ignore this one. >From: Phil Jones >To: "Clint Witchalls" >CC: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Fwd: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or >science? >Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:52:37 +0000 > > >> Dear Clint, > > The Neils Bohr Institute may be reputable, but they have been taken in > hook, line and sinker on this one. The first two authors are well know > climate skeptics, against Kyoto and all other initiatives to try to >reduce > greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. I would expect the 3rd > one is as well. > > The IPCC concluded in its Feb 2 SPM (for WG1) that the warming > was unequivocal. We now seem to be in the backlash period, where > the skeptics are going hammer and tongues at a number of issues to > try and discredit the science. > > I would ignore it completely and don't give it any publicity >whatsoever. > There is no politics at all in what we do. We have been measuring the > global temperature in CRU since about 1980. At the time, we thought > it was a good thing to do. It had been done earlier, even back in the > 19th century. > > I could go on and on, but don't have the time. > > Cheers > Phil > > >>>From: "Clint Witchalls" >>>To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk >>>Bcc: >>>Subject: Urgent press inquiry: Global temperature -- politics or science? >>>Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:19:07 +0000 >>> >>> >>>Dear Professor Hulme >>> >>>I just received the press release (below) from the Niels Bohr Institute >>>which questions the validity of an average global temperature (if I'm >>>reading their argument correctly, that is). The press release sounds >>>quite controversial, and I would have ignored it, only it does come from >>>a very august institute. Can you give me your views on the argument put >>>forward in this press release? >>> >>>I'm looking to put a pitch together for Newsweek. >>> >>>I write for Newsweek, the Economist, the Guardian, the Observer, the >>>Times and the Independent. I'm not a mathematician or a meteorologist, >>>so I would really appreciate your help on this one. >>> >>>--start of press release-- >>>Global temperature -- politics or science? >>>The entire debate about global warming is a mirage. The concept of >>>'global temperature' is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an >>>impossibility, says professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of >>>Copenhagen, Bjarne Andresen who has analyzed this hot topic in >>>collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of >>>Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, both >>>Ontario, Canada. >>> >>>It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown >>>warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is >>>an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global >>>temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements >>>of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the >>>Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then >>>calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding >>>all values and dividing by the number of points. >>> >>>Average without meaning >>> >>>"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as >>>complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert >>>of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous >>>system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. >>>Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the >>>storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate". >>> >>>He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically >>>locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for >>>Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot >>>just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average >>>phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about >>>economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of >>>two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average >>>'global exchange rate'. >>> >>>If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the >>>average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an >>>entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, e.g. >>>it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is >>>25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average >>>is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely >>>different types of climate, because in the former case one would have >>>pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be >>>no wind. >>> >>>Many averages >>> >>>A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is >>>that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures. >>> >>>Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one >>>glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two >>>numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. >>>That is called the arithmetic average. >>> >>>Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 >>>degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square >>>root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This >>>is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees >>>Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.) >>> >>>The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the >>>thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc. >>> >>>More politics than science >>> >>>These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all >>>equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one >>>above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of >>>measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward >>>trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a >>>consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers >>>point out. >>> >>>What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical >>>arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is >>>needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of >>>Earth, not tradition. >>> >>>The currently used method and the consequences drawn from it therefore is >>>more politics than science, they explain. >>> >>>### >>>C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. >>>Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007). [= Journal of >>>Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics] >>> >>>--end of press release-- >>> >>>Regards, >>>Clint Witchalls >>>tel. 0208 674 9126 >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. >>>http://www.msn.txt4content.com/ > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _________________________________________________________________ Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes. http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/ 1675. 2007-03-16 23:16:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Timo Hmeranta" , "Alan Robock" , "Ahilleas N. Maurellis" , "Alex Hall" , "Anders Moberg" , "\"Andr W. Droxler\"" , "Augusto Mangini" , "Bas van Geel" , "Brian A. Tinsley" , "Bruce A. Wielicki" , "Caspar M. Ammann" , "Chris E. Forest" , "Chris K. Folland" , "\"Christian-D. Schnwiese\"" , "Christopher Monckton" , "Craig Loehle" , "David J. Karoly" , "David R. Legates" , "Dennis T. Avery" , "Dian J. Seidel" , "Drew T. Shindell" , "Ehrhard Raschke" , "Enric Pall" , "Eric Posmentier" , "Eugenia Kalnay" , "George Christakos" , "Gerald E. Marsh" , "Gerard A. Meehl " , "Habibullo I. Abdussamatov" , "Henk Tennekes" , "Ian R. Plimer" , "Igor I. Mokhov" , "James D. Annan" , "Jan Esper" , "Judith L. Lean" , "Jrg Luterbacher" , "Jel Guiot" , "Keith R. Briffa" , "Ken Caldeira" , "Kevin E. Trenberth" , "Lennart Bengtsson" , "Mark C. Serreze" , "Mark Z. Jacobson" , "Michael Bergin" , "Olavi Krner" , "Oliver W. Frauenfeld" , "Paul A. Mayewski" , "Peter Foukal" , "Peter M. Cox" , "Peter Thejll" , "Philip D. Jones" , "Rasmus E. Benestad" , "Richard B. Alley" , "Rob Wilson" , "Robert C. Balling Jr" , "Robert J. Charlson" , "Roger A. Pielke Sr." , "Roger J. Braithwaite" , "Rolf Philipona" , "Ross McKitrick" , "Russell Vose" , "Sami Solanki" , "Steven C. Wofsy" , "Susan Solomon" , "Svante Bjrk" , "Tad Anderson" , "Thomas M. Smith" , "Tom M. L. Wigley" , "Ulrich Cubasch" , "Al Pekarek" , "Alexey A. Lyubushin" , "Benny Peiser" , "Bob Foster" , "Chris de Freitas" , "Daniel Rosenfeld" , "David H. Douglass" , "Douglas V. Hoyt" , "Eigil Friis-Christensen" , "Fangqun Yu" , "Gary D. Sharp" , "Gavin A. Schmidt" , "George H. Taylor" , "Gerd Brger" , "Heinz Hug" , "Henrik Svensmark" , "Igor Polyakov" , "Ilya G. Usoskin" , "Jack Barrett" , "Jarl R. Ahlbeck" , "Jasper Kirkby" , "Joel M. Kauffman" , "Jos de Laat" , "Leonid B. Klyashtorin" , "Marcel Leroux" , "Martin Visbeck" , "Marty Hoffert" , "Melissa Free" , "Nir Shaviv" , "Ola M. Johannessen" , "Patrick Minnis" , "Peter Stilbs" , "Petr Chylek" , "Richard Betts" , "Richard S. Lindzen" , "Robert S. Knox" , "S. Fred Singer" , "Sallie Baliunas" , "Silvia Duhau" , "Stephen McIntyre" , "Tami C. Bond" , "Thomas N. Chase" , "Wibjrn Karln" , "Willie Soon" , "Vincent Gray" , "Boris Winterhalter" , "Timo Niroma" , "Atte Korhola" , "Jouni Risnen" , "Juha Kmri" , "Juhani Rinne" , "Kalevi Mursula" , "Markku Kulmala" , "Matti Eronen" , "Pekka Plathan" , "Aiguo Dai" , "Gerald Stanhill" , "Dorothy Koch" , "Meinrat O. Andreae" , "William B. Rossow" , "Martin Wild" , "Atsumu Ohmura" , "Andr Bijkerk" , "Hartwig Volz" , "James J. O'Brien" , "Kevin G. Cannariato" , "Lee C. Gerhard" , "Lowell D. Stott" , "William Kininmonth" , "James E. Hansen" , "Makiko Sato" , "David W. Lea" , "Reto Knutti" , "Mike Hulme" , "Mojib Latif" , "Joanne P Ballard" date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:16:04 +0100 from: "andre bijkerk" subject: Re: Problems with climate sensitivity and tree and ice proxies to: "Charles F. Keller" Charles, In an attempt to improve the factual objectivity, I took to libery to add some contemplations to your observations, using italics. "Charles F. Keller" < [1]cfk@lanl.gov> wrote: but I have two concerns. or four? First is the tone of the paper. Although I understand the motives for the tone, indeed it might be better to maintain objectivity and use the cognitive approach with the scientific method in which the author could focus on the accuracy of the observations and its failure to support the cause of global warming. Two, will all of you get over the "Hockey Stick Curve"? That's a tough one. Now that two teams of recognized specialists (North, Wegman) have confirmed the critiques of McIntyre and McKitrick, many have watched the ultimate result in disbelief. Hockeysticks tend to have strong persuasive powers and the MBH version has done that job extremely well, whilst there was nothing to be persuaded about. That's hard to digest. Science indulges itself in being self corrective, so when things are fishy with miracle cures for AIDS or Cold Fusion or Human Genome duplication then a public rectification follows, which would be especially prudent if the case could even remotely be associated with noble cause corruption. None of that has happened with the most prominent Fig 1b of the Third Assessment Report SPM , on the contrary, it is still in the SPM of the fourth version, albeit concealed in the spaghetti graph. Is it justified to keep global warming in the realm of science where it has made itself immune for self correcting and falsification? Three, I always worry about looking to Greenland as a proxy for AVERAGE hemispheric climate. Consider that recent geologic work has shown that that area lagged most other northern hemisphere and global sites in coming out of the last Ice Age by about 2,000 yrs--hardly a bellweather site. Highly intriguing observation and here is a most essential classical misinterpretation. Note that that particular lagging pattern of the Greenland ice core isotopes are duplicated around most of the Northern Hemisphere (Caracio Basin, Starnberger See in Germany, basically all Speleothems, etc), Nevertheless, other Northern hemisphere proxies, like fossil paleobotanical and palonthologic remains as well as glacier moraine contours confirm synchronous warming with the southern hemisphere over 2000 years before the first isotope spikes of the Bolling Allerod. In other words, it's not Greenland that is anomalous, it's basically all of the Northern Hemisphere isotopes that are anomalous. It should be clear that this should have major consequences for the interpretation of the climate changes during the last glacial transitions. Our motto about that is: Non Calor, Sed Umor Also, I was looking at a map of greenland showing the ice that survived the last interglacial (Eemeian (never could spell these words correctly). Eemian, or, if so desired, Sangamonian; It had shrunk to a rather small area. If we are to believe the graph of temperature in the past 10,000 years in the article below, might we not have to assume that most of Greenland melted, as it did in the Eemeian? Greenland summit ice cores are assumed to reach over 200,000 years but the stratification became highly suspect beyond 110,000 years so basically it is thought to have survived the Eemian, as it did with the Holocene Thermal Optimum roughly from 9000-6000 years ago, when the trees grew at the present Arctic coast line of North Siberia and fossil remains suggest local temperatures up to 5 degrees higher than today. Of course we have the NH summer insolation maximum but nevertheless, impressive temperatures. It's hard to figure out how the earth could have been as warm as the authors say and have kept all that ice . But orographic glaciers depend on more than temperature, it's a bit more complex: too cold, little snow and glaciers receding, or warmer with lot's of snow and glaciers advancing, it's all possible. The trees in Siberia also reveal that the Holocene Thermal Optimum was quite wet on a large scale, dovetailing with the African Humid Period, the American Fluvial Lakes and the glacier responses in the Andes. Glaciers may have survived thanks to generous supplies. Four, and perhaps most important. When might we expect to see this paper in a refereed journal such as JGR, GRL, J. of Climate or the real Science? Until then one must wonder whether the authors are wary of peer comments from those who know this research best. I trust that the author will move on carefully to meet the usual standards Regards Andre Bijkerk 4341. 2007-03-19 08:38:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:38:53 -0000 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Re: FOI - CRU requests to: "Phil Jones" Phil, I can assure you that Dave Palmer did not know about the particular threadline that I drew his attention to because, during my telephone conversation with him, his voice expressed surprise (and perhaps resignation?) as he opened up the website and because he thanked me for drawing the information to his attention. I repeat, I am not primarily interested in the dispute between yourself and ClimateAudit and will keep my opinions to myself. However when I read that people are suggested methods of legal redress against the University for not supplying research data, I felt that I needed to act. I could not contact you by telephone, so resorted to informing Dave Palmer. I would do exactly the same if similar circumstances arose again. AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Phil Jones To: [2]Alan Kendall Cc: [3]C Vincent Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: Re: FOI - CRU requests Alan, I have told these people on several occasions that some of the data are restricted. They refuse to believe this. We make all the gridded data available on the CRU web site. 99.9% of climate scientists are happy with this, and out data are widely used. I have met Dave Palmer and told him of the web site and that his first response letter appeared there, so he did know about it. These same people are also sending similar requests to US people using their FOI. The work they are referring to is from 1990 by the way - a paper in Nature that has been regularly cited. There has never been an attempt in Nature to send in a comment on it. Also, these people are self-appointed auditors. They have no interest in doing their own work. I suggested once that they produce their own gridded temperature database, but they said they weren't interested in that. This to me tells me where they are coming from - and it isn't the science. I have tried engaging with them in 2003/4 but realised after a few months it was pointless. Anyway, we can differ on this. Glad to hear you look at Real Climate. Cheers Phil At 13:43 16/03/2007, Alan Kendall wrote: Phil, I'm sorry you take exception to my contacting David Palmer about this matter. I felt that, since the University was being "slagged off" on a much read website and people were advancing possible legal ways in which the information they request could be obtained from the university, it was important to warn David Palmer about this development. I assumed that you would be aware of what might be being said on that website, whereas David Palmer would not be expected to be so informed. In fact he was not, and thanked me for the information I'm not exactly sure what you are complaining about and if the same situation arose again I think I would act in exactly the same way again. What you do with your data is not my concern, nor was it ever. I would not presume to interfere in this area, nor have I done so. I am, however, concerned that UEA will be beset by possible legal challanges and I consider it only prudent to warn those involved. Here ends any further envolvement. Also please don't you presume to lecture me about what particular website I should or should not be consulting. I'll make my own mind up. In actual fact , I read both ClimateAudit and RealClimate. AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [4]Phil Jones To: [5]a.kendall@uea.ac.uk Cc: [6]Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests Alan, I appreciate your concern about UEA and ENV's image, but I don't appreciate you calling our press office about what is happening on the Climate Audit website. The website is run by a self appointed group, who ignore most climate facts. They are not interested in getting at the truth.If you want to learn more about the subject I would suggest the Real Climate website. [7]http://www.realclimate.org/ I do occasionally look at Climate Audit. The group are clearly very right of centre, and just make things up to suit their arguments. I can tell you that we are not altering any of the data in the last 15 years. All that work was done years ago. If changes are occurring then they are because we have more station data going in now than we used to, or the gridding algorithm has changed. We put all the gridded data on the CRU web site. We have signed agreements with some national Met Services not to pass on the raw station data. Cheers Phil Subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:30 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FOI - CRU requests Thread-Index: AcdnG9I1fXPEzDveTPuufgoyc3swfQAAJ4bw Priority: Urgent From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" To: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Phil Jones" X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Gents, I won't be in tomorrow but I think you should take a look at what's going on . Phil, you are quoted in a comment to the 9 March 2007 posting & might have a view on it. I don't want to make this a big deal but if others in ENV are noticing this.. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:06 PM To: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB) Subject: FOI - CRU requests Importance: High Kitty, Got a call from Alan Kendall, ENV, expressing concern regarding UEA's 'visibility' on a Climate Audit website. He was quite concerned regarding the comments surrounding the publication on this website of our letters of response to requests. I have subsequently spoken to Annie Ogden because of potential media aspect to this story Website is: [8]http://www.climateaudit.org/ You will soon see the relevant articles and comments. I'm not sure if this website has a limited readership or is something we need to be concerned with but the extent and nature of comments is multiplying rapidly. Not sure I wanted my '15 minutes of fame' this way lol Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1388. 2007-03-19 20:53:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:53:21 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: AW: QBO draft to: Brnnimann Stefan Hi Stefan, I read the paper again on the flight to Seoul, where I am now for 3 days. I have added my few comments to the paper, which I am attaching. I will be back in CRU on Friday. I though the Batavia data went back to 1866. I can check that when I'm back. I think I have the Dutch reference from the late 1930s/early 1940s that has all the hourly data in it. Semi-diurnal should get a hyphen everywhere. So once you get the comments from Kevin Hamilton I think you can submit it. Where did you plan to send it. It is shortish, so GRL is a possibilty, or if it is too long then JGR. I can see getting TSI before the 1950s is difficult. Cheers Phil > Hi Phil > > Thanks for your reply. Yes I have tried to look at the solar-QBO-polar > vortex stuff, but it is inconclusive prior to the early 1940s as > correlations are low (the 1942-1953 cycle fits excellent, but then the > earlier cycles do not). The problem also is the likely multidecadal > increase of solar irradiance prior to the 1950s. Depending on how you > define solar min and max (sunspots, TSI, etc.), you would get a different > result. If a TSI definition is used, most of the period is in the solar > min group, and then we simply expect to see the Holton-Tan effect. > > I have some ideas about the stationarity of the Holton Tan effect, but > this would require presenting - and explaining in detail - our upper-air > reconstructions. I thought that one reconstructed series is enough for the > paper and therefore chose to stick to available data (such as SLP) for the > analysis part. > > I also sent the draft to Kevin Hamilton for comments - he was to one who > suggested all of this historical QBO stuff. He did the most careful work > on this, but never got to stage of a reconstruction. So I am looking > forward to his comments. Geert-Jan does not want to be a co-author. > > Best regards > Stefan > > > -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Mrz 2007 15:10 > An: Brnnimann Stefan; oldenborgh@knmi.nl > Betreff: Re: QBO draft > > > Stefan, > Yes to being on the paper. I made some comments on the copy > I took to the US, but having got back I can't find them. > I will read again over the weekend and get some comments to > you by the middle of next week. > > I understand why the series only goes back to when it does. > > > Have you tried to look at the relationships given in a Labitzke and > van Loon > paper from a while ago (surface T in some locations related to TSI but > differing relationships for the E/W phase of the QBO. I thought we > could look at the best couple of these. I can get the surface T > together quite easily. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:10 09/03/2007, Brnnimann Stefan wrote: >>Hi Phil and Geert Jan >> >>Some time ago you sent me the Batavia SLP data, as I was interested in >>reconstructing the QBO. I was sceptical, but needed something to >> constrain >>our chemistry climate model prior to 1953 - even a perpetually repeatig >>cycle would have been better than nothing. >> >>Now, surprisingly, the reconstructions do not seem that bad after all. >>Comparisons with historcial total ozone data suggest that the >>reconstructions could actually be quite good - after around 1908. >> >>So, many thanks again for the data and description, they turned out to be >>useful for me. >> >>I have drafted a manuscript, which we could submit to GRL or somewhere >>else. Since you provided the data, I have tentatively included you as >>co-authors. Let me know what you think and whether or not you would like >>to be co-authors. >> >>Best regards, >>Stefan >> >> >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\QBO_08mar1.doc" 3029. 2007-03-19 21:49:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: piers@env.leeds.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "Leonard Smith" , "Brian Hoskins" date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:49:35 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: SPM figures to: "Leonard Smith" Lenny, Im Seoul this week - back at the weekend. All the detail is in the chapters which will be available in May. This doesn't help you now, I know. All the time series in Ch 3 are decadally smoothed in the same way, which is described in an Appendix. I can send you this when back. Only the global and NH/SH series extend to the end of 2006. The other series end whenever we got them or could extend them to. Smoothing goes to the end (and beginning) of the series and is done using a method by Mann (2004? in GRL). This reflects the appropriate number of years to get the smoothed series to the ends. With temperatures likely warmer in future years this is conservative at the present end. If you need a quicker response then email Kevin Trenberth (trenbert@ucar.edu ?) and he can likely send you the Appendix. If you can wait till Friday then I can send it. Piers probably has Appendix 3.A which describes the smoothing. Why can't people wait till May !! Cheers Phil > > dear both, > > brian hoskins suggested i contact you directly regarding figures SPM-1 and > SPM-3 which are taken from your chapters; i am fielding various questions > from the public, including some deniers, questioning why some graphs "end > early". i expect this is clear in your chapters but it is not clear from > the figure captions in the SPM. > > ending well before 2006 makes sense if the graphs are decadal averages > (which of course always end half-a-window-width before the last data > point; this is clearly the case in Fig SPM-4.). > > some confusion is caused by the small insets in fig SPM-1, where it is not > clear from the caption what is being plotted (annual values, longer term > averages?); could you tell me if these are averaged values and when the > series end? > > also, i notice that in fig SPM-3 the smooth line ("decadal averages") > extend to the end of the record! no one has flagged that yet, but i am > sure they will and i would rather preempt with an explanation, esp if i > am explaining why decadal averages end 5 years before the last data point > in other figures. > > thanks much for your help. > > cheers, > lenny > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Prof Leonard A. Smith > Director Senior Research Fellow > Centre for the Analysis of Time Series (Mathematics) > Department of Statistics Pembroke College > London School of Economics Oxford OX1 1DW > Houghton Street England > London WC2A 2AE > > 020 7955 7626 (voice) 01865 270 517 > 020 7955 7416 (fax) 01865 270 515 > > 574. 2007-03-19 21:55:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Leonard Smith" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "Brian Hoskins" date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:55:55 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: SPM figures to: "Piers Forster" Lenny, One other thought. The SPM plot with the global T series on, the snow area and the SLR was produced at the Hadley Centre. David Parker there helped produce them. David is david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk . David is around as he's emailed me yesterday. Thinking more (and it is 6am here in Seoul) David can also send you Appendix 3.A. Chapter 3 produced the global T series, but 4 did the snow area and 5 the SLR. Cheers Phil > > Hi Lenny > > Thanks for your question. I'm not taking the blame for SPM-1, it's from > chapter 6 and I'm chapter 2! However, ill do my best to answer. The > non-red values are ice cores, and are plotted at varying resolutions, > degrading the further back in time you go. These are averages over the > resolutions for which the ice-core data guys assume that the bit of ice > core they are looking at covers. There is about 5-20 year resolution for > firn data and about 200 year resolution for old Antarctic ice. > Instrumental (red) data in the last 50 years is for annual averages in > the larger figures and monthly averages in the inset. The series all end > at the end of 2005. > > Cheers > > > Piers Forster (www.env.leeds.ac.uk/~piers) > T +44 113 343 6476; F +44 113 343 6716; E piers@env.leeds.ac.uk > School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard Smith [mailto:lenny@maths.ox.ac.uk] > Sent: 19 March 2007 14:26 > To: piers@env.leeds.ac.uk; p.jones@uea.ac.uk > Cc: Leonard Smith; Brian Hoskins > Subject: Re: SPM figures > > > dear both, > > brian hoskins suggested i contact you directly regarding figures SPM-1 > and > SPM-3 which are taken from your chapters; i am fielding various > questions from the public, including some deniers, questioning why some > graphs "end early". i expect this is clear in your chapters but it is > not clear from the figure captions in the SPM. > > ending well before 2006 makes sense if the graphs are decadal averages > (which of course always end half-a-window-width before the last data > point; this is clearly the case in Fig SPM-4.). > > some confusion is caused by the small insets in fig SPM-1, where it is > not clear from the caption what is being plotted (annual values, longer > term averages?); could you tell me if these are averaged values and when > the series end? > > also, i notice that in fig SPM-3 the smooth line ("decadal averages") > extend to the end of the record! no one has flagged that yet, but i am > sure they will and i would rather preempt with an explanation, esp if i > am explaining why decadal averages end 5 years before the last data > point in other figures. > > thanks much for your help. > > cheers, > lenny > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Prof Leonard A. Smith > Director Senior Research Fellow > Centre for the Analysis of Time Series (Mathematics) > Department of Statistics Pembroke College > London School of Economics Oxford OX1 1DW > Houghton Street England > London WC2A 2AE > > 020 7955 7626 (voice) 01865 270 517 > 020 7955 7416 (fax) 01865 270 515 > > 946. 2007-03-20 12:33:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: Helene Paquet , courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr, B.Tissot.cne@wanadoo.fr date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:33:58 +0100 from: Marina Grandin-Jimenez subject: Thematic Issue "Evolution du Climat: donnes, processus et modles" to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr Jones, As you accepted to take part of the working seminar of march 5, 2007, on the Climate evolution, you should have been advised of the decision of the "Acadmie des Sciences" to give the scientific community the opportunity to be aware of the results and discussions about this very interesting and disputed question, and thus to edit a thematic issue on this subject in the series GEOSCIENCE of the "Comptes Rendus de l'Acadmie des Sciences". So, could you , please send us the text of your talk as soon as possible and not later than June 15, 2007 ? As decided between the Editorial Director Jean Dercourt and Vincent Courtillot and Bernard Tissot, acting as guest Editors of this thematic issue, the texts must be in english and will be submitted to a double reviewing as usually in the series of Geoscience. In order to help you in the redaction of your text, you will find enclosed the Instructions to the authors and we draw your attention on the fact that the length of your paper cannot exceed 10 printed pages including illustrations and list of references (each printed page represent 5 000 letters, symbols or spaces). May I let you inform that your manuscript will be treated as soon as it will be received. First, it will be sent to two reviewers; then after the reception of your (eventually) modified version together with the agreement of the guest editors, your text will be prepared from an editorial point of view and go to press; last, the text will be set on the site of Elsevier immediately after corrected proofs have been received. When all the authors have returned their respective corrected proofs, i.e. when the totality of the texts has been received, the paper version is published. Due to the precious collaboration of all the authors, an up-to-date memorable thematic issue will be available for the scientific community. With many thanks in advance and best regards. Yours sincerely, For the Editorial Commitee Hlne Paquet Scientific Secretary PS: As your text will be ready, could you please uppload the electronic files of your manuscript on the site: http://www.comptesrendus.org/geoscience/index_en.html click on "If you wish to submit an article" then on "Author access" then on "submission for special issues" and finally on "Evolution du Climat: donnes, processus, modles" -- Marina Jimenez Acadmie des Sciences Service des Comptes Rendus GEOSCIENCE - PALEVOL - PHYSIQUE 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris Tel : 33 (0)1.44.41.43.72 Fax : 33 (0)1.44.41.43.84 Email: marina.grandin-jimenez@academie-sciences.fr http://www.comptesrendus.org/ http://www.academie-sciences.fr/ -- Marina Jimenez Acadmie des Sciences Service des Comptes Rendus GEOSCIENCE - PALEVOL - PHYSIQUE 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris Tel : 33 (0)1.44.41.43.72 Fax : 33 (0)1.44.41.43.84 Email: marina.grandin-jimenez@academie-sciences.fr http://www.comptesrendus.org/ http://www.academie-sciences.fr/ 2507. 2007-03-21 04:13:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:13:11 -0400 (EDT) from: "Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS" subject: AAAS Advances to: [1]Message to Members: Addressing Critical Climate Change Issues [2]News to Note: New Officers, UN Climate Change Report, Annual Meeting Wrap-up: Recordings, Blog, Family Science Days [3]Advancing Science, Serving Society: US R&D Funding, BiosciEdNet [4]Science Careers: Four UK Events, Cancer Research Careers Issue [5]Announcements: AAAS Forum on S&T Policy, GrantsNet Now Includes Federal Science Grants, plus other items of interest and events ______________________________________________________________________________________ Message to Members ADDRESSING CRITICAL CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES Dear AAAS Member, Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, extreme weather is increasing--scientific evidence is clear and scientific leadership is critical to dealing with global energy and climate problems. The [6]AAAS Board released a strong statement on 18 February saying, "We are already experiencing global climate change--and the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years." The Board urges aggressive R&D to transform the world's existing and future energy systems away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. The new AAAS Board Chair and former AAAS President [7]John P. Holdren spoke out during the Annual Meeting in February saying, "Global risks require the scientific community to join with political and business leaders in a concerted search for solutions." Dr. Holdren drew a standing ovation when he called for scientists and engineers to "tithe" 10 percent of their time "working to increase the benefits of S&T for the human condition." AAAS is addressing these critical issues with a broad range of initiatives including the recent Global Climate Change Town Hall, which attracted 1,200 people, and public access to [8]online information resources. The time to act is now. We urge our members to join us in this effort. Thank you. Sincerely, Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS P.S. Symposia proposals are due 2 May for the 2008 Annual Meeting, "S&T from a Global Perspective," 14-18 February in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. [9]Submit a proposal. ______________________________________________________________________________________ News to Note AAAS Welcomes New Officers A roster of well-known scientists began their terms as AAAS Board members on 20 February. Incoming AAAS President David Baltimore shared the 1975 Nobel Prize in Medicine at age 37 and is President-Emeritus of the California Institute of Technology. Outgoing AAAS President John P. Holdren, Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, JFK School of Government at Harvard and President and Director of the Woods Hole Research Institute, has assumed the chairmanship of the AAAS Board and James J. McCarthy, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University, became the AAAS President-Elect. [10]O ther new Board members (scroll to bottom of page). Now Available: Audio Recordings from the AAAS Annual Meeting Create an audio library of addresses by experts on sustainable well-being to share with colleagues or students. Access remarks by John Holdren, Larry Page, Steven Chu, Mohamed Hassan, Susan Solomon, Anthony Fauci, Kerry Sieh, Robert Sapolsky, Michael Brown, Marcia McNutt, Vicki Colvin, Elinor Ostrom, H. J. Schellnhuber, Keith Wailoo, and more. The complete conference audio is available now on CD-ROM in digital format. Individual audio recordings are also available. [11]Order a selection of sessions or the complete set (US$249). Read Blog Stories and View Photos from the AAAS Annual Meeting More than 8,100 attendees experienced the February meeting firsthand and the AAAS news staff captured the breakthrough reports and lectures--ranging from climate change to NASCAR engineering--and events and prize ceremonies for thousands of others. Read the news reports (including coverage by journalists worldwide) and listen to the podcasts at [12]http://news.aaas.org. View a collection of interesting [13]photos from the meeting. Family Science Days Intrigue 2,200 People of All Ages From the "Myth Busters" special effects experts and the science of yo-yos to canola oil biodiesel fuel propelling a VW and robotic dogs playing soccer, children, parents, and educators experienced the fun and excitement of science. Read about the popular free public event held during this year's Annual Meeting in San Francisco. [14]Full story AAAS Leaders Involved in UN Climate Change Report Three current and past leaders of AAAS joined an elite 18-member panel of scientists to produce a 166-page report at the request of the United Nations. "Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable" was two years in the making and will be presented at the upcoming meeting of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development. Read about the call to enact existing measures now to stem the crisis and the recommended steps to adapt to changes that have already occurred. [15]Full story ______________________________________________________________________________________ Advancing Science, Serving Society R&D Funding: Advocating and Reporting Addressing a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on 28 February, AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner warned members that the 2008 budget proposed by the White House would decrease federal science spending and dwindle the "vital feedstock for innovation in the US economy." [16]Read the full testimony submitted to the House subcommittee. On 7 March, Dr. Leshner testified during a US Senate hearing on the future of the nation's agricultural research programs, urging that more funding go to outside scientists who win competitive grants. [17]Read the full text or listen to the testimony. The basis for the congressional testimony is a recent report from the AAAS R&D Budget Policy Program that shows proposed increases in FY 2008 for weapons program development, space exploration, and basic physical science but also proposed cuts across most other research-related areas from health and agriculture to climate, environmental regulation, and defense. AAAS applauded members of Congress for the recently finalized 2007 budget that provides much more balanced increases for R&D. See the [18]full preliminary report on the proposed FY 2008 budget, the analysis of the joint funding resolution on the 2007 budget, and letters to congressional leaders. [19]Access the Science and Policy Programs website. BiosciEdNet(BEN): Redesigned Library Portal More than 4,700 reviewed resources covering 77 topics in biological sciences are freely accessible to college and university educators through an innovative digital library spearheaded by AAAS. Now, navigation updates offer easier-to-use advanced search functions enabling educators to sort topics into grade-level categories. To increase awareness and use of this valuable tool, 21 undergraduate faculty members who are leaders in biological science teaching and learning have been named as the first cohort of BEN Scholars. [20]More information and the list of scholars. The BEN Collaborative portal, established in 1999 by AAAS and 11 other professional societies and primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, contains lesson plans, articles, movies, and other resources. Join the community of more than 8,000 educators who are using the BEN portal, the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Pathway for biological science education: [21]www.biosciednet.org . ______________________________________________________________________________________ Science Careers For job listings and career development, see [22]www.sciencecareers.org . Event: Ph.D. - What Next? Society for General Microbiology Meeting, Manchester, UK On 28 March, ScienceCareers.org will sponsor this workshop for Ph.D. students and first year postdocs who are planning their next career move. The session will focus on employability and will include a panel discussion and the opportunity to meet scientists in diverse careers. [23] More information Event: Student Conference on Conservation Science University of Cambridge, UK This international event, 27-29 March supported by Science /AAAS, will be held in the university's zoology department. The conference will help young conservation scientists gain experience, make contacts, and develop new ideas that will benefit their future careers. Information: [24]http://www.sccs-cam.org/. Event: What is the Alternative? Non-Academic Career Paths BNA Meeting, Harrogate, UK On 4 April, ScienceCareers.org will hold a special event for postdoctoral researchers and Ph.D. candidates during the British Neuroscience Annual Meeting. The session will provide the chance to meet scientists who have forged successful career paths outside academia in diverse sectors including research in the pharmaceutical industry, science communication, finance, and regulatory affairs. Information: e-mail Seema Sharma, [25]ssharma@science-int.co.uk, or access the [26]website. Event: Career Development Workshop Imperial College London, UK On 25 April, ScienceCareers.org will team with Imperial College to hold a full day of interactive workshops for postdoctoral researchers. Topics will include establishing an independent research group and crossing the academia-industry divide. The event, which also includes an interview clinic, is organized by Seema Sharma, ScienceCareers.org, and Imperial's research project manager, Subo Shanmuganathan. Information: e-mail [27]ssharma@science-int.co.uk. Careers Feature: Recruit Cancer Researchers On 6 April, reach 56,000 molecular biologists, 40,000 cell biologists, 23,000 cancer biologists, 15,000 signal transduction experts, and 15,000 American Association for Cancer Research meeting attendees by placing an ad adjacent to Science 's feature on Cancer Research Careers. To place an ad, contact Daryl Anderson at 202-326-6543 or [28]danderso@aaas.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ AAAS Member Benefit Apple Products at Preferred Prices Apple and AAAS are offering a valuable new member benefit. Go to the online Apple Store for special prices on everything from MacBooks to iPods to accessories and free shipping on orders over US$50: [29]www.apple.com/eppstore/aaas. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Announcements Register for the Annual AAAS Forum on Science & Technology Policy On 3-4 May, the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program will host a two-day forum in Washington, D.C. Held each spring, the forum is recognized as the major US public meeting on S&T policy. This year's meeting will cover up-to-date R&D budget information and policy issues. Expected participants include John H. Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; US Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology; and Sherwood Boehlert, public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology. Space is limited. For detailed information and advanced registration at discounted rates, go to [30]www.aaas.org/spp/rd/forum.htm . GrantsNet Expands to Include Federal Science Grants GrantsNet has expanded its listings of some 900 funding programs from private foundations and not-for-profit organizations to include 400 to 500 new entries from the US government's central funding portal. This provides the first comprehensive database of funding opportunities to research scientists and administrators, career counselors, financial aid specialists, and undergraduate and graduate students. For listings, go to [31]www.grantsnet.org. Read About Recent AAAS Award Winners During the February Annual Meeting, AAAS honored major contributors to science in the areas of research, journalism, mentoring, freedom and responsibility, international cooperation, and public understanding. Find out about the winners in the [32]full story. Nominate High School Science Teachers for a New AAAS Prize (Deadline 1 April) Through the generous support of Dr. Edith D. Neimark, the AAAS Leadership in Science Education Prize for High School Teachers has been established to inspire innovation and excellence in science teaching, disseminate best practices more widely, and honor the achievement of outstanding teachers across the United States. This annual award recognizes a high school science teacher who has contributed significantly to the AAAS goal of advancing science education by developing and implementing an innovative and demonstrably effective strategy, activity, or program. For more information about the prize and the nomination criteria, contact Lester P. Matlock, +1 (202) 326-6666 or [33]lmatlock@aaas.org. Applications Now Open for Two Prizes from Science Science and its partners, GE and Eppendorf, are offering scientists two opportunities to win prizes worth US$25,000. The GE & Science Prize for Young Life Scientists rewards research in molecular biology by outstanding graduate students.Entry deadline is 15 July. [34]Full details for the GE & Science prize. The Eppendorf & Science Prize for Neurobiology is awarded to researchers in neurobiology who hold an advanced degree and are age 35 or younger. Entries must be postmarked by 15 June. [35]Full details for the Eppendorf & Science prize. Attend a Panel Discussion During the Cambridge Science Festival On 22 March, "The Scale of Scientific Issues" will examine the aspects of doing research from the nano-scale up to global and universal issues. Panelists Lord Martin Rees, Professor Bill Sutherland, and Dr. Andrea Brand will answer questions and Tim Radford will chair the discussion. The evening event, at the University of Cambridge Law Faculty on Sidgwick Avenue, is part of the annual Cambridge Science Festival, 12-25 March. Information: [36]www.cambridgescience.org. Join the AAAS SWARM Division Annual Meeting From 18 to 21 April, the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain (SWARM) Division of AAAS will be held in Texas at the University of Houston-Clear Lake. Go to [37]www.aaas-swarm.org to view the 2007 Preliminary Program and to pre-register. Appreciate the Art of Science and Spirituality at the AAAS Gallery Through 27 April, an exhibit entitled "Pay Attention: A Father/Daughter Collaboration" features wood sculpture by Charlie Brouwer and oil and acrylic paintings by Jennifer L. Collins. The show, sponsored by the AAAS Center for the Art of Science and Technology, is at AAAS headquarters, 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. See examples of the art that seeks to understand the earth and its place in the universe and read about other AAAS programs that encourage an appreciation of the link between science and religion: [38]Full article Apply for a 2007 Canon National Parks Science Scholarship (Deadline 3 May) The program, a collaboration of Canon, AAAS, and the US National Park Service, will award eight US$80,000 scholarships to Ph.D. students throughout the Americas to conduct research critical to conserving national parks. Research projects in the biological, physical, social, and cultural sciences are eligible, as well as projects in technology innovation in support of conservation science. For information and a copy of the Application Guide, go to [39]www.canonscholars.org. Choose from Multiple Ways to Advance the AAAS Mission Contributions from members and friends are used in their entirety to support AAAS's mission to promote science in all forms. Your employer may be one of more than 1,000 corporations and organizations offering programs to match charitable contributions made by employees, either in whole or part (check with your human resources department to see if your organization participates). You also may choose to donate through our credit card installment plan. For information on these and other ways of giving, contact the AAAS Development Team at +1 (202) 326-6636 or go to [40]our website. We thank our many supporters who help us meet the ever-changing opportunities for new initiatives. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Meet Up at Upcoming Events AAAS/ Science will have a booth at the following events. Stop by to pick up your member pin. Biotechnology Vendor Showcase(TM), 22 March, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. [41]Informati on American Chemical Society (ACS) National Meeting, 26-28 March, Chicago, Illinois, USA. [42]Information Society of Toxicology (SOT) Annual Meeting, 26-28 March, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. [43]Information National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) National Conference, 29-31 March, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. [44]Information British Society for Cell Biology, British Society for Developmental Biology, and Genetics Society Joint Meeting, 29 March-1 April, Edinburgh, UK. [45]Information British Neuroscience Association (BNA) National Meeting, 1-4 April, Harrogate, UK. [46]Information BioResearch Product Faire(TM), 11 April, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. [47]Informati on American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), 15-18 April, Los Angeles, California, USA. [48]Information European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly, 15-20 April, Vienna, Austria. [49]Information Society for Biomolecular Screening (SBS) Annual Conference, 16-18 April, Montreal, Canada. [50]Information Experimental Biology (EB) Annual Meeting, 29 April-1 May, Washington, D.C., USA. [51]Information ______________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Meetings of Interest Society for Experimental Biology (SEB) at Glasgow 2007, 31 March-4 April, Glasgow, UK. [52]Info rmation Joint MBI-Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics Workshop, 12-13 April, Columbus, Ohio, USA. [53]Information Drug Discovery and Development Partnering, Licensing and R&D Innovation Summit, 25-27 April, Tokyo, Japan. [54]Information International Aids Society (IAS) Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, 22-25 July, Sydney, Australia. [55]Information European Life Scientists Organization-ELSO 2007, 1-4 September, Dresden, Germany. [56]Information European Science Foundation (ESF) Conferences, 16-19 September, Lisbon, Portugal. [57]Informat ion ______________________________________________________________________________________ Find Other Meetings and Events [58]Search our database of meetings, conferences, career fairs, career workshops, courses, and awards. ______________________________________________________________________________________ More About AAAS AAAS News & Notes appears in Science in the last issue of each month. [59]The website for AAAS [60]Read[61] Science [62]magazine online [63]Renew your membership [64]Change your address or other info at aaasmember.org ___________________________________________________________________________________________ This email was sent to P.JONES@UEA.AC.UK You were sent this message because you are registered to receive e-mail from AAAS. To get on and off our e-mail lists, please change your [65]preferences. The fastest way to get on or off this list is to change your e-mail [66]preferences. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 U.S.A. Member Services Telephone: 202-326-6417 Toll Free in the U.S.: 866-434-(AAAS) 2227 E-mail: [67]membership@aaas.org Privacy Policy: [68]http://www.sciencemag.org/help/readers/privacy.dtl [ AAAS/Science does not endorse any 3rd party products or services advertised here. ] One pixel image 3012. 2007-03-21 09:31:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:31:00 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 galleys to: Brian Soden , "Parker, David" , Jim Renwick , Albert Klein Tank Hi all Yesterday I was at a seminar and Susan was there. She had with her a full color typeset copy of our chapter. She was thrilled with it but going over it carefully before we get it. FYI, Phil and I dealt with the copy-editing fairly promptly. Once again we are leading the way. Our chapter will be the first sent out in galley form for proof reading. In part this is also because I have 4 trips in April and I am tied up after April 6. Accordingly, our goal is to complete the proof reading by then or soon after: Phil will be available. Phil and I have decided we would like the help of you four to do the proof reading. As you know we have 100 pages or so and thus one gets weary reading after a while and one tends to see what you expect to see rather than what is really there. Accordingly, we decided to ask for your help in proof reading. The task is for you to focus on specific sections and go over those carefully. Of course you may browse the rest. The suggestion is that we allocate this as follows David Parker, sections 3.2, 3.3, Appendix 3A and FAQ 3.1 Brian Soden; section 3.4 and FAQ 3.2 Jim Renwick: sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 Albert Klein-Tank: sections 3.8 and FAQ 3.3 Now the problem is that there have been a number (quite a lot) of very minor changes in the copy editing stage. Many are stylistic to make things uniform among chapters. Some Phil and I objected to and we do not know if those held or were changed again. Also there were several problems with figures that crept in. I am attaching the correction list we sent back. At this stage we must not change things just because we can make it better. We should change it if it is wrong. I am sending this now to alert you that this could well happen next week. Let us know if you are unavailable. I am not sure whether to send to you the copy edited version of the text or not? Thanks Kevin -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NotesCopyEditCh33.doc" 216. 2007-03-21 10:04:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:04:56 -0000 from: "Pam Rutherford" subject: BBC Telephone interview tomorrow morning? to: Dear Prof Jones, Hi. I was in touch with you a few months ago regarding a Material World programme with questions about climate change. The reason I'm writing this time is because I am involved with a school who are making some news stories tomorrow with the BBC and are looking for a climate expert they can briefly interview on the 'phone tomorrow at about 10am and I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to be that person? In terms of questions it wil most likely be fairly straightforward on what we know about climate change and why local measures to change carbon emissions are just as important as global measures and perhaps what, briefly they are. This is for a group of 12 - 13 year old girls and then wil then go on to make a 3 minute news based piece which they will piblish on their website and the BBC will link to tomorrow when schools across the country are making news - some of which will be broadcast on Five Live, news 24, BBC1, Newsround etc. Do you think you might be willing to do this? It shouldn't take much longer than about ten minutes and would be just on a normal office phone or even mobile? Do you think you might be available tomorrow morning? Many thanks, Pam Pamela Rutherford Producer BBC Science Radio Rm 630 SE Wing Bush House London WC2B 4PH Tel: +44 (0)207 557 3885 Fax: +44 (0)207 557 3008 email:pam.rutherford@bbc.co.uk [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/ [2]http://www.bbcworldservice.com [3]http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. 4875. 2007-03-26 10:48:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:48:53 +0100 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: RE: Awful Ch 4 programme to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil Mark Galliani also spotted this and corrections are in hand You are right , there is lot more we could add- I chose what I thought werefive of th ekey issues and tried to keep it short and simple Gareth Jones can give chapter and verse on the solar curve ( I have asked our press office to incude some basic information on source) "I should have said what the source exactly was. Solanki and Krivova 2003 is a reconstruction based on sunspots. The 11 year cycle of sunspots is scaled to match the recent satellite record to obtain the 11 year cycle component into the past. The mean cycle amplitude is used to obtain the underlying longer term variations, scaled to match estimates of Maunder Minimum to present day change in solar irradiance as deduced from observations of stars. It is this latter stage which recent work suggests is much lower than previously thought. Yes the last 30 years does come from satellite data. PMOD is the one reconstruction from satellites by "Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos" as shown in Frohlich papers (as in Frolich and Lean fame). There are other satellite reconstructions (see latest IPCC chap" I have not mentioned the CH4 program deliberately- as it happens, people think I am an adviser to the program (NO!)- see CH4s website on the programme and follow "ask the expert" They had over 800 questions-- 20 will be selected and I will chose 8-10 - don't when that will be on the site John Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist, Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel. +44(0)1392884604 Fax:+44 (0) 870 9005050 E-mail: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 26 March 2007 10:43 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Cc: Jenkins, Geoff Subject: Awful Ch 4 programme > > John, A couple of things about the web page on Climate Myths. 1. The recent eruptions were in 1982 (El Chichon) and 1991 (Pinatubo). Effects were mostly in the years you've given (so cooling then), but they occurred the year before. 2. On Myth 5, you could add that models have run the last millennium as well as the last hundred years. Related to this, is the solar activity in Myth 4 the new Judith Lean series? I could add many more myths, relating to frost fairs, the MWP, urbanization etc , if you should ever choose to add to this page. Philip Stott in that same program alluded to Frost Fairs and the MWP. There is no need for the UK to consider frost fairs, when we have the Manley CET record, Luterbacher's Swiss reconstructions and the Dutch seasonal reconstructions back to 1250. By the way, the skeptics may one day realise that the only bias in the surface temperature data that really matters is the bucket/intake one. The page is linked off the CRU site. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 1271. 2007-03-26 10:56:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:56:22 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: Phil Jones Hey Phi, I'm out at USC for a few days visiting w/ Lowell Stott and folks, then we have a meeting later this week about the future of the ESH program, could have significant implications for paleo funding in the states.. Let me know if you need me to prod anyone on the paper. I'll send a reminder to Gavin and Caspar. Also, how is your blurb on the 1990 last millennium figure coming along? there is a lot of interest in that. if the paper does nothing else put provide a better histiorical explanatino of that, that would be an accomplishment. I'm disappointed about the low abstract count too. I figure it is for precisely the reason you mentoin, I've probably already declined about 6 conferences/workshops/etc/ for this summer. Roland List still hasn't clarified which day our session is, his information was ambiguous. Do you have any independent info on this? talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > No, I haven't. Francis will send something. I can work on Keith > and Tim here, but really need the contributions from Caspar > and also Gavin. Maybe suggest Gavin has one night off from > RealClimate. > > Only 11 abstracts - so a short session. I wonder if other > sessions are equally low. There have been a lot of conferences > recently ! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 15:22 26/03/2007, you wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> I still thinks its worhtwhile. Did you ever get a contribution from >> Caspar?? >> >> mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>> It seems that progress on this paper from our enjoyable Wengen >>> meeting is painfully slow! I'm reminded about it as I've just received >>> some revised text from Janice about the corals, I'm expecting an >>> ice core summary from Tas van Ommen fairly soon. I have text >>> from Juerg on documentary material. Gene Wahl >>> said he would send something during March when term finished. >>> I saw Francis two weeks ago and he promised something soon. >>> >>> IPCC will be out soon, so we can no longer use this as an excuse. >>> So, the bottom line question is are we still working (as a group) >>> towards >>> putting a paper together?? I know from reviewing articles, that many >>> of you are submitting papers, so you all can't be too weighed down >>> with work. I don't want to go back to PAGES and EPRI and say we're >>> not bothering, so can you all give me a date by which you'll send me >>> something. I know about the corals and ice cores, and the others >>> mentioned above. >>> >>> Think of this as a last call at the airport. You are delaying the >>> flight, we >>> will offload your luggage soon! I think the review will be really >>> useful, if we >>> can all find the small amount of time to put it together. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1868. 2007-03-26 11:42:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Williams, Larry" , Thorsten Kiefer date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:42:43 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: Christoph Kull ,bo@gfy.ku.dk, thompson.4@osu.edu,EWWO@bas.ac.uk, Eduardo Zorita ,jan.esper@wsl.ch, Janice Lough , Juerg Luterbacher , Keith Briffa ,Tim Osborn , Ricardo Villalba , Kim Cobb ,Heinz Wanner , Jonathan Overpeck , Michael Schulz , Eystein Jansen , Nick Graham , Francis Zwiers , Caspar Ammann ,"Michael E. Mann" , Gavin Schmidt , Sandy Tudhope , "Tas van Ommen" , "Wahl, Eugene R" > Dear All, It seems that progress on this paper from our enjoyable Wengen meeting is painfully slow! I'm reminded about it as I've just received some revised text from Janice about the corals, I'm expecting an ice core summary from Tas van Ommen fairly soon. I have text from Juerg on documentary material. Gene Wahl said he would send something during March when term finished. I saw Francis two weeks ago and he promised something soon. IPCC will be out soon, so we can no longer use this as an excuse. So, the bottom line question is are we still working (as a group) towards putting a paper together?? I know from reviewing articles, that many of you are submitting papers, so you all can't be too weighed down with work. I don't want to go back to PAGES and EPRI and say we're not bothering, so can you all give me a date by which you'll send me something. I know about the corals and ice cores, and the others mentioned above. Think of this as a last call at the airport. You are delaying the flight, we will offload your luggage soon! I think the review will be really useful, if we can all find the small amount of time to put it together. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4517. 2007-03-27 10:54:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:54:11 -0400 from: "Thomas.R.Karl" subject: Re: Fwd: response needed! to: Phil Jones Phil, Sounds very interesting. We will be interested in how she addressed the homogeneity issue for q. Glad someone took this on, it was long overdue. Tom Phil Jones said the following on 3/27/2007 9:30 AM: > > Tom, > It would seem that if Pielke had read the Vose et al (2005) paper > he refers to he could/should have realised that. It would seem that > this > paper has gone to JGR. I hope they have found some reasonable reviewers, > who can point out all the problems. > > Heard of some of the author list, but surprised to see Kevin Gallo > there. > > We will be submitting a paper in a few months on global-scale changes > in q. Kate Willett has got her PhD and has just left to work with > Steve Sherwood > for 6 months. Specific Humidity increases, almost exactly as you'd > expect > with rising T and a relatively constant RH. > > A short paper on D&A with q was submitted to Science, but they weren't > interested, so we've tried Nature. It is very detectable. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:03 27/03/2007, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> Yes, >> >> Interestingly however, since the late 1970s max and min increase >> similarly, thus one could argue there is not land use or urban >> effects since 1970s based on the motivation here. >> >> Tom >> >> Phil Jones said the following on 3/27/2007 4:06 AM: >>> >>>> Tom and Tom, >>> >>> I suppose you've seen this paper. The only inhomogeneity for >>> global >>> temperatures that really matters in the bucket/intake one. >>> >>> >>>> http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/R-321.pdf >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1254. 2007-03-27 14:00:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:00:34 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: A Unique Moment to: Dear Teresa: Thank you for informing me of your and John's new book which I look forward to reading. Quid pro quo, you may be interested in my new book, also available at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Human-Induced-Climate-Change-Interdisciplinary-Assessment/dp/05218660 30/sr=8-1/qid=1168621254/ref=sr_1_1/104-6563218-1755132?ie=UTF8&s=books Sincerely, Michael Schlesinger Professor and Head of Climate Research Group Department of Atmospheric Sciences, MC 223 University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign 105 S. Gregory Street Urbana, IL 61801 USA Tel.: (217) 333-2192 Cell phone: 217-778-9891 Fax: (217) 244-4393 e-mail: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu (Michael Schlesinger) Climate Research Group Homepage address: http://crga.atmos.uiuc.edu/ [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] www.johnkerry.com/210FFAFB.gif [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] [1]www.johnkerry.com/4891A39B.gif Dear Michael, Yesterday morning when our new book This Moment On Earth went on sale in bookstores nationwide, it was ranked 3,398th on Amazon.Com. No wonder the skeptics thought they were winning -- one reporter even thought she had a fair point when she asked John whether Americans really cared about the environment. Well, it's only one day later -- and the book is now ranked #139 on Amazon.Com! This huge first day of sales shows that Americans really care about the environment. Please, [2]come check it out -- write a review -- share your thoughts about environmental heroes you know -- and spread the word to your friends and neighbors. "John Kerry and Teresa Heinz have written a book that is a profound challenge to all of us but contains, in the examples of the men and women who are fighting the great fight for a better future for our environment, the clear hope that if we can embrace their resourcefulness, determination and essential patriotism we will prevail." -- Former Vice President Al Gore The book grew out of conversations that John and I had with Americans from coast to coast about the environment and the critical challenges we all face in protecting the earth for future generations. The stories inspired and moved us. John and I share the hope that they will lead all of us to question the way things are and look for small but significant ways that each of us can make a positive contribution to this new environmental movement. We hope they spark a new conversation about ways that everyday Americans from all walks of life can have an impact on the environment around them. And, since all of the proceeds of the book go to environmental causes, we hope the book makes a financial difference for some great environmental organizations, as well. [3]Come check it out -- write a review -- and let your friends know. Sincerely, Teresa Heinz Kerry [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] Paid for by John Kerry for Senate. [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] We apologize if you received this message in error. [4]Click here to unsubscribe from our mailing list. [5]Click here to change your current email address. John Kerry for Senate, 511 C St. NE, Washington DC, 20002, U.S.A. [HO-0035F0kAcn] 3711. 2007-03-27 15:06:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:06:04 +0100 from: "Carol Stiff" subject: RE: Effects of fossil fuel emissions on climate change to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil, Thanks for coming back to me so promptly. I hope your trip went well. I have forwarded your e mail to my student Karamjit Gill. He will be contacting you this week via e mail to chat about his dissertation on transport and climate change. Many Thanks carol ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 15 March 2007 13:56 To: Carol Stiff Subject: Re: Effects of fossil fuel emissions on climate change Carol, I'm just back from the US. I'll be off home soon. I'm in tomorrow, but busy with several meetings. I'm off Sunday for all of next week. If the week of March 26 is OK then it'll have to wait till then. Attached is the IPCC SPM for WG1 (The Science) that came out on Feb 2 in Paris. There are two other WGs yet to report (April and May) on Impacts and Policy Issues/Mitigation. There is only one view worth listening to - and that is what IPCC says on the subject. Climate change is happening, it will continue to get warmer and all the things said in the SPM. I understand how awkward it is when the public and fellow scientists see programmes like that produced by Channel 4 a week or so ago. There were barely any climate scientists on the programme and the few that were had their views distorted. Why the media (both paper and TV) want to portray divisions is beyond me. Amongst climate scientists (and I know I define who these are above, so it may seem awkward) there is almost total unanimity on the fact that the climate is changing and will continue to warm. Even the measures proposed in Britain don't go far enough to stop most of the effects. This is a personal opinion. Aviation is the fastest growing sector for emissions, but still quite small. We have done without mass flying until recently. It seems as though we could do without it now. This is hypocracy on my behalf, having just flown in from the US and off to Korea on Sunday. One was a meeting of a project and the next is to talk to the Korean Met Society, so I'm not practicising what I'm preaching. Cheers Phil At 12:05 15/03/2007, you wrote: Hi Professor Jones, I am senior lecturer in B.A (hons) Design in Business @UCE. One of my final year students is researching the impact of European transport emissions upon climate change and global warming. There have been several contentious arguments put forward recently, both in the press and on the radio which offer conflicting opinions regarding this subject. As one of the leading experts in this field, I was wondering if you could possibly spare my student ten minutes to discuss your views either via e-mail or telephone. I appreciate that time is precious but would be grateful for your assistance. My student's name is Karamjit Gill. Many Thanks Carol Stiff FCSD Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4442. 2007-03-27 17:40:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:40:14 +0100 from: Tommy Wils subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Dear forum, I think that we (as a discipline) are facing 2 problems: the ignoring (McIntyre c.s.) and the panicking (Guardian, etc.) sides. I think we face the problem of uncertainty, which can be used by everybody in the way they want. The balance from the perspective of our discipline is that there is evidence that human-induced global warming is going on. However there is more. - We cannot stop carbon emissions at once. We would induce a global civil war far worse than global warming itself. - Reducing carbon emissions from just the climate change point of view is living in a non-real world: there is more. Fossil fuels are getting scarcer and thus more expensive. If we do not start changing our energy regime NOW, we will run into economical problems from shortage of fuels next tosuspected global warming. - Replacing fossil fuels by agriculturally produced oils will endanger food security in the world, we have to search for real alternatives. - Cars driving on electricity will save the cities from pollution. - Politicians like Al Gore are abusing the fear for global warming to get into power (while having a huge carbon footprint himself), as Bush abused the fear for muslim terrorism to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear is far more dangerous than the fact itself! - American and European need for oil leads to imperialism and subsequent resistence (terrorism as they call it). Changing this dependence is crucial for world peace. - Climate is a naturally varying system: what would we do if global warming was natural? It would be still as dangerous... - The UK raised taxes on flights, e.g. 20 of additional tax on a flight to Australia, pure nonense. The only effect it has is that people are being robbed by the government and hence the stability of the democracy is threatened. Nobody will cancel a 1200 flight for 20. - etc. etc. I think we have to try to get the balance, the nuance into the discussion, even though it is not our specialism - the problem is that it is nobody's specialism and so we live in a fragmented world flying from one extreme to the other. If you reply to McIntyre in a scientific way you will only increase this fragmentation. For society, it is the bigger picture that counts, not just what David said, but also the bigger bigger picture of which I have given some examples. Statistically we simply cannot defend global warming, therefore it is going on too short and it is too complex, but if we wait we are too late. I think actually that the tendency of scientists to insist that global warming is real and dangerous to convince stubborn governments is the primary cause of existence of such radicals like McIntyre. We must admit our uncertainties, but also paint the bigger bigger picture. (It is like going on fieldwork to Ethiopia. You don't argue well the chances that I get yellow fever are relatively small, I don't do a vaccination. But you also don't argue I am going to spend 10.000 on medical preparations to protect yourself from everything. The chances that global warming is real are high enough to act accordingly, but too low to panick and ruin the world from the causes of anti-global-warming measures) Tommy On 3/27/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > McIntyre's work is a conclusion in search of evidence to support it: > namely > that all the proxy evidence for warmer temperatures in recent decades are > statistical artifacts. (From what I've seen, it seems the only proxy > studies he is statistically satisfied with are those that don't show such > warming.) > > All of us know that once we embark upon ANY statistical work, we accept > the > possibility of error. We try to control the sources and acknowledge the > uncertainty in our work, and then get to work rather than wallow in > methodological angst. > > As with evolution, certain types of studies have limitations that in any > individual study could prove problematic for the conclusions we draw from > it. But when many independent lines of evidence, employing many different > > types of data and methodologies, point toward the same conclusion, it's > hard > to reach any but that specific conclusion. > > McIntyre ignores the convergence of evidence regarding the link between > greenhouse gases and climate change. He by undermining individual studies > > while studiously ignoring the big picture that renders his criticisms > moot. > > I don't know whether or not it is worth engaging him on ground of his own > choosing. Remember what happened to Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden? > > Dave > > P.S. for Rob: Don't ask me about the signalman strike! > > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > On > Behalf Of Rob Wilson > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:39 AM > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit > > Dear All, > I am not sure if you are aware of the Blog ClimateAudit by Steve McIntyre: > http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > Dendrochronology (mainly dendroclimatology) is often criticised as a > discipline for a variety of reasons. > > Against advice from many of my dendro friends/colleagues, I often delve > into > this world to try and defend dendro practises and correct misinformation. > It > is a thankless task and, to be frank, I doubt I make much difference as > many > of my criticisms of McIntyre get turned around and transformed into fairly > aggressive attacks on my own work. See latest posts from just this past > week. > > So - should I (we) ignore this Blog? > > Personally, I cannot do this. Although some of the criticisms and > commentary > are valid, some of it is simply wrong and misinformed, and in my mind, it > is > dangerous to let such things go. > > Some of the criticism comes simply from misinformed individuals who may > not > have access to relevant basic literature and I was wondering if it would > be > worth while putting a simple web page together with links to relevant PDFs > > with regards to sampling strategies, data processing, calibration and > verification methodologies etc. Some links to some case study examples > might > also be a good idea, although that may lead to an 'audit' of these studies > > on the CA Blog. > > Overall, this is a matter of outreach. I believe that tree-rings are one > of > the most powerful palaeo proxies available. However, we cannot allow the > discipline to be muddied by a few 'loud' individuals who's motives may be > suspect. > > comments and suggestions welcome > best regards > Rob > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Rob Wilson > School of GeoSciences, > Grant Institute, > Edinburgh University, > West Mains Road, > Edinburgh EH9 3JW, > Scotland, U.K. > Tel: +44 131 650 8524 > > Home Page: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=930 > > ".....I have wondered about trees. > > They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. > Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree > for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty > might prove useful. " > > "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Tommy H.G . Wils M.Sc. Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, University of Wales Swansea Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: tommywils@gmail.com 2322. 2007-03-28 13:13:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Allan, Rob" date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:13:33 +0100 from: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: WW2 marine data to: Phil Jones Phil We've got quite a lot of evidence we need to look again at bias adjustments for the mid-20th century: I've been doing some systematic model-obs comparisons, and John Kennedy has been looking at the differences between SSTs from ships from different countries. What we haven't yet done is sat down and derived some new adjustments and uncertainties. I've put a preliminary look at the new obs from the WW2 logs on the web (http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/) there are some interesting indications of biases in SST and night air temperature. We're still short of obs for the Pacific though. Clive's done some good work in the archives, and I'm hoping that collaborating with him and the historians from Exeter we can have a serious crack at making instrumental temperature series back past 1800. I'm still keen on a 'climate of the 19th century' project - as well as digitising more observations, we could use GCM runs and proxies to help bias adjust the early instrumental observations, and make a credible time-series back through the Tambora period - that would give us a wider range in instrumental temperatures, and so help to calibrate longer proxy reconstructions. But so far this is just an idea. Cheers, Philip On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 11:48 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > Philip, > Just had a coffee with Clive Wilkinson. He was telling me > of the progress with the WW2 logs and his finds for WW1 as > well. I suggested he also look into log books during the > late 1870s as the RN were then doing SST and we then had > a Valpariso Fleet. > On the WW2 logs, hopefully these may resolve the > issue Daithi Stone talked to me about regarding the D&A > figure from WG1 SPM (the one with the continents and the > world oceans on). He was a little concerned about the obs > for the global oceans popping out of the model swathe around > 1940, as it doesn't do this for the continents. > I guess if there are significant more obs in the E Eq Pacific > this issue could be nailed down. May relate to whether the > obs are bucket/intake and need adjustment or not. > > I told Clive, I'd be happy to be involved in Exeter Uni. > initiatives re their Inst for Maritime History. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Philip Brohan, Palaeoclimate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 2268. 2007-03-28 14:41:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:41:04 -0400 from: "Henri D. Grissino-Mayer" subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Many of us on this forum make our living as academics, so we're required to write proposals, bring in grant money to our university, publish our findings in peer-reviewed outlets, and mentor the next generation of scientists. The reality is that delving into controversy and policy, for many of us, could wreak havoc on our careers. Early in my academic career, I had a habit of speaking my mind, and time and again found myself in a world of trouble. A *few* scientists can pull this off and continue to make the rounds testifying in front of the policy- and decision-makers, but the majority can not. Scientists (in my mind) must be objective, lest their beliefs start driving their research and their findings (Chamberlin's "pet hypotheses"). If I were to let my beliefs drive my science, then I have no doubt that my ability to succeed in grantsmanship and publication would be seriously curtailed. Just yesterday, I was talking with a reporter from Jacksonville who was certain my research on hurricanes supported the theory of global warming, and tried as such to get me to commit to his statement (be *very* careful talking to reporters). The reality is that my research on hurricanes neither supports nor refutes this theory, but in the future can be used to provide supporting evidence one way or another. Here's the kicker: the fact that my research doesn't currently support the theory of global warming will be interpreted as supporting the other side then. I strongly recommend objectivity, as does Huxley below... Henri At 12:53 PM 3/28/2007, you wrote: >This discussion brings to mind a quote from Huxley... > > >"Science . . . warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps >with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief >than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach >my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts >harmonize with my aspirations". > - Thomas Huxley, 1860 > > >**************************************************************** >Dr. Timothy E. Lewis >Senior Ecologist >National Center for Environmental Assessment >Office of Research and Development >U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > >MAILING ADDRESS: COURIER ADDRESS: >Mail Drop B-243-01 4930 Page Road >RTP, NC 27711 RTP, NC 27703 > >PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 919.541.0673 >109 T.W. Alexander Dr. 919.541.1818 (FAX) >RTP, NC 27709 lewis.timothy@epa.gov >****************************************************************** > >"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." > > Winston Churchill, 1874 - >1965 > > > > Tommy Wils > .COM> To > Sent by: ITRDB ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > Dendrochronology cc > Forum > RV.ARIZONA.EDU> Re: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] > should we, as a discipline, > respond to Climate Audit > 03/28/2007 11:37 > AM > > > Please respond > to > ITRDB > Dendrochronology > Forum > RV.ARIZONA.EDU> > > > > > > >Some quotes: > >'he does not seem to play by the rules' >'dendro bible' >'authoritative backing' >'The job of a scientist is producing knowledge' > >Rules, bible, authority? This is the wrong rhetorics. If we claim that >established science (we) is the and the only access to knowledge or >truth, >we become quite arrogant or even tyrannical. About creationists: I don't >have any trouble with people believing that God created the world if >that >helps them facing their existential life questions (anyway I don't know >whether science can ever say more about metaphysics than that it doesn't >exist, based on the assumption that what cannot be perceived by the >senses >is not real). About climate change: the problem with people believing >that >it is a lie are dangerous if it turns out that we are right. Solution: >scientists talk about probabilities, not about truth or knowledge (read >some >postmodern philosophers). I think we have to 'teach' society that and >how to >deal with it - see my Ethiopia example. > >As science is not neutral but based on numerous assumptions, we cannot >just >stand aside as 'knowledge producers'. We are part of society, we have >the >duty to be humble, explain our assumptions and results in a realistic >and understandable >way and to put it into a broader context. > >"Hey, forest decline was a stupid lie, so climate change must be too." >What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural >fluctuation? They'll kill us probably... > >Back to McIntyre: what to do? Get away from the YES and NO camp, find >the >humble, middle road. There is a passage in the bible: if someone hits >you on >your cheek, turn him your other cheek... > >Tommy > > >On 3/28/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > > The more I listen to scientists claim that their (our) job is to >report on > > science and avoid politics, the more I wonder about the historical > > validity > > of the alleged separation between science and politics. > > > > I'm starting to suspect that the alleged separation is purely a >fantasy > > from > > a historical point of view. Scientists have always been engaged in > > politics, sometimes for good (advocating vaccination campaigns against > > smallpox, for example) and sometimes for ill (arguing for the >improvement > > of > > the "white" race by eugenics), but scientists have had their >"meddling" > > fingers in politics for centuries, maybe millennia, without any >lasting > > ill > > effects on our current ability to investigate the workings of the >world or > > > > to influence the development of public policy today. > > > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > "No trespassing > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: >ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > > On > > Behalf Of Dr. Constantin Sander > > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:55 AM > > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond >to > > Climate Audit > > > > The job of a scientist is producing knowledge and reporting it. If >there > > is > > incidence for future developments, that could be harmful, it should >also > > be > > his/her job to point this out. But it is not the job of a scientist to >act > > on the a political scene, if he/she wants to keep its independence. It >is > > the job of politicians to draw conclusions from science. > > > > In Germany we had a big discussion about forest decline in the 1980s. >Some > > scientist warned that the forests would die within a few decades. This >was > > a > > pure guess, not based on any serious models. They discredited their > > subject > > this way and we now get the reply: "Hey, forest decline was a stupid >lie, > > so > > climate change must be too." > > > > Thus, we should rely on our scientific results, not on any political > > conclusions. > > > > My two cents. > > > > Best regards > > Constantin > > > > RINNTECH - Frank Rinn Distribution > > Bierhelderweg 20, D-69126 Heidelberg > > phone: +49-(0)6221-314 387, fax: +49-(0)6221-314 388 > > web: www.rinntech.com > > > > > > > > -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum > > [mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU ]Im Auftrag von Tommy Wils > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Mrz 2007 18:40 > > An: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > Betreff: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate > > Audit > > > > > > Dear forum, > > > > I think that we (as a discipline) are facing 2 problems: the ignoring > > (McIntyre c.s.) and the panicking (Guardian, etc.) sides. I think we >face > > the problem of uncertainty, which can be used by everybody in the way >they > > > > want. The balance from the perspective of our discipline is that there >is > > evidence that human-induced global warming is going on. However there >is > > more. > > > > - We cannot stop carbon emissions at once. We would induce a global >civil > > war far worse than global warming itself. > > - Reducing carbon emissions from just the climate change point of view >is > > living in a non-real world: there is more. Fossil fuels are getting > > scarcer > > and thus more expensive. If we do not start changing our energy regime > > NOW, > > we will run into economical problems from shortage of fuels next > > tosuspected global warming. > > - Replacing fossil fuels by agriculturally produced oils will endanger > > food > > security in the world, we have to search for real alternatives. > > - Cars driving on electricity will save the cities from pollution. > > - Politicians like Al Gore are abusing the fear for global warming to >get > > into power (while having a huge carbon footprint himself), as Bush >abused > > the fear for muslim terrorism to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear is >far > > more dangerous than the fact itself! > > - American and European need for oil leads to imperialism and >subsequent > > resistence (terrorism as they call it). Changing this dependence is > > crucial > > for world peace. > > - Climate is a naturally varying system: what would we do if global > > warming > > was natural? It would be still as dangerous... > > - The UK raised taxes on flights, e.g. 20 of additional tax on a >flight > > to > > Australia, pure nonense. The only effect it has is that people are >being > > robbed by the government and hence the stability of the democracy is > > threatened. Nobody will cancel a 1200 flight for 20. > > - etc. etc. > > > > I think we have to try to get the balance, the nuance into the >discussion, > > even though it is not our specialism - the problem is that it is >nobody's > > specialism and so we live in a fragmented world flying from one >extreme to > > > > the other. If you reply to McIntyre in a scientific way you will only > > increase this fragmentation. For society, it is the bigger picture >that > > counts, not just what David said, but also the bigger bigger picture >of > > which I have given some examples. Statistically we simply cannot >defend > > global warming, therefore it is going on too short and it is too >complex, > > but if we wait we are too late. I think actually that the tendency of > > scientists to insist that global warming is real and dangerous to >convince > > stubborn governments is the primary cause of existence of such >radicals > > like > > McIntyre. We must admit our uncertainties, but also paint the bigger > > bigger > > picture. > > > > (It is like going on fieldwork to Ethiopia. You don't argue well the > > chances > > that I get yellow fever are relatively small, I don't do a >vaccination. > > But > > you also don't argue I am going to spend 10.000 on medical >preparations > > to > > protect yourself from everything. The chances that global warming is >real > > are high enough to act accordingly, but too low to panick and ruin the > > world > > from the causes of anti-global-warming measures) > > > > Tommy > > > > > > > > On 3/27/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > > > > McIntyre's work is a conclusion in search of evidence to support it: > > > namely > > > that all the proxy evidence for warmer temperatures in recent >decades > > are > > > statistical artifacts. (From what I've seen, it seems the only >proxy > > > studies he is statistically satisfied with are those that don't show > > such > > > warming.) > > > > > > All of us know that once we embark upon ANY statistical work, we >accept > > > the > > > possibility of error. We try to control the sources and acknowledge >the > > > uncertainty in our work, and then get to work rather than wallow in > > > methodological angst. > > > > > > As with evolution, certain types of studies have limitations that in >any > > > > > individual study could prove problematic for the conclusions we draw > > from > > > it. But when many independent lines of evidence, employing many > > different > > > > > > types of data and methodologies, point toward the same conclusion, >it's > > > hard > > > to reach any but that specific conclusion. > > > > > > McIntyre ignores the convergence of evidence regarding the link >between > > > greenhouse gases and climate change. He by undermining individual > > studies > > > > > > while studiously ignoring the big picture that renders his >criticisms > > > moot. > > > > > > I don't know whether or not it is worth engaging him on ground of >his > > own > > > choosing. Remember what happened to Bonnie Prince Charlie at >Culloden? > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > P.S. for Rob: Don't ask me about the signalman strike! > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > > > "No trespassing > > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: > > ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > > > On > > > Behalf Of Rob Wilson > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:39 AM > > > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate >Audit > > > > > > Dear All, > > > I am not sure if you are aware of the Blog ClimateAudit by Steve > > McIntyre: > > > http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > > > > > Dendrochronology (mainly dendroclimatology) is often criticised as a > > > discipline for a variety of reasons. > > > > > > Against advice from many of my dendro friends/colleagues, I often >delve > > > into > > > this world to try and defend dendro practises and correct > > misinformation. > > > It > > > is a thankless task and, to be frank, I doubt I make much difference >as > > > many > > > of my criticisms of McIntyre get turned around and transformed into > > fairly > > > aggressive attacks on my own work. See latest posts from just this >past > > > week. > > > > > > So - should I (we) ignore this Blog? > > > > > > Personally, I cannot do this. Although some of the criticisms and > > > commentary > > > are valid, some of it is simply wrong and misinformed, and in my >mind, > > it > > > is > > > dangerous to let such things go. > > > > > > Some of the criticism comes simply from misinformed individuals who >may > > > not > > > have access to relevant basic literature and I was wondering if it >would > > > > > be > > > worth while putting a simple web page together with links to >relevant > > PDFs > > > > > > with regards to sampling strategies, data processing, calibration >and > > > verification methodologies etc. Some links to some case study >examples > > > might > > > also be a good idea, although that may lead to an 'audit' of these > > studies > > > > > > on the CA Blog. > > > > > > Overall, this is a matter of outreach. I believe that tree-rings are >one > > > > > of > > > the most powerful palaeo proxies available. However, we cannot allow >the > > > discipline to be muddied by a few 'loud' individuals who's motives >may > > be > > > suspect. > > > > > > comments and suggestions welcome > > > best regards > > > Rob > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Dr. Rob Wilson > > > School of GeoSciences, > > > Grant Institute, > > > Edinburgh University, > > > West Mains Road, > > > Edinburgh EH9 3JW, > > > Scotland, U.K. > > > Tel: +44 131 650 8524 > > > > > > Home Page: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=930 > > > > > > ".....I have wondered about trees. > > > > > > They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. > > > Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a >tree > > > for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this >faculty > > > might prove useful. " > > > > > > "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tommy H.G . Wils M.Sc. > > > > Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator > > School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, >University > > of Wales Swansea > > Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom > > Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: >tommywils@gmail.com > > > > > >-- >Tommy H.G. Wils M.Sc. > >Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator >School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, >University >of Wales Swansea >Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom >Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: >tommywils@gmail.com Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Associate Professor of Geography Department of Geography 1000 Phillip Fulmer Way The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 865-974-6029 http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/ 1682. 2007-03-28 16:37:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:37:09 +0100 from: Tommy Wils subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Some quotes: 'he does not seem to play by the rules' 'dendro bible' 'authoritative backing' 'The job of a scientist is producing knowledge' Rules, bible, authority? This is the wrong rhetorics. If we claim that established science (we) is the and the only access to knowledge or truth, we become quite arrogant or even tyrannical. About creationists: I don't have any trouble with people believing that God created the world if that helps them facing their existential life questions (anyway I don't know whether science can ever say more about metaphysics than that it doesn't exist, based on the assumption that what cannot be perceived by the senses is not real). About climate change: the problem with people believing that it is a lie are dangerous if it turns out that we are right. Solution: scientists talk about probabilities, not about truth or knowledge (read some postmodern philosophers). I think we have to 'teach' society that and how to deal with it - see my Ethiopia example. As science is not neutral but based on numerous assumptions, we cannot just stand aside as 'knowledge producers'. We are part of society, we have the duty to be humble, explain our assumptions and results in a realistic and understandable way and to put it into a broader context. "Hey, forest decline was a stupid lie, so climate change must be too." What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably... Back to McIntyre: what to do? Get away from the YES and NO camp, find the humble, middle road. There is a passage in the bible: if someone hits you on your cheek, turn him your other cheek... Tommy On 3/28/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > The more I listen to scientists claim that their (our) job is to report on > science and avoid politics, the more I wonder about the historical > validity > of the alleged separation between science and politics. > > I'm starting to suspect that the alleged separation is purely a fantasy > from > a historical point of view. Scientists have always been engaged in > politics, sometimes for good (advocating vaccination campaigns against > smallpox, for example) and sometimes for ill (arguing for the improvement > of > the "white" race by eugenics), but scientists have had their "meddling" > fingers in politics for centuries, maybe millennia, without any lasting > ill > effects on our current ability to investigate the workings of the world or > > to influence the development of public policy today. > > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > On > Behalf Of Dr. Constantin Sander > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:55 AM > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to > Climate Audit > > The job of a scientist is producing knowledge and reporting it. If there > is > incidence for future developments, that could be harmful, it should also > be > his/her job to point this out. But it is not the job of a scientist to act > on the a political scene, if he/she wants to keep its independence. It is > the job of politicians to draw conclusions from science. > > In Germany we had a big discussion about forest decline in the 1980s. Some > scientist warned that the forests would die within a few decades. This was > a > pure guess, not based on any serious models. They discredited their > subject > this way and we now get the reply: "Hey, forest decline was a stupid lie, > so > climate change must be too." > > Thus, we should rely on our scientific results, not on any political > conclusions. > > My two cents. > > Best regards > Constantin > > RINNTECH - Frank Rinn Distribution > Bierhelderweg 20, D-69126 Heidelberg > phone: +49-(0)6221-314 387, fax: +49-(0)6221-314 388 > web: www.rinntech.com > > > > -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum > [mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU ]Im Auftrag von Tommy Wils > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Mrz 2007 18:40 > An: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > Betreff: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate > Audit > > > Dear forum, > > I think that we (as a discipline) are facing 2 problems: the ignoring > (McIntyre c.s.) and the panicking (Guardian, etc.) sides. I think we face > the problem of uncertainty, which can be used by everybody in the way they > > want. The balance from the perspective of our discipline is that there is > evidence that human-induced global warming is going on. However there is > more. > > - We cannot stop carbon emissions at once. We would induce a global civil > war far worse than global warming itself. > - Reducing carbon emissions from just the climate change point of view is > living in a non-real world: there is more. Fossil fuels are getting > scarcer > and thus more expensive. If we do not start changing our energy regime > NOW, > we will run into economical problems from shortage of fuels next > tosuspected global warming. > - Replacing fossil fuels by agriculturally produced oils will endanger > food > security in the world, we have to search for real alternatives. > - Cars driving on electricity will save the cities from pollution. > - Politicians like Al Gore are abusing the fear for global warming to get > into power (while having a huge carbon footprint himself), as Bush abused > the fear for muslim terrorism to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear is far > more dangerous than the fact itself! > - American and European need for oil leads to imperialism and subsequent > resistence (terrorism as they call it). Changing this dependence is > crucial > for world peace. > - Climate is a naturally varying system: what would we do if global > warming > was natural? It would be still as dangerous... > - The UK raised taxes on flights, e.g. 20 of additional tax on a flight > to > Australia, pure nonense. The only effect it has is that people are being > robbed by the government and hence the stability of the democracy is > threatened. Nobody will cancel a 1200 flight for 20. > - etc. etc. > > I think we have to try to get the balance, the nuance into the discussion, > even though it is not our specialism - the problem is that it is nobody's > specialism and so we live in a fragmented world flying from one extreme to > > the other. If you reply to McIntyre in a scientific way you will only > increase this fragmentation. For society, it is the bigger picture that > counts, not just what David said, but also the bigger bigger picture of > which I have given some examples. Statistically we simply cannot defend > global warming, therefore it is going on too short and it is too complex, > but if we wait we are too late. I think actually that the tendency of > scientists to insist that global warming is real and dangerous to convince > stubborn governments is the primary cause of existence of such radicals > like > McIntyre. We must admit our uncertainties, but also paint the bigger > bigger > picture. > > (It is like going on fieldwork to Ethiopia. You don't argue well the > chances > that I get yellow fever are relatively small, I don't do a vaccination. > But > you also don't argue I am going to spend 10.000 on medical preparations > to > protect yourself from everything. The chances that global warming is real > are high enough to act accordingly, but too low to panick and ruin the > world > from the causes of anti-global-warming measures) > > Tommy > > > > On 3/27/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > > McIntyre's work is a conclusion in search of evidence to support it: > > namely > > that all the proxy evidence for warmer temperatures in recent decades > are > > statistical artifacts. (From what I've seen, it seems the only proxy > > studies he is statistically satisfied with are those that don't show > such > > warming.) > > > > All of us know that once we embark upon ANY statistical work, we accept > > the > > possibility of error. We try to control the sources and acknowledge the > > uncertainty in our work, and then get to work rather than wallow in > > methodological angst. > > > > As with evolution, certain types of studies have limitations that in any > > > individual study could prove problematic for the conclusions we draw > from > > it. But when many independent lines of evidence, employing many > different > > > > types of data and methodologies, point toward the same conclusion, it's > > hard > > to reach any but that specific conclusion. > > > > McIntyre ignores the convergence of evidence regarding the link between > > greenhouse gases and climate change. He by undermining individual > studies > > > > while studiously ignoring the big picture that renders his criticisms > > moot. > > > > I don't know whether or not it is worth engaging him on ground of his > own > > choosing. Remember what happened to Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden? > > > > Dave > > > > P.S. for Rob: Don't ask me about the signalman strike! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > "No trespassing > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: > ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > > On > > Behalf Of Rob Wilson > > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:39 AM > > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit > > > > Dear All, > > I am not sure if you are aware of the Blog ClimateAudit by Steve > McIntyre: > > http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > > > Dendrochronology (mainly dendroclimatology) is often criticised as a > > discipline for a variety of reasons. > > > > Against advice from many of my dendro friends/colleagues, I often delve > > into > > this world to try and defend dendro practises and correct > misinformation. > > It > > is a thankless task and, to be frank, I doubt I make much difference as > > many > > of my criticisms of McIntyre get turned around and transformed into > fairly > > aggressive attacks on my own work. See latest posts from just this past > > week. > > > > So - should I (we) ignore this Blog? > > > > Personally, I cannot do this. Although some of the criticisms and > > commentary > > are valid, some of it is simply wrong and misinformed, and in my mind, > it > > is > > dangerous to let such things go. > > > > Some of the criticism comes simply from misinformed individuals who may > > not > > have access to relevant basic literature and I was wondering if it would > > > be > > worth while putting a simple web page together with links to relevant > PDFs > > > > with regards to sampling strategies, data processing, calibration and > > verification methodologies etc. Some links to some case study examples > > might > > also be a good idea, although that may lead to an 'audit' of these > studies > > > > on the CA Blog. > > > > Overall, this is a matter of outreach. I believe that tree-rings are one > > > of > > the most powerful palaeo proxies available. However, we cannot allow the > > discipline to be muddied by a few 'loud' individuals who's motives may > be > > suspect. > > > > comments and suggestions welcome > > best regards > > Rob > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dr. Rob Wilson > > School of GeoSciences, > > Grant Institute, > > Edinburgh University, > > West Mains Road, > > Edinburgh EH9 3JW, > > Scotland, U.K. > > Tel: +44 131 650 8524 > > > > Home Page: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=930 > > > > ".....I have wondered about trees. > > > > They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. > > Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree > > for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty > > might prove useful. " > > > > "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- > Tommy H.G . Wils M.Sc. > > Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator > School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, University > of Wales Swansea > Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom > Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: tommywils@gmail.com > -- Tommy H.G. Wils M.Sc. Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, University of Wales Swansea Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: tommywils@gmail.com 4739. 2007-03-29 09:54:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:54:02 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Dear All, I have read your replies to my post with interest and have also received quite a few e-mails privately. Firstly, I do not think we need to get into any debate out how science affects policy and vise verse. This is simply a discussion about addressing issues raised on CA. Some of the comments are valid (e.g. data archiving) and we should take them to heart. Some are simply wrong. It is these latter set of comments that we need worry about. The overall consensus view is that we should ignore CA. I can understand why people would choose this option but it could be dangerous to leave Steve McIntyre unchecked. After all, his auditing work had great influence in dragging Mann, Bradley and Hughes to the US Senate. Other options proposed to me were: 1. A one off 'guest' thread to RealClimate, carefully describing the basics dendroclimatology (e.g. see Andy Baker's spiel on speleothems). 2. Create our own Dendro Blog similar to RealClimate. 3. A new dendro FAQ, but addressing issues raised in CA. 4. A wiki style webpage that is continually updated by individuals within the community. Personally I think that a one off thread on RealClimate would not really gain us, as a discipline, anything. Such a posting would soon get lost and we would be back to the present status quo. Developing our own Blog would be a huge amount of work and would only open up yet another avenue for active criticism and may in fact undermine what we actually set out to do. I think it would be better to address comments directly on CA. The Blog approach also seems to me to be a bit too proactive and I would rather spend my time doing science and ensuring that it is done as robustly as possible. Perhaps the answer is a more passive, but continually updated web presence. 10 years ago, Rob Argent and I edited the Tree-Ring FAQ which was superseded by Henri's far superior web pages. A new FAQ could address quite easily specific issues raised in CA. However, I actually quite like the idea of the wiki style editing approach mentioned by Peter Brown. This could be continually updated and edited when specific issues are raised, but would really focus on the dendro basics - i.e. basic theory, sampling strategies, data processing methods and commonly used statistical methods used for reconstruction etc etc - with reference to specific papers for further reading. So - the $1,000,000 question - what do we do now? We are all busy, and I do not think anyone wants to take on a huge burden of extra work which may be arguably a wasted effort. Whatever is decided - if anything - will only be successful if the work is spread out amongst many individuals. Whatever we do, this should not be seen as a personal attack on Steve McIntyre. I met him last December at the AGU and we had a very civil chat over lunch. On the whole, I think he is well informed and his primary motivation is to see that palaeo science is done in an honest and open way. Many of the misinformed comments on CA are from participants, not from him. So we need to think in terms of outreach and providing basic information to those who are generally interested in find out more about our discipline. We cannot hope to persuade those who have already 'decided' that tree-rings are worthless as a climate-proxy. Steve McIntyre is not in this latter category, but many of his followers are. So - my 10 pence worth. As I started this, I put my hand up as the first volunteer to whatever we end up doing. Comments and volunteers welcome Rob 1801. 2007-03-29 12:23:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:23:30 -0400 from: "Trevor J. Porter" subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] Wikipedia on divergence to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU This is definitely a very intriguing question in circumpolar dendro at the moment. I am working in the Mackenzie Delta, Canada, where we have also observed these divergent climate-growth trends at the sub-site chronology level (see Pisaric et al., 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 34). I don't know about MXD in the delta yet, but I will be developing several MXD site chronologies this summer. Our 13C and 18O isotope records seem to be time stable for the one site we have developed these records from. The answer to the question "what is the biological mechanism behind these divergence patterns" remains elusive. It is very peculiar that a dichotomy in growth patterns can exist within a given site, which do not appear to be driven by microtopographic or age-related differences. In the delta, approximately 70% of the trees at a given site can share a common growth response, with the remaining 30% exhibiting a different common response. I do not have an answer to Barry's question, but I'm curious if genetic differences might help answer it? Trevor Porter Cooke, Barry wrote: >1. Thanks for the clarification. My question remains "what is the >biological mechanism behind these divergence patterns?" Any idea? >2. A weak correlation between temp & rw/mxd may well be the sum of a set >of positive and negative correlations. But that only begs the question: >how do you explain the divergent positive and negative responses to >temperature that you observe? Assuming that it is some aspect of >temperature that the tree is responding to, can you predict, a priori, >based on species, form, and site, whether a given sample is going to >exhibit a negative or positive response? >3. Checking your publication list I was intrigued by one title: "Drought >stress hypothesis in boreal forest not supported by field observations". >I have to ask: has this manuscript been submitted/accepted yet? > >Barry Cooke > >-----Original Message----- >From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum >[mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Wilmking >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:09 AM >To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU >Subject: Re: Wikipedia on divergence > >Divergence is happening on several "scales", which get mixed up quite >often: > >1) between width and density (?) the one you mentioned, i have no >experience there >2) between temperature and width >3) between growth trends of subchronologies at the same site > >at least the two last ones might be related, i.e. 2) could be a result >of 3), > >also, when I looked at individual tree ring series (and not the site >chronology) in nearly all cases where i have worked (mostly northern >treeline) sensitivity to temperature increased in the second half of >the 20th century. and thus a closer relationship between temp and ring >width resulted (however, only in on of the two identified >subchronologies, the other showed an inverse relationship to temp). this >might, when averaged into a site chronology, translate into an apparent >breakdown, or divergence, between temp and ring width, > >see some publications at > >http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/index.php?id=publikationen > > >martin > 2075. 2007-03-29 14:55:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:55:41 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information to: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil, Good news re the locations data. I would recommend putting the data on the website as any further requests could simply be referred to the website itself - in this case, we could provide the data itself; just from a political point of view, I would rather 'give' the data directly than 'refuse' under s.21 and point them to a website. Just spoke to Doug Keenan on the phone and he seems a reasonable chap - I explained that I had received the below email from you and that the prognosis for his request was positive. I hope that this might avoid the appeal situation we have with our other 2 requesters. I have an obligation to try to sort the appeals informally but I'm not sure how to bridge the gap between us saying the data is on the US websites and the requesters saying that it isn't! I note that Steve McIntyre in his note to me of 12 March talks about the identification of the stations for the 1990 study - would the input data files you have for the 1990 study cover the west Russian, Chinese and Australian networks he requests? It might be worth meeting next week to discuss anything I could say to McIntyre & Eschenbach to either (a) satisfy them, or (b) convince them that pursuing an appeal would be fruitless (assuming it would be!) Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:15 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Dave, I have found all the input data for the paper from 1990. This includes the locations of the sites and the annual temperature values. If I were to get someone in CRU to put them on our web site, do you think that would keep them quiet, or just spur them into more requests? The 1990 paper data isn't that much, just 6 small files, each of about a half an A4 page. My earlier email about the other request (the first one) for all our data still stands. See the same points below. If you feel another meeting may be useful, then let me know. I had a brief exchange with Alan Kendall of ENV, which I didn't find very useful. Cheers Phil 1. CRU's monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the two websites we informed you about in early February. Our estimate is that >98% of the CRU data are on these sites. 2. CRU has augmented this dataset with data collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These NMS -supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we have to express their wishes. The World Meteorological Organization has a list of all NMSs. 3. We would like to point out here that CRU is doing a service to the climatological community around the world, by making these and many other gridded datasets and products available. We are continually being thanked by scientists around the world (both personally and through acknowledgements within published papers). All these scientists are happy to use these gridded products, rather than deal with the raw station data. 4. The CRU data have periodically been sent to NCDC (for inclusion in GHCN) . GHCN include these by having multiple versions of data for many sites. 5. CRU has made homogeneity adjustments to many station records - see the most recent discussion in Brohan et al. (2006). Details of the homogeneity adjustments are given in the two publications from 1985 and 1986. These later two publications also give the sources of the data we had around those dates. References Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. Jones, P.D., Raper, S.C.B., Santer, B.D., Cherry, B.S.G., Goodess, C.M., Kelly, P.M., Wigley, T.M.L., Bradley, R.S. and Diaz, H.F., 1985: A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Northern Hemisphere, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Technical Report TRO22, 251 pp. Jones, P.D., Raper, S.C.B., Cherry, B.S.G., Goodess, C.M. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1986: A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere, 1851-1984, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Technical Report TR027, 73 pp. At 19:05 16/03/2007, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: A response from our latest requester. I will respond on Sunday noting that the use of EIR in no way is determinative of the resolution of his request and reinforcing our use of EIR - we have no option in the matter under s.39 FOIA, and the intention of the requester is irrelevant. Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: D.J. Keenan [[1]mailto:doug.keenan@informath.org] Sent: Thu 15/03/2007 22:32 To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Dear Mr. Palmer, My request is to be processed under the FOI, not the EIR; this was made clear in my application. I ask your office to formally accept or refuse my FOI request as made. If your office fails in this, I intend file a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office. If your office refuses my application on the grounds that the information I requested is "environmental information", then I ask that the refusal notice identify which part of the definition of "environmental information" (a-f) you believe applies. This is in addition to adhering to your other obligations when issuing a refusal notice for an FOI application. Sincerely, Douglas J. Keenan ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) To: [3]doug.keenan@informath.org Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2007 17:13 Subject: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Mr. Keenan, Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request of 12 March 2007. It also contains further information regarding the handling of this request. I will be in contact with you further in due course. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4466. 2007-03-29 18:11:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:11:37 +0200 from: Martin Wilmking subject: [ITRDBFOR] biological mechanisms for "divergence" to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Dear Barry, your question is a good one! i have been struggeling with it for some time now.... the MS you saw is not submitted yet, since it is data from my PhD, which gets constantly put on the backburner. you know how that goes... there we did check for the influence of soil moisture on our findings of positive and negative responders (to temp that is). first results suggest that there is no clear relationship between soil moisture pattern and pattern of positive and negative responders. on regional scale it seems that the limiting factor in the negative responders has shifted from temp to precip, but on the plot scale we do not find this relationship, at least with our set-up. and so i cannot predict negative or positive response. we are working on some other leads, but those are mostly the instability of the relationship between predictor and ring width, meaning we are looking at the results of the biological effects first to maybe then draw some conclusions on the mechanisms themself. if anyone has some literature pointing that way, please let me know! best martin PS: check also with Rob Wilson and Rosanne D'Arrigo, they have a MS submitted on that topic, see Robs webpage 1. Thanks for the clarification. My question remains "what is the biological mechanism behind these divergence patterns?" Any idea? 2. A weak correlation between temp & rw/mxd may well be the sum of a set of positive and negative correlations. But that only begs the question: how do you explain the divergent positive and negative responses to temperature that you observe? Assuming that it is some aspect of temperature that the tree is responding to, can you predict, a priori, based on species, form, and site, whether a given sample is going to exhibit a negative or positive response? 3. Checking your publication list I was intrigued by one title: "Drought stress hypothesis in boreal forest not supported by field observations". I have to ask: has this manuscript been submitted/accepted yet? Barry Cooke -----Original Message----- From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Wilmking Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:09 AM To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Wikipedia on divergence Divergence is happening on several "scales", which get mixed up quite often: 1) between width and density (?) the one you mentioned, i have no experience there 2) between temperature and width 3) between growth trends of subchronologies at the same site at least the two last ones might be related, i.e. 2) could be a result of 3), also, when I looked at individual tree ring series (and not the site chronology) in nearly all cases where i have worked (mostly northern treeline) sensitivity to temperature increased in the second half of the 20th century. and thus a closer relationship between temp and ring width resulted (however, only in on of the two identified subchronologies, the other showed an inverse relationship to temp). this might, when averaged into a site chronology, translate into an apparent breakdown, or divergence, between temp and ring width, see some publications at http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/index.php?id=publikationen martin -- Martin Wilmking, Ph.D. Working Group: Ecosystem Dynamic Institute for Botany and Landscape Ecology University Greifswald Grimmer Strasse 88 D - 17487 Greifswald, Germany Tel: +49 (0)3834-864095 Fax: +49 (0)3834-864114 http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de 4454. 2007-03-29 21:54:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:54:47 -0400 from: Frank Telewski subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] divergence versus convergence to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Dave, With all due respect, your understanding of stomatal function is very simplistic. Water availability is not the only regulatory factor and is not directly responsible for the turgor of guard cells. The turgor pressure of the guard cells is regulated by alteration of the osmotic potential of the cytoplasm (H and Ca ion transport across the plasma membrane) in response to stimuli including ABA in terms of drought stress or the internal CO2 concentration, resulting in the changes in Water Use Efficiency, which is increased in elevated CO2 environments. Even mechanical stress, such as that induced by wind sway, can result in a short term closure of stomata. Mutants in the production of ABA or sensitivity to ABA have very altered stomatal responses. This implies a genetic component to stomatal function, so I'd be hard pressed to generalize that "all guard cells work in the same way" with out really investigating each tree one samples to verify that 'hypothesis'. Frank At 08:58 PM 3/29/2007, you wrote: >You show me ONE erosional or depositional process that occurs at the same >rate in all streams at all times I'll buy your argument. It doesn't happen, >thus by your logic, uniformitarianism cannot be applied to most studies of >geomorphology. I don't think Hutton or Lyell would have argued that. > >Quartz is made of silica. That much is a constant. But the size of the >grains, the degree of cementation, the velocity of the water and the >sediment content of the water all vary, thus rates of erosion and deposition >WILL VARY from place to place and from time to time. The nature of the >processes of erosion and deposition, however, do not. > >Guard cells do work in the same way -- whether they open or close the >stomatal opening is dependent upon turgor pressure of the cells. Individual >genetic variation may affect the speed and or intensity of response to >changing moisture levels in the leaf, but it does not alter the nature -- >mechanics -- of the response to changing moisture levels in the leaf. > >Dave > >------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com >------------------------------------------------------ > >"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > >"No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > >-----Original Message----- >From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Hilary Stuart-Williams >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:42 PM >To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU >Subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] divergence versus convergence > >Nope, I don't think so. You have found yourself forced to resort to >generalisations: stomata respond. Uniformatarianism is exact. Not >"nearly the same" but "the same". If you could guarantee that the >biochemistry and the genetics of the plant species were exactly the >same, then I would agree. But you can't assert that. Quartz sand IS >exactly the same over time - no genetic variation. > >Hil > >David M. Lawrence wrote: > > Uniformitarianism is perfectly appropriate here. Just because there are > > individual variations in a process, whether in stomatal response to water > > stress or in erosion and deposition rates of sandbars, doesn't mean that >one > > cannot make generalizations of how the process works for all from > > observations of how the process works in some. For example, stomates tend > > to close in response to water stress as a result of loss of turgor >pressure > > in the guard cells. In some individuals such closure will happen sooner > > than in others, but the basic process works in much the same way -- and > > probably has worked in much the same way since guard cells as we know them > > first evolved. > > > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > "No trespassing > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] >On > > Behalf Of Hilary Stuart-Williams > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:19 PM > > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] divergence versus convergence > > > > Hi > > > > I'm not sure that I agree with the use of uniformatarianism here. As a > > geologist (in a plant physiology group) I take it to mean that the same > > physical and chemical systems will react in the same way in the past as > > in the present. This is fine for sand bars and rivers, or even for > > speleothem isotopes, but I am not so sure about organic systems. You > > have to start by making the pure assumption that the systems are > > identical. We know that two wheats that look identical when growing, > > and certainly would look the same as fossils, have genetic differences > > causing variation in their stomatal response and water use efficiency. > > They are NOT the same and you cannot extrapolate the precise responses > > of one from the other. > > > > I know that this is not a new question, and I am not attempting to > > undermine dendro (or I wouldn't subscribe to this group) but I don't > > think that uniformatarianism is the right word (or concept). > > > > Hil > > > > > >-- >Hilary Stuart-Williams PhD >Research Officer - Stable Isotopes >Environmental Biology Group >Research School of Biological Sciences >The Australian National University >Canberra >ACT 0200 Australia > >Tel 02 6125 2099 >Fax 02 6125 4919 >Mobile 0421 905 478 5153. 2007-04-02 23:06:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 23:06:56 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: I have had a breakthrough on what I've been doing concerning protocols to test reconstructions in climate model environments. [I abandonned the formal outline route, which in the end was hindering my thought rather than helping it. Instead, I have approached things in a slightly more visual-oriented format, which really is helping.] I just now sent a draft of what I've done off to Caspar for review, as a co-author on section 6.1. I asked him for feedback at the earliest possible time he can, as I'm now finally in a place to move ahead solidly. I also have reminded him recently concerning the forcings material you asked me to mention to him. Finally, I now realize that the work I have been doing is really more directly targeted at sections 3.3 and 3.4 than at section 6.1 -- as I had before assumed (although it still has at least some relevance to 6.1). I have put together quite some detail, and thus I imagine I should communicate this to Tim. Indeed, I will send it to him just after this message. He might well find it interesting, and I want to avoid the situation in which he and I duplicate effort unnecessarily. I seem to remember you mentioning that he had not gotten much of a start yet, and perhaps what I have done can fit in nicely. We'll see. I'm not sure about timing on all of this [and in fact my term ends in mid-May and not March]. In any case, I think I did intend to get you a text by now, but obviously that hasn't worked, and illness has been an issue (still is in fact). However, progress now is good, and so is momentum. I'm going ahead with a final portion on significance benchmarks and validation overall, which I will send to co-authors as soon as I can. Hopefull, I can soon get some feedback from Tim and Caspar, and then move forward with some dispatch on this material. That is the news I have. Thanks for your work on this. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 3/26/2007 6:42 AM To: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; Eduardo Zorita; jan.esper@wsl.ch; Janice Lough; Juerg Luterbacher; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Ricardo Villalba; Kim Cobb; Heinz Wanner; Jonathan Overpeck; Michael Schulz; Eystein Jansen; Nick Graham; Francis Zwiers; Caspar Ammann; Michael E. Mann; Gavin Schmidt; Sandy Tudhope; Tas van Ommen; Wahl, Eugene R Cc: Williams, Larry; Thorsten Kiefer Subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder > Dear All, It seems that progress on this paper from our enjoyable Wengen meeting is painfully slow! I'm reminded about it as I've just received some revised text from Janice about the corals, I'm expecting an ice core summary from Tas van Ommen fairly soon. I have text from Juerg on documentary material. Gene Wahl said he would send something during March when term finished. I saw Francis two weeks ago and he promised something soon. IPCC will be out soon, so we can no longer use this as an excuse. So, the bottom line question is are we still working (as a group) towards putting a paper together?? I know from reviewing articles, that many of you are submitting papers, so you all can't be too weighed down with work. I don't want to go back to PAGES and EPRI and say we're not bothering, so can you all give me a date by which you'll send me something. I know about the corals and ice cores, and the others mentioned above. Think of this as a last call at the airport. You are delaying the flight, we will offload your luggage soon! I think the review will be really useful, if we can all find the small amount of time to put it together. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4696. 2007-04-03 00:24:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:24:54 +0100 from: "Quaternary Science Reviews" subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-07-00060 to: Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-07-00060 Title: Imprints of Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe Quaternary Science Reviews Dear Keith, Earlier this year, you and Tom Melvin kindly provided a review of this paper. On the basis of your recommendation, and in particular the comment that the RCS method used was flawed, it was returned to the authors as a rejection. However, they have now re-submitted a modified manuscript with responses to reviewers. In these they point out that they did not in fact use the RCS method as you indicated. If correct, this would seem to remove your major criticism of their work. On that basis, could I please request a few minutes of your time to look again at this paper to see if it is now acceptable for publication? PLEASE DO NOT USE YOUR E-MAIL "REPLY" OPTION TO RESPOND TO THIS INVITATION. Instead, please respond online at http://ees.elsevier.com/jqsr/. You will need to login as a Reviewer: Your username is: KBriffa-255 Your password is: briffa5873 Please select the "New Invitations" link on your Main Menu, then choose to "Accept" or "Decline" this invitation, as appropriate. If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would return your review by May 15, 2007. Once you have done this, I will send you the author's replies to reviewers by separate email. You may submit your comments online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author and a report form to be completed. If I do not hear back from you, I will assume that you do not have a fundamental opposition to publication of this work. With many thanks in anticipation and kind regards, Neil Neil Roberts Editor Quaternary Science Reviews ABSTRACT: New tree-ring based analysis for climate variability at regional scale is presented for northern Fennoscandia. Our absolutely dated temperature reconstruction seeks to characterize the shifts and gradual changes in temperature history through the classical climatic periods since AD 750. Warmest and coldest reconstructed 250-year periods occurred AD 931-1180 and AD 1601-1850, respectively. These periods owe significant temporal overlap with the general hemispheric climate variability due to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). Detailed picture of temperature evolution shows that MWP was long ameliorated interval with mean temperatures warmer than temperatures during the following centuries but not warmer than during the 20th century. The LIA seems to follow the two-stage model. We detect the approx. 60-year rhythm, attributable to North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC), in the regional climate during the MWP but not during the LIA. THC further appears as an agent behind the initiation and continuation of MWP and the mid-LIA transient warmth. Coldest and warmest of all reconstructed 100-year periods occurred AD 1587-1686 and AD 1895-1994, respectively. These dates bracket the coldest phase of Little Ice Age suggesting that both its initiation and termination were associated with anomalous climatic intervals. Cooling of climate since the MWP until the termination of the LIA follows the hemispheric trend supposedly by orbital forcing, amplification of volcanic signature years and hemispheric vegetation changes with intensifying mechanism from regional forest-limit retreat. Brief comparison of instrumental and proxy-based records shows that the rise in annual and summer temperatures during the late 19th and early 20th century is parallel but not exactly simultaneous. ****************************************** For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Reviewer Support at reviewersupport@elsevier.com 2220. 2007-04-03 11:22:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:22:39 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: FYI: Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk FYI. This is an important decision. The skeptics are up in arms about it. Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 05:15:15 -0500 To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.6 X-UEA-Spam-Level: + X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=11755 94871-BDjAQWB9WEG/vuKPjIQy/Q&pagewanted=print April 3, 2007 Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, April 2 - In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal. The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could "avoid taking further action" now was "if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change" or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. Beyond the specific context for this case - so-called "tailpipe emissions" from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country's total emissions of heat-trapping gases - the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming. Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, said that by providing nothing more than a "laundry list of reasons not to regulate," the environmental agency had defied the Clean Air Act's "clear statutory command." He said a refusal to regulate could be based only on science and "reasoned justification," adding that while the statute left the central determination to the "judgment" of the agency's administrator, "the use of the word 'judgment' is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text." The court also decided a second Clean Air Act case Monday, adopting a broad reading of the environmental agency's authority over factories and power plants that add capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. In doing so, the court reopened a federal enforcement effort against the Duke Energy Corporation under the Clean Air Act's "new source review" provision. The vote in the second case, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 05-848, was 9 to 0. The two decisions left environmental advocates exultant. Many said they still harbored doubts about the federal agency and predicted that the decision would help push the Democratic-controlled Congress to address the issue. Even in the nine months since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the first case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, and accelerating since the elections in November, there has been a growing interest among industry groups in working with environmental organizations on proposals for emissions limits. Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the main industry trade group, said in response to the decision that the alliance "looks forward to working constructively with both Congress and the administration" in addressing the issue. "This decision says that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be part of this process," Mr. McCurdy said. If the decision sowed widespread claims of victory, it left behind a prominent loser: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who argued vigorously in a dissenting opinion that the court never should have reached the merits of the case or addressed the question of the agency's legal obligations. His dissent, which Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also signed, focused solely on the issue of legal standing to sue: whether the broad coalition of states, cities and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit against the environmental agency four years ago should have been accepted as plaintiffs in the first place. This was the issue on which the coalition's lawsuit had appeared most vulnerable, given that in recent years the Supreme Court has steadily raised the barrier to standing, especially in environmental cases. Justice Scalia has long been a leader in that effort, and Chief Justice Roberts made clear that, as his statements and actions in his pre-judicial career indicated, he is fully aboard Justice Scalia's project. Chief Justice Roberts said the court should not have found that Massachusetts or any of the other plaintiffs had standing. The finding "has caused us to transgress the proper - and properly limited - role of the courts in a democratic society," he said, quoting from a 1984 decision. And, quoting from a decision Justice Scalia wrote in 1992, he said, "This court's standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts." Chief Justice Roberts complained that "today's decision recalls the previous high-water mark of diluted standing requirements," a 1973 decision known as the Scrap case. That was an environmental case that the Supreme Court allowed to proceed on a definition of standing so generous as to be all but unthinkable today. "Today's decision is Scrap for a new generation," the chief justice said, not intending the comparison as a compliment. The majority addressed the standing question by noting that it was only necessary for one of the many plaintiffs to meet the three-part definition of standing: that it had suffered a "concrete and particularized injury," that the injury was "fairly traceable to the defendant" and that a favorable decision would be likely to "redress that injury." Massachusetts, one of the 12 state plaintiffs, met the test, Justice Stevens said, because it had made a case that global warming was raising the sea level along its coast, presenting the state with a "risk of catastrophic harm" that "would be reduced to some extent" if the government undertook the regulation the state sought. In addition, Justice Stevens said, Massachusetts was due special deference in its claim to standing because of its status as a sovereign state. This new twist on the court's standing doctrine may have been an essential tactic in winning the vote of Justice Kennedy, a leader in the court's federalism revolution of recent years. Justice Stevens, a dissenter from the court's states' rights rulings and a master of court strategy, in effect managed to use federalism as a sword rather than a shield. Following its discussion of standing, the majority made short work of the agency's threshold argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize it to regulate heat-trapping gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not "air pollutants" within the meaning of the law. "The statutory text forecloses E.P.A.'s reading," Justice Stevens said, adding that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant." The justices in the majority also indicated that they were persuaded by the existing evidence of the impact of automobile emissions on the environment. The agency itself "does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made gas emissions and global warming," Justice Stevens noted, adding that "judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations." Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, signed by the other three dissenters, disputing the majority's statutory analysis. The decision overturned a 2005 ruling by the federal appeals court here. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company * Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2515. 2007-04-03 12:54:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:54:21 +0100 (BST) from: Andrew Moon subject: Climate Change Talk at St Andrews to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Professor Jones , I am writing on behalf of the One world Society at the University of St Andrews. We are holding a climate change awareness week from the 23rd until the 30th of April. However, in light of rescent media efforts to discredit C02 manmade C02 emissions as a climate driver, we may encounter difficulties in our campaign. Programs such as 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and other outlets have made out campaigning more difficult. In repsonse, we are organising a large debate/ talk on the 23rd of April. We are hoping to have some climatologists come and talk about the conflicting evidence and bring some clarity to the issue. Since we ourselves are not experts, we feel we need possible questions answered by scientists directly invovled in climate research.We were wondering if you or any of your collegues would be willing to give a talk and answer questions.Thank you, Kind regards, Andrew *************************************************************************** Andrew Moon, Room 223, Solar Magnetospheric Theory Group, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife. E-mail:andrewm@mcs.st-and.ac.uk KY16 9SS Tel:3727 **************************************************************************** 2812. 2007-04-03 13:53:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:53:16 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: FYI: Supreme Court Opinion Attached to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk Some of you might like to see the full ruling - it is a bit difficult to read though. Here's some more on it from the NY Times. [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/us/03impact.html?pagewanted=print April 3, 2007 NEWS ANALYSIS Ruling Undermines Lawsuits Opposing Emissions Controls By FELICITY BARRINGER Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on carbon dioxide emissions largely shredded the underpinning of other lawsuits trying to block regulation of the emissions and gave new momentum to Congressional efforts to control heat-trapping gases linked to climate change. Environmental groups and states that have adopted controls on carbon dioxide emissions from vehicle tailpipes responded with jubilation, while the auto industry and some of its backers, like Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, offered statements of resigned disappointment. "This is fantastic news," said Ian Bowles, the secretary of environmental affairs for Massachusetts, the state that had petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to control the emissions from cars and trucks, which represent slightly less than one-quarter of the country's total heat-trapping gases. The E.P.A. had argued that it had no authority to do so under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, such regulation would run afoul of other administration plans to combat climate change. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. "You've seen the Bush administration hiding behind this argument to avoid action, and this puts that to rest," Mr. Bowles said. Pennsylvania's secretary of environmental protection, Kathleen McGinty, added, "We hope it means any further opposition and challenge to the legal standards will go away and we can get about the job of cleaning up the auto fleet and making a dent in greenhouse-gas pollution." The arguments rejected by the court have been invoked in other legal challenges, including a case pending in California in which auto industry trade groups argue against that state's law controlling carbon-dioxide emissions from cars, and one in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where electric utilities are fighting the E.P.A.'s authority to regulate their emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. Both cases had been stayed awaiting yesterday's ruling. Some companies may now find new affection for proposals in Congress for a cap-and-trade system to aid emissions control. Under this type of system, companies that had reduced emissions beyond a set limit could sell credits earned by their excess reductions to companies that failed to meet emissions limits. "This flips the debate from an environment in which Congress must act if there is to be federal action," said Tim Profeta, the director of the Nicholas Institute for the Environment at Duke University, "to one in which the E.P.A. can act as soon as an administration friendly to the concept is in power." "If there is a President Clinton or President McCain," Mr. Profeta added, "he or she doesn't have to go to Congress to get action." The reaction from Capitol Hill underscored this point. "While I still believe Congress did not intend for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court has made its decision and the matter is now settled," Mr. Dingell said in a prepared statement. "Today's ruling provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation." Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and a sponsor of the most stringent of the global-warming proposals currently before Congress, said in a statement: "This decision puts the wind at our back. It takes away the excuse the administration has been using for not taking action to deal with global-warming pollution." Another prod for federal action is the likelihood that California will be able to use the new ruling to parry legal challenges to its new law calling for a cut of nearly 30 percent in carbon dioxide emissions on passenger vehicles sold in the state starting in 2016. A dozen other states, including Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, have enacted laws adopting the California standard. These states are home to more than a third of the vehicles sold in the United States. But before those standards can take effect, the environmental agency must grant the states a waiver. "I am very encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today that greenhouse gases are pollutants and should be regulated by the federal government," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican. "We expect the U.S. E.P.A. to move quickly now in granting our request for a waiver." The prospect of separate state and federal emissions standards is one of Detroit's worst nightmares. Walter McManus, director of automotive analysis for the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan, argued that the environmental agency was best suited to regulate automotive emissions and fuel economy. "They are the ones who really have the expertise about fuel economy and greenhouse gases," Mr. McManus said. Nick Bunkley contributed reporting from Detroit. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company * Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\05-1120.pdf" 3114. 2007-04-03 14:29:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:29:31 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" , "Phil Jones" Michael/Phil, Didn't sort until today that the attachment didn't go to you! here it is.... for brief discussion this afternoon Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 4:28 PM To: 'Phil Jones'; Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Michael/Phil, Attached please find a response to Mr. McIntyre - you ok with this approach/wording? Will the information that Phil has uncovered be of any similar assistance to Mr. Eschenbach (wants a list of stations for the HadCRUT3 global temperature average)? As to a meeting, I can't find either of you in Outlook so would Tuesday at 2pm work for you? Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:55 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Dave, I'll get onto putting the data on a web page. It should cover most of the requests. The sites and data used in the 1990 paper will be there. There won't be any info about why these sites were selected. I don't know how my collaborators did this. At the time I asked them for rural sites in their region. I'll make this clear on the page. Suggest a time next week - I'm here all the time. Cheers Phil At 14:55 29/03/2007, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil, Good news re the locations data. I would recommend putting the data on the website as any further requests could simply be referred to the website itself - in this case, we could provide the data itself; just from a political point of view, I would rather 'give' the data directly than 'refuse' under s.21 and point them to a website. Just spoke to Doug Keenan on the phone and he seems a reasonable chap - I explained that I had received the below email from you and that the prognosis for his request was positive. I hope that this might avoid the appeal situation we have with our other 2 requesters. I have an obligation to try to sort the appeals informally but I'm not sure how to bridge the gap between us saying the data is on the US websites and the requesters saying that it isn't! I note that Steve McIntyre in his note to me of 12 March talks about the identification of the stations for the 1990 study - would the input data files you have for the 1990 study cover the west Russian, Chinese and Australian networks he requests? It might be worth meeting next week to discuss anything I could say to McIntyre & Eschenbach to either (a) satisfy them, or (b) convince them that pursuing an appeal would be fruitless (assuming it would be!) Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:15 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Dave, I have found all the input data for the paper from 1990. This includes the locations of the sites and the annual temperature values. If I were to get someone in CRU to put them on our web site, do you think that would keep them quiet, or just spur them into more requests? The 1990 paper data isn't that much, just 6 small files, each of about a half an A4 page. My earlier email about the other request (the first one) for all our data still stands. See the same points below. If you feel another meeting may be useful, then let me know. I had a brief exchange with Alan Kendall of ENV, which I didn't find very useful. Cheers Phil 1. CRU's monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the two websites we informed you about in early February. Our estimate is that >98% of the CRU data are on these sites. 2. CRU has augmented this dataset with data collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These NMS -supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we have to express their wishes. The World Meteorological Organization has a list of all NMSs. 3. We would like to point out here that CRU is doing a service to the climatological community around the world, by making these and many other gridded datasets and products available. We are continually being thanked by scientists around the world (both personally and through acknowledgements within published papers). All these scientists are happy to use these gridded products, rather than deal with the raw station data. 4. The CRU data have periodically been sent to NCDC (for inclusion in GHCN) . GHCN include these by having multiple versions of data for many sites. 5. CRU has made homogeneity adjustments to many station records - see the most recent discussion in Brohan et al. (2006). Details of the homogeneity adjustments are given in the two publications from 1985 and 1986. These later two publications also give the sources of the data we had around those dates. References Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. Jones, P.D., Raper, S.C.B., Santer, B.D., Cherry, B.S.G., Goodess, C.M., Kelly, P.M., Wigley, T.M.L., Bradley, R.S. and Diaz, H.F., 1985: A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Northern Hemisphere, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Technical Report TRO22, 251 pp. Jones, P.D., Raper, S.C.B., Cherry, B.S.G., Goodess, C.M. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1986: A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere, 1851-1984, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Technical Report TR027, 73 pp. At 19:05 16/03/2007, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: A response from our latest requester. I will respond on Sunday noting that the use of EIR in no way is determinative of the resolution of his request and reinforcing our use of EIR - we have no option in the matter under s.39 FOIA, and the intention of the requester is irrelevant. Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: D.J. Keenan [[2]mailto:doug.keenan@informath.org] Sent: Thu 15/03/2007 22:32 To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Dear Mr. Palmer, My request is to be processed under the FOI, not the EIR; this was made clear in my application. I ask your office to formally accept or refuse my FOI request as made. If your office fails in this, I intend file a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office. If your office refuses my application on the grounds that the information I requested is "environmental information", then I ask that the refusal notice identify which part of the definition of "environmental information" (a-f) you believe applies. This is in addition to adhering to your other obligations when issuing a refusal notice for an FOI application. Sincerely, Douglas J. Keenan ----- Original Message ----- From: [3]Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) To: [4]doug.keenan@informath.org Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2007 17:13 Subject: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Mr. Keenan, Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request of 12 March 2007. It also contains further information regarding the handling of this request. I will be in contact with you further in due course. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Info_offer_letter_070402.doc" 5224. 2007-04-03 18:55:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:55:47 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: Thanks for the well wishes. Thanks for all your work on IPCC (and all over), it is a real boost to the community of climate science. The Supreme Court decisions are really heartening. It was fascinating to here the official administration spin last night -- i.e., OK, this is an important decision, but it is really not going to have any significant impact on CO2 emissions over the long haul. How they can say that with a straight face is beyond me; I think to the cap and trade program we've had here for SO2 and how successful that has been, beyond expectations in terms of cost vs. reduction. Why CO2 would not have a likelihood of being reduced at least to some meaningful degree with a similar tool is hard to argue I would think. Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 4:43 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder Gene, Thanks for the update. Hope you fully recover soon. I've forwarded this to Tim, in the expectation that this will spur him along. I'll do some work on the paper over our long Easter break - Thursday to Tuesday inclusive. Been busy with the IPCC Chapter proofs recently, but they should be finished by tomorrow. Saw the Supreme Court ruling from Monday. Given those idiots on Climate Audit something to talk about! Cheers Phil At 04:06 03/04/2007, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: >Hi Phil: > >I have had a breakthrough on what I've been doing concerning >protocols to test reconstructions in climate model environments. [I >abandonned the formal outline route, which in the end was hindering >my thought rather than helping it. Instead, I have approached >things in a slightly more visual-oriented format, which really is helping.] > >I just now sent a draft of what I've done off to Caspar for review, >as a co-author on section 6.1. I asked him for feedback at the >earliest possible time he can, as I'm now finally in a place to move >ahead solidly. I also have reminded him recently concerning the >forcings material you asked me to mention to him. > >Finally, I now realize that the work I have been doing is really >more directly targeted at sections 3.3 and 3.4 than at section 6.1 >-- as I had before assumed (although it still has at least some >relevance to 6.1). I have put together quite some detail, and thus >I imagine I should communicate this to Tim. Indeed, I will send it >to him just after this message. He might well find it interesting, >and I want to avoid the situation in which he and I duplicate effort >unnecessarily. I seem to remember you mentioning that he had not >gotten much of a start yet, and perhaps what I have done can fit in >nicely. We'll see. > >I'm not sure about timing on all of this [and in fact my term ends >in mid-May and not March]. In any case, I think I did intend to get >you a text by now, but obviously that hasn't worked, and illness has >been an issue (still is in fact). However, progress now is good, >and so is momentum. I'm going ahead with a final portion on >significance benchmarks and validation overall, which I will send to >co-authors as soon as I can. Hopefull, I can soon get some feedback >from Tim and Caspar, and then move forward with some dispatch on this material. > >That is the news I have. Thanks for your work on this. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________ > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Mon 3/26/2007 6:42 AM >To: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; >EWWO@bas.ac.uk; Eduardo Zorita; jan.esper@wsl.ch; Janice Lough; >Juerg Luterbacher; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Ricardo Villalba; Kim >Cobb; Heinz Wanner; Jonathan Overpeck; Michael Schulz; Eystein >Jansen; Nick Graham; Francis Zwiers; Caspar Ammann; Michael E. Mann; >Gavin Schmidt; Sandy Tudhope; Tas van Ommen; Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: Williams, Larry; Thorsten Kiefer >Subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder > > > > > > Dear All, > It seems that progress on this paper from our enjoyable Wengen > meeting is painfully slow! I'm reminded about it as I've just received > some revised text from Janice about the corals, I'm expecting an > ice core summary from Tas van Ommen fairly soon. I have text > from Juerg on documentary material. Gene Wahl > said he would send something during March when term finished. > I saw Francis two weeks ago and he promised something soon. > > IPCC will be out soon, so we can no longer use this as an excuse. > So, the bottom line question is are we still working (as a group) towards > putting a paper together?? I know from reviewing articles, that many > of you are submitting papers, so you all can't be too weighed down > with work. I don't want to go back to PAGES and EPRI and say we're > not bothering, so can you all give me a date by which you'll send me > something. I know about the corals and ice cores, and the others > mentioned above. > > Think of this as a last call at the airport. You are delaying the >flight, we > will offload your luggage soon! I think the review will be really useful, >if we > can all find the small amount of time to put it together. > > Cheers > Phil > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 1696. 2007-04-04 09:32:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "'Mcgonagle Laura Mrs \(FIN\)'" , date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:32:21 +0100 from: "Elly Reynolds" subject: RE: Things to do re R02618 to: "'Phil Jones'" , Phil I can take the money as requested against Dave Viner's salary and this will go into the ENV buyout account as Dave's salary is paid by the School. If you wish to use this money against David Lister, you will need to bid to the School for the use of these funds. It will be up to the HoS whether or not these funds are approved. You would also need to check to see whether a post release is required - I don't think it would be given that the period is only two months - but worth checking. Regards Elly -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 04 April 2007 09:13 To: e.reynolds@uea.ac.uk; j.darch@uea.ac.uk Cc: c.vincent@uea.ac.uk Subject: Things to do re R02618 Elly, Had a brief meeting with Janice yesterday. I had sent the email below (on March 28) which relates to a meeting I had with Chris Vincent and Gill Boddington re David Lister. The background is below along with the decisions reached at a meeting on March 28. Chris is now away for a few weeks and Gill is away. What needs to be done? 1. R02618 (from DEFRA) has 2 months salary money for Dave Viner. It finished end of Jan07. Can you move this money and anything else you can legitimately take (there is likely some travel money there as well) and put in an ENV account. The final claim can then be made on the account. I'll do the report at some point, when DEFRA send me the form. 2. Can this money then be used to pay David Lister for May and June this year? See below - 3rd paragraph in earlier email. Any issues, check with Janice. Cheers Phil >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:18:36 +0100 >To: "Boddington Gillian Mrs \(HRD\)" , >j.darch@uea.ac.uk >From: Phil Jones >Subject: The meeting at noon today - SLIGHT ALTERATION >Cc: "Vincent Chris Prof \(ENV\) e470" , >d.lister@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk > >> Gill, Janice, > We met in Chris' office today and have come up with a > plan. First I informed Chris > of an email from my contact at US Dept of Energy - copy below. > This will give Janice > the new contact person (although he may not be new) in the USDoE office > in Chicago, if we need to contact them. I'd leave this until the > second half of > April, if no news by then. > > In the meantime, we have a grant in CRU from DEFRA. This is the old LINK > project (R02618). I'm told this has 2 months salary in it for Dave > Viner. This grant > expired at the end of Jan 2007, but I doubt that the final claim > has been made. > By the way, I still have to write a final report on this project, > but am awaiting > a SID-5 form from DEFRA. This grant has continued, but in a > different guise, > where we are a sub-contractor to CCLRC (Didcot, our # R14834). > > So, the idea Chris and I had was that the Dave Viner salary in > R02618 should > be extracted by ENV (likely need to involve Elly for this), then > this money used > to pay David Lister for May and June. This would revert to ENV > when the USDoE > money comes through. (Once this move has been done, R02618 could be wound > up - just the report I have to do left to do). 2 months of DV > 2 > months of DL. > > So, is this possible? > > In the longer term, David Lister would be paid from USDoE, > although this wouldn't > cover all of the next 3 years (USDoE renews yearly even though it > is a 3-year grant. This > is just the way things work there). To make up the rest, David > would also work on > the ENSEMBLES project (R12579, working on WP5.4). I'm not sure how many > months there are here, but the work is scheduled to start after > September 2007 > and last for a year - so at least 12 months. R12579 runs till August 2009. > > I hope this is a good summary of the discussions, and these > transfers can be done. > > I'm away tomorrow, but here at UEA until April 14. > > Cheers > Phil > > >From: "Bamzai, Anjuli" >To: "Phil Jones" >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 12:27:12.0473 (UTC) > FILETIME=[149F7C90:01C76FA2] >X-WSS-ID: 6A1963AA2RK309537-01-01 >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Phil, > >The start date for your award is May 1. Chicago is still working on Jan >awards. There's a backlog because of the CR. Wait a couple of weeks. > >Anjuli > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Carlson-Brown, Karen >Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:19 AM >To: Bamzai, Anjuli >Subject: RE: Contact in Chicago > > > > > >Anjuli, > >Here is the info for the contract specialist for Phil Jones' award. The >award has a start date of 5/1/07 and CH is working on January awards. > > (This is a US date, so is May 1, 2007). > >Hill, Michael D. >Phone: 630-252-2338 >Fax: 630-252-5045 >Route Symbol: SC-CH >Building: BLDG 201 >Location: ARGONNE IL >Routing: SC-CH >Organization: Operations Division >Title: CONTRACT SPECIALIST >Internet Address: michael.hill@ch.doe.gov > >Karen Carlson-Brown >karen.carlson@science.doe.gov >301-903-3338 >fax: 301-903-8519 > >> > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3858. 2007-04-04 10:02:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Parker, David" date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:02:20 +0100 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: FW: Awful Ch 4 programme to: Phil Bucket corrections. I replied to John and Geoff last night. The attached paper is the state of the art on this topic from our perspective. Anything more we need to do to face up to potential future sceptics on this? SST/NMAT has had little serious attack from sceptics so far. We are working on the modern era now and recognise some problems there with SST. The modern NMAT problems are probably more or less solved. Cheers Chris Prof. Chris Folland Head of Climate Variability Research Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Sent: 03 April 2007 14:15 To: Folland, Chris; Parker, David Subject: FW: Awful Ch 4 programme Hi Chris, Dave Any thoughts on this? John Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist, Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel. +44(0)1392884604 Fax:+44 (0) 870 9005050 E-mail: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Jenkins, Geoff Sent: 03 April 2007 11:42 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Cc: Pope, Vicky Subject: RE: Awful Ch 4 programme Phils last point is interesting. Is he saying that if the skeptics realised how fragile the bucket/intake corrections were they could go to town on them? As I understand it, they all stem from Chris and David. Do we need more work to get them on a firmer footing? Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 26 March 2007 10:43 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Cc: Jenkins, Geoff Subject: Awful Ch 4 programme > John, A couple of things about the web page on Climate Myths. 1. The recent eruptions were in 1982 (El Chichon) and 1991 (Pinatubo). Effects were mostly in the years you've given (so cooling then), but they occurred the year before. 2. On Myth 5, you could add that models have run the last millennium as well as the last hundred years. Related to this, is the solar activity in Myth 4 the new Judith Lean series? I could add many more myths, relating to frost fairs, the MWP, urbanization etc , if you should ever choose to add to this page. Philip Stott in that same program alluded to Frost Fairs and the MWP. There is no need for the UK to consider frost fairs, when we have the Manley CET record, Luterbacher's Swiss reconstructions and the Dutch seasonal reconstructions back to 1250. By the way, the skeptics may one day realise that the only bias in the surface temperature data that really matters is the bucket/intake one. The page is linked off the CRU site. Cheers Phil Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FINAL PAPER1.pdf" 509. 2007-04-05 22:30:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: Melinda Marquis , Martin Manning , Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:30:50 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: URGENT Ch. 6, Table 6.1 missing reference? to: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk HI Keith and Tim - Can you get an answer to Melinda and Martin by tomorrow's deadline? Thanks, Peck and Eystein X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:34:19 -0600 From: Melinda Marquis To: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Cc: Martin Manning Subject: Ch. 6, Table 6.1 missing reference? Dear Peck and Eystein, We are finalizing the Ch. 6 layout proofs, and I just noticed an oddity in Table 6.1, which describes the data and proxy-based reconstructions in Figure 6.10. There is no reference cited for the fourth row of data in this table, i.e., for the average of central Europe, de Bilt, Berlin and Uppsala. Nor could I find a reference cited in the corresponding text: "Four European records (Central England, De Bilt, Berlin and Uppsala) provide an even longer, though regionally restricted, indication of the context for the warming observed in the last approximately 20 to 30 years, which is even greater in this area than is observed over the NH land as a whole." As you know, no new references can be added now. But if the correct reference is already in the list of references at the end of the chapter, you could request that it be added to Table 6.1. If you is the case, we would need you to tell us this today or tomorrow morning. I hope you understand that we would need this information so promptly because of the very tight time frame we have to work with from now till publication. If I don't hear from you by noon tomorrow, I'll assume that you do not want to request such a revision to Table 6.1. Best regards, Melinda -- Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2826. 2007-04-06 10:08:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:08:41 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: [Fwd: From Armenia] to: Phil Jones just fyi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: From Armenia Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:09:35 -0400 From: Gregory.R.Hammer [1] To: Thomas C Peterson [2], Matthew Menne [3], Russell Vose [4], Anthony Arguez [5], "Larry.Nicodemus" [6] Minimum temperatures for the period 1999-2006 are doubtful. There is a systematic error in measurements. I am very sorry, but I would like to request you not to include the mentioned data in the database. I just received this from the Armenians. Greg -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 305. 2007-04-07 14:27:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:27:50 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: urgent help re Augusto Mangini to: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors, - I know it's Easter, but I'm having to deal with Augusto Mangini, a German colleague who has just written an article calling the IPCC paleo chapter "wrong", claiming it has been warmer in the Holocene than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature variations than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer? One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites - so please tell me if this is true?!! My main point will be the local vs hemispheric issue, saying that Mangini only provides local examples, while the IPCC statement is about hemispheric or global averages. But how about local variations - do stalagmites show much larger ones than tree rings? Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I could write? Do we have a stalagmite expert on the author team, other than contributing author Dominik Fleitmann, whom I've already identified? I have to submit my response to the newspaper tomorrow. Thanks, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 2671. 2007-04-07 19:03:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Stefan Rahmstorf" , "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Keith Briffa" date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:03:44 +0100 (BST) from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: urgent help re Augusto Mangini to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hi all as for the last 1300 years - the Moberg paper included some speleothem data but the trouble is that they are not absolutely dated and the calibration issues are far from settled - ie there are not the level of detaled process studies that establish the dominance of temperature control for many individual speleohem records (the 18O data represent a mixture of temperature annd precipitation behaviour, mixed with varying water residence times and ambiguities caused by cave ventilation changes and CO2 concentrations - often these effects are non linearly transfered) as is shown for other proxies. One paper that attempts to do a "large scale " study using spelethems from Scotland , Austria etc (BY CLAIRE SMITH ET AL.)shows an amplitude of variation that is not in any way in contradiction to the general envelope we show - but even here they have breaks in the record which make the scaling (in terms of temperture ) very uncertain in the early part of the record. The one study in the Alps that shows a warm medieval period , was not in my opinion , robustly calibrated . The bottom line is THE DATING UNCERTAINTY AND POORLY UNDERSTOOD FORCING PROCESSES AND THE WEAK CALIBRATION STRENGTH AT HIGH TO MEDIUM FREQUENCIES MEANS THAT THEY COULD NOT BE GIVEN MUCH EMPHASIS AT PRESENT .I am at home and doing this from memory but later I am happy to defend thee statements by references to speleothem literature. cheers Keith > Hi Stefan - Valerie was the lead on the Holocene section, so I'll cc > her. I agree that your approach is the smart one - it's easy to show > proxy records (e.g., speleothems) from a few sites that suggest > greater warmth than present at times in the past, but our assessment > was that there wasn't a period of GLOBAL warmth comparable to > present. We used the term likely, however, since there still is a > good deal of work to do on this topic - we need a better global > network of sites. > > Keith can comment on the last 1300 years, but again, I think there is > no published evidence to refute what we assessed in the chapter. > Again, one or two records does not hemispheric or global make. > > I think Keith or Valerie could comment further if they're not > Eastering. Eystein, likewise might have something, but I think it is > his national responsibility to hit the glaciers over Easter. > > Best, Peck > > >>Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors, >> >>- I know it's Easter, but I'm having to deal with Augusto Mangini, a >>German colleague who has just written an article calling the IPCC >>paleo chapter "wrong", claiming it has been warmer in the Holocene >>than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature variations >>than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer? >> >>One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy >>reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites - so >>please tell me if this is true?!! My main point will be the local >>vs hemispheric issue, saying that Mangini only provides local >>examples, while the IPCC statement is about hemispheric or global >>averages. >> >>But how about local variations - do stalagmites show much larger >>ones than tree rings? Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I >>could write? Do we have a stalagmite expert on the author team, >>other than contributing >>author Dominik Fleitmann, whom I've already identified? >>I have to submit my response to the newspaper tomorrow. >> >>Thanks, Stefan >> >>-- >>Stefan Rahmstorf >>www.ozean-klima.de >>www.realclimate.org >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Stefan Rahmstorf >>www.ozean-klima.de >>www.realclimate.org > > > -- > Jonathan T. Overpeck > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > Professor, Department of Geosciences > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > > Mail and Fedex Address: > > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > University of Arizona > Tucson, AZ 85721 > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > fax: +1 520 792-8795 > http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > 5002. 2007-04-09 08:42:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:42:15 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: Information on your DOE award to: "Bamzai, Anjuli" Dear PI, For an upcoming Committee of Visitors of the program, I need the following information: 1. Start year of your current award. If you've been on renewals, it should be the year your DOE award first started. E.g. for SciDAC PIs whose awards got renewed in 2004, the start year would be 2001. 2. Year you were granted your Ph.D. I can look it up each individual award in the hard copy files, but thought an email from you may be the best way of collecting the info efficiently. Please send me a 2 line response. If you are unsure of 1., at least provide a response to 2. Thanks for your help. Anjuli 2083. 2007-04-09 10:53:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:53:13 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Information on your DOE award to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk I'll put 1995. If any different, let me know. Else no need to email. Bean counting, bean counting ...sigh! -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:51 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: Information on your DOE award Anjuli, At home, so from memory. It has to be a multiple of 3 years and after Tom Wigley left, so it must be 1995. Tom left in 1993 and the 1992 one would have had him first. Cheers Phil > When did it start with you as PI? I need that year for 1. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:46 AM > To: Bamzai, Anjuli > Subject: Re: Information on your DOE award > > > > Anjuli, > > 1. 2004 was the last renewal. It originally started though in 1979, > but it was for Tom Wigley then. When the next renewal comes through > it will be the 10th. > > 2. 1977 > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Dear PI, >> >> For an upcoming Committee of Visitors of the program, I need the >> following information: >> >> 1. Start year of your current award. If you've been on renewals, it >> should be the year your DOE award first started. E.g. for SciDAC PIs >> whose awards got renewed in 2004, the start year would be 2001. >> >> 2. Year you were granted your Ph.D. >> >> I can look it up each individual award in the hard copy files, but >> thought an email from you may be the best way of collecting the info >> efficiently. Please send me a 2 line response. If you are unsure of >> 1., at least provide a response to 2. >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> Anjuli >> >> > > > > > 2983. 2007-04-11 09:23:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Manning , "Trenberth, Kevin" , Kristen Averyt , Susan Solomon date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:23:14 -0600 from: Melinda Marquis subject: Re: Fwd: IPCC proof to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, I'll get "(since 1950)" deleted from this ES statement. Best regards, Melinda Phil Jones wrote: Melinda, Martin, We've been discussing an issue related to urbanization in the TS - see below. The upshot of this is that the phrase (since 1950) in the TS has been removed. Can you also remove this from the ES for Ch 3? You will find the bracketted bit on p4 RH Column on the 4th line of the Urban Heat Island bullet. What needs to be done is to remove '(since 1950)'. I hope this is clear. Cheers Phil Phil Thanks for your reply. I have removed the 'since 1950' from the TS. That was taken from your ES but in view of this discussion I think the reader needs to go to the chapter. Please note that 'Since 1950' is not (and never was) in the SPM, so there is no interplay at all between the issues being discussed in this series of emails and anything that occurred in Paris or prior to Paris. It was, of course, for you to decide what you wanted in your ES and how to mesh that with the main text of your chapter. It is entirely a 'within chapter' issue. best regards, Susan Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA 3030. 2007-04-11 12:39:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:39:06 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Re: New web page to go on CRU data pages to: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" Phil, Thanks for this.... Will the requesters actually know what they are viewing in these files? Just seem to be a mess of numbers to me.... Is there a key or something to identify the stations? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:46 AM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364 >Subject: Fwd: Re: New web page to go on CRU data pages > > > Dave, Michael, > The webpage is up - see below for the url. > It was up last Wednesday, but it seems that no-one has yet seen it. > > So OK to send the letter. > > Cheers > Phil > >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 >>Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:15:21 +0100 >>To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>From: Mike Salmon >>Subject: Re: New web page to go on CRU data pages >> >>Hi Phil, >> >>Sorry, could have sworn I'd emailed you. >> >>Changes made to >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/jonesetal1990/ >>and link added to >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/other.htm >> >> From the logs, no-one's looked at it yet. >> >>Have a good Easter! >> >>Mike > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > > 756. 2007-04-11 15:41:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Ogden Anne Ms \(MAC\)" date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:41:57 +0100 from: "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" subject: Nature to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Hi Phil Nature have just called to ask if you would speak to them about the Climate Audit FOIA request. They are exploring whether it may be a growing trend for scientists to be the subject of FOIA requests. It's up to you, but as this isn't quite fully resolved, I think it may be wise not to comment publicly at this stage. There is obviously also a risk that the Nature story would be picked up by other media. I asked Nature if they would run the story even if you didn't comment and they said probably not. However, this is no guarantee. Happy to talk this through with you further if you want to give me a call. Thanks, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press 4717. 2007-04-12 06:58:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'WCW'" date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:58:28 -0400 from: "Wei-Chyung Wang" subject: RE: Chinese data used by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] to: "'Phil Jones'" Thanks for the message. I am heading to China this coming weekend and do not feel to respond now. You take care, and maintain good spirit enjoying life. WCW -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:01 AM To: Wei-Chyung Wang Subject: Fwd: Chinese data used by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] Wei-Chyung, This is from one of the people who've been hassling UEA under the Freedom of Information Act here in the UK. It's up to you to decide if you want to reply, but if you start you will likely get more and more questions. You also won't be able to convince them of anything. Also, as you know, the paper was 17 years ago. Their website has a number of plots of the urban/rural pairs, but as yet they haven't tried to replicate what we did with the regional average. Nature are trying to contact me about these requests. So far they haven't succeeded and I'm away the next two weeks. As far as I'm concerned they have the data they asked for. Site details and moves might not have been so well known in 1990. Also, you can get a feeling of their political persuasion by looking through some of the comments. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil >From: "D.J. Keenan" >To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" >Cc: "Phil Jones" , > "Steve McIntyre" >Subject: Chinese data used by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:39:06 +0100 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Dear Dr. Wang, > >I have been looking at your paper Jones P.D., Groisman P.Ya., >Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), "Assessment >of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature >over land", Nature 347: 169-172. >My interest is in the data from China. I have some questions about >that, which I hoped you would be willing to answer. > >First, Phil Jones tells that all the meteorological stations were >selected by co-authors and that he is unaware of how that was >done. So my first question--can you confirm that you alone selected >the Chinese stations? > >I also have questions regarding the data from the Chinese >stations. Briefly, how did you ensure the quality of the >data? There has been discussion about some details of this at >ClimateAudit: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102923 >--see comment #31, and also #37. > >Cheers, >Douglas Keenan > >* * * * * * * * * * * * >Douglas J. Keenan >http://www.informath.org >phone + 44 20 7537 4122 >The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1964. 2007-04-12 14:24:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:24:20 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI-07-13 ; to: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" Gentlemen, One satisfied requester; no response from Mr. McIntyre to me formally as yet. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: D.J. Keenan [mailto:doug.keenan@informath.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 6:02 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI-07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Dave, Thank you much for this. I gladly confirm that the information you sent appears to fully satisfy my request. Thanks again, Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) To: [2]doug.keenan@informath.org Sent: Wednesday, 11 April, 2007 14:09 Subject: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI-07-13 ; EIR_07-03) Mr. Keenan, Further to your request received on 12 March 2007, attached please find the information you requested. I trust this will be to your satisfaction. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ 993. 2007-04-13 14:18:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: edwardcook , Keith Briffa date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:18:33 -0400 from: edwardcook subject: Re: NAO presentation to: H.Griffin@uea.ac.uk Hi Helen, Here is the reconstruction. Enjoy. Cheers, Ed YEAR NAO RECON (DJFM) 1400-1979 WITH REGRESSION SCALED INSTRUMENTAL 1980-2001 DATA APPENDED 1400 -0.256 1401 -0.915 1402 -0.099 1403 -0.680 1404 -0.512 1405 0.273 1406 0.277 1407 0.134 1408 -0.843 1409 -0.116 1410 -0.094 1411 -0.715 1412 -1.846 1413 1.005 1414 -0.978 1415 0.680 1416 -0.571 1417 -0.502 1418 -0.516 1419 -0.185 1420 0.610 1421 -0.335 1422 0.530 1423 -0.538 1424 0.698 1425 -0.749 1426 -0.235 1427 -0.977 1428 0.389 1429 -0.164 1430 -0.435 1431 -0.391 1432 -0.048 1433 -0.144 1434 0.267 1435 -0.048 1436 -0.298 1437 -0.676 1438 0.923 1439 -0.749 1440 -0.104 1441 -0.730 1442 -0.384 1443 -0.461 1444 -0.404 1445 0.945 1446 -0.060 1447 -0.882 1448 -1.170 1449 1.245 1450 -0.655 1451 -0.007 1452 -1.012 1453 -0.272 1454 -0.872 1455 -0.036 1456 -0.123 1457 0.390 1458 -0.940 1459 -0.244 1460 -0.043 1461 -0.664 1462 0.358 1463 -0.523 1464 -0.052 1465 1.202 1466 -0.934 1467 -0.536 1468 -0.228 1469 0.299 1470 -0.580 1471 0.286 1472 0.277 1473 0.581 1474 0.842 1475 -1.597 1476 -0.561 1477 -0.131 1478 1.185 1479 1.289 1480 -0.207 1481 0.232 1482 0.501 1483 0.168 1484 0.744 1485 0.704 1486 0.445 1487 0.026 1488 0.410 1489 -0.070 1490 -0.536 1491 -0.459 1492 -0.452 1493 1.757 1494 -0.260 1495 -1.266 1496 -0.609 1497 0.248 1498 0.861 1499 -1.085 1500 1.240 1501 -0.491 1502 -0.299 1503 -1.410 1504 -0.087 1505 -0.765 1506 -0.722 1507 -0.204 1508 0.732 1509 0.707 1510 1.145 1511 -0.651 1512 0.000 1513 -0.610 1514 -1.350 1515 1.041 1516 0.135 1517 0.300 1518 0.720 1519 -1.282 1520 0.049 1521 1.777 1522 -0.233 1523 0.419 1524 -0.831 1525 0.691 1526 1.002 1527 0.349 1528 -0.181 1529 0.715 1530 -0.022 1531 -0.230 1532 -0.614 1533 -0.247 1534 -0.134 1535 -0.670 1536 0.717 1537 -0.567 1538 0.116 1539 -0.669 1540 -0.390 1541 -0.044 1542 0.738 1543 -0.268 1544 -1.524 1545 1.945 1546 -0.830 1547 0.168 1548 0.879 1549 0.008 1550 -0.190 1551 -0.970 1552 -0.502 1553 -0.021 1554 -0.620 1555 1.421 1556 -0.101 1557 -0.190 1558 0.191 1559 -1.799 1560 0.357 1561 -0.108 1562 -0.602 1563 -0.262 1564 -1.327 1565 0.157 1566 -0.391 1567 -0.376 1568 -0.034 1569 -0.495 1570 -0.952 1571 -0.742 1572 0.307 1573 -1.574 1574 0.316 1575 0.243 1576 -0.048 1577 -0.409 1578 0.310 1579 -0.042 1580 -0.332 1581 0.843 1582 1.061 1583 0.374 1584 0.156 1585 1.513 1586 -0.191 1587 -1.541 1588 1.310 1589 0.666 1590 -0.366 1591 1.127 1592 -0.385 1593 0.032 1594 -0.780 1595 -0.110 1596 0.182 1597 -0.434 1598 0.439 1599 -0.061 1600 0.055 1601 0.376 1602 0.155 1603 0.320 1604 -0.225 1605 0.140 1606 -0.072 1607 0.362 1608 0.508 1609 -0.198 1610 0.547 1611 -0.362 1612 -0.864 1613 0.505 1614 -0.757 1615 -0.532 1616 0.935 1617 -0.485 1618 -0.949 1619 -0.153 1620 -0.184 1621 -0.014 1622 -0.216 1623 0.388 1624 -0.789 1625 -1.285 1626 -0.385 1627 -0.073 1628 0.367 1629 -0.678 1630 0.158 1631 0.394 1632 0.472 1633 -0.144 1634 1.077 1635 -0.557 1636 0.266 1637 0.289 1638 0.020 1639 0.468 1640 -0.123 1641 -0.977 1642 -0.014 1643 0.641 1644 0.644 1645 0.308 1646 -1.523 1647 -0.164 1648 -0.790 1649 0.333 1650 -0.299 1651 -0.240 1652 -0.062 1653 0.159 1654 0.455 1655 -1.149 1656 -0.155 1657 -0.396 1658 -0.306 1659 -0.553 1660 0.184 1661 1.029 1662 0.109 1663 -2.091 1664 0.175 1665 -0.026 1666 -0.921 1667 -0.782 1668 -0.795 1669 0.147 1670 -0.174 1671 0.642 1672 -0.061 1673 -0.311 1674 -0.158 1675 -1.005 1676 0.385 1677 -0.383 1678 0.283 1679 -0.918 1680 1.024 1681 -0.727 1682 -0.190 1683 0.970 1684 -1.621 1685 0.341 1686 -0.156 1687 -0.454 1688 -1.261 1689 0.346 1690 -0.156 1691 -0.292 1692 -1.132 1693 1.097 1694 1.026 1695 -0.565 1696 -0.492 1697 -1.082 1698 -1.256 1699 -0.473 1700 -0.593 1701 0.176 1702 0.028 1703 0.054 1704 -0.403 1705 0.332 1706 0.225 1707 -0.170 1708 -1.130 1709 -0.263 1710 0.591 1711 -0.282 1712 0.526 1713 -0.010 1714 -0.219 1715 0.080 1716 -0.272 1717 0.086 1718 0.454 1719 0.191 1720 0.176 1721 -0.140 1722 0.161 1723 -0.377 1724 -0.093 1725 -0.113 1726 -0.563 1727 -0.338 1728 -0.627 1729 0.046 1730 -0.295 1731 -0.361 1732 0.233 1733 -0.523 1734 1.213 1735 -0.723 1736 -0.948 1737 -0.016 1738 0.532 1739 -0.073 1740 0.362 1741 0.040 1742 -0.149 1743 -0.324 1744 1.194 1745 0.361 1746 -0.896 1747 -0.149 1748 -1.146 1749 0.112 1750 0.729 1751 -0.204 1752 -0.234 1753 0.987 1754 -0.821 1755 -0.955 1756 0.096 1757 -0.440 1758 -1.063 1759 0.991 1760 -0.451 1761 0.308 1762 -0.006 1763 -1.132 1764 -0.016 1765 0.333 1766 -0.724 1767 -0.708 1768 -0.855 1769 0.285 1770 0.177 1771 -0.821 1772 -0.969 1773 0.400 1774 -0.882 1775 0.300 1776 -0.165 1777 0.271 1778 -0.316 1779 1.244 1780 -0.988 1781 0.421 1782 -0.586 1783 0.051 1784 -1.619 1785 -0.038 1786 -0.874 1787 0.075 1788 -0.849 1789 -0.163 1790 0.178 1791 0.333 1792 -0.719 1793 0.371 1794 0.483 1795 -0.227 1796 0.505 1797 -0.172 1798 0.538 1799 -0.440 1800 -1.182 1801 0.581 1802 0.873 1803 0.131 1804 -0.376 1805 -0.192 1806 -0.727 1807 0.109 1808 0.080 1809 0.121 1810 -0.308 1811 -0.001 1812 -0.677 1813 0.390 1814 -0.860 1815 1.153 1816 -0.269 1817 1.329 1818 -0.787 1819 -0.077 1820 0.001 1821 -0.053 1822 0.487 1823 -0.126 1824 0.037 1825 0.532 1826 -0.381 1827 -1.092 1828 1.001 1829 -2.131 1830 0.157 1831 -0.612 1832 -0.005 1833 -0.765 1834 1.196 1835 0.640 1836 -0.198 1837 -1.675 1838 -0.329 1839 -0.220 1840 0.312 1841 -0.803 1842 0.316 1843 0.139 1844 0.404 1845 -0.825 1846 0.151 1847 -0.935 1848 0.561 1849 0.219 1850 0.131 1851 -0.299 1852 0.033 1853 -1.076 1854 0.555 1855 -1.113 1856 -0.988 1857 0.313 1858 0.570 1859 0.420 1860 -0.563 1861 0.296 1862 -0.357 1863 0.245 1864 -0.394 1865 -0.498 1866 0.420 1867 0.121 1868 0.975 1869 0.178 1870 -0.474 1871 -0.977 1872 -0.274 1873 -1.083 1874 0.997 1875 -0.223 1876 -0.608 1877 -0.814 1878 0.694 1879 -1.491 1880 0.817 1881 -0.573 1882 2.269 1883 -0.412 1884 0.498 1885 -0.469 1886 -0.540 1887 0.176 1888 -1.119 1889 -0.092 1890 0.182 1891 -0.176 1892 -0.389 1893 -0.098 1894 -0.163 1895 -1.738 1896 0.094 1897 0.184 1898 0.573 1899 -0.493 1900 -1.103 1901 -1.094 1902 -0.282 1903 1.381 1904 -0.407 1905 0.865 1906 1.033 1907 0.566 1908 0.126 1909 -0.112 1910 -0.409 1911 -0.253 1912 -0.757 1913 0.696 1914 0.101 1915 -0.141 1916 -0.407 1917 -1.295 1918 0.656 1919 0.397 1920 1.062 1921 0.394 1922 -0.299 1923 0.867 1924 -0.829 1925 0.839 1926 -0.041 1927 -0.005 1928 -0.412 1929 -0.524 1930 -0.280 1931 -1.099 1932 -0.584 1933 0.721 1934 0.070 1935 0.272 1936 -1.295 1937 1.076 1938 0.308 1939 -0.638 1940 -0.653 1941 -1.152 1942 -0.816 1943 0.493 1944 -0.800 1945 1.451 1946 0.315 1947 -1.573 1948 0.381 1949 0.749 1950 0.128 1951 -0.298 1952 -0.487 1953 -0.059 1954 -0.463 1955 -1.133 1956 -0.408 1957 1.920 1958 -1.643 1959 0.377 1960 -1.634 1961 1.260 1962 -1.226 1963 -1.946 1964 -0.738 1965 -0.706 1966 -0.166 1967 1.111 1968 -0.066 1969 -1.720 1970 -0.341 1971 -0.159 1972 -0.018 1973 1.187 1974 0.984 1975 0.151 1976 0.553 1977 -0.334 1978 -0.866 1979 -1.216 1980 -0.332 1981 0.127 1982 -0.235 1983 0.738 1984 0.040 1985 -0.583 1986 -0.390 1987 -0.185 1988 -0.318 1989 1.216 1990 0.945 1991 -0.259 1992 0.560 1993 0.419 1994 0.627 1995 0.981 1996 -1.662 1997 -0.275 1998 0.072 1999 0.173 2000 0.653 2001 -0.650 ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Apr 13, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Keith Briffa wrote: Helen I have not got this but am ccing to Ed in case he has an electronic version he might send you (and me) sorry Keith At 11:30 12/04/2007, you wrote: Hi Keith, I am researching reconstructions of the NAO index for an upcoming presentation on the ENV-3A06 climate change course and was hoping you may have access to a paper I am unable to get hold of. Cook, E.R. 2003. Multi-proxy reconstructions of the North Atlantic Oscillation index: a critical review and a new well-verified winter NAO index reconstruction back to AD 1400. The North Atlantic Oscillation. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 134, edited by J.W. Hurrell, Y. Kushnir, G. Ottersen, and M.H. Visbeck, AGU, pp. 63-79. This would be really helpful for the presentation, Many thanks, Helen Griffin -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3298. 2007-04-14 12:48:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:48:31 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" Phil/Michael, As expected, Mr. Eschenbach is not satisfied with our most recent letter. I guess the essential question is whether we have the list of actual sites used for HadCRUT3, and if not, who does.... I would like to avoid a formal appeal process here that will simply result in where we are at now with the possibility of further appeal to the ICO.... If the information as Mr. Eschenbach describes simply does not exist here, we can report that and I will, if he still doesn't agree, start the formal process of the appeal.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:03 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) Dear Mr. Palmer: Thank you for your response. However, it does not solve the problem. In your original response you said: Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at: [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site. Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: [2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/ Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems). They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data. In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below Exemption Reason s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites While it is good to know that the data is available at those two web sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I am asking for: 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and 2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site's data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR." Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply - I still cannot access the data. I don't understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple list of the sites and where each site's data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data and saying, in effect, "The data is in there somewhere" does not help at all. To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this: WMO# Name Source 58457 HangZhou NCAR 58659 WenZhou NCAR 59316 ShanTou GHCN 57516 ChongQing NMS etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature data. That is the information requested, and it is not available "on non-UEA websites", or anywhere else that I have been able to find. I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we can get it resolved satisfactorily. Best regards, w. ______________________________________________________________________________________ on 4/12/07 5:22 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mr. Eschenbach, Further to my letter of 15 March, I attach further information regarding your email of 8 March and the appeal of our decision of 13 February. Don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ 2126. 2007-04-14 13:20:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Manning , Kristen Averyt , Susan Solomon date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:20:03 -0600 from: Melinda Marquis subject: Revised Ch. 3 layout proofs to: Kevin Trenberth , Phil Jones Dear Kevin and Phil, We have revised the Ch. 3 layout proof in light of the concerns you sent us April 4. There were a few issues you noted that we did not change, as doing so would have contradicted the style applied across the entire report, e.g., Sun (in Box 3.5, pg. 72) is capitalized, though you wish it weren't. And the lower-case "a" in "arctic" and "antarctic" when used as adjectives has to remain, as this rule is applied throughout the report. However, we have tried to accommodate your other concerns. If you would like to take a final review, you may do so. We have placed the revised Ch. 3 file, along with the supplementary material, on the Authors Resource Page (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/restricted/wg1/AR4/), where the previous versions were. Again, the user name is AR4WG1 and the password is Sky7Blue. Please follow the link to the Layout web page in the Whats New section. If you would please contact us Monday, April 16, or at the latest, Tuesday, April 17, to let us know if we missed anything, we would be grateful. Thank you for your thorough proofreading of your chapter. Best, Melinda -- Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA/ESRL Phone: +1 303 497 4487 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD08 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA 1698. 2007-04-14 20:01:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \ k364" date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:01:24 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, If all he wants is a list of the stations then I can probably send him this. It his going to do him absolutely no good to get this though. I guess if he gets this information he will at least be able to see that 98% of the data are in the other archives. I'm in Vienna next week, Geneva the on after this. I'm not back in CRU for a week until the one after May 11. He will just have to wait. There are not significant differences from the GHCN nor the GISS datasets. Ask him how he defines significant. Cheers Phil > Phil/Michael, > As expected, Mr. Eschenbach is not satisfied with our most recent > letter. I guess the essential question is whether we have the list of > actual sites used for HadCRUT3, and if not, who does.... I would like to > avoid a formal appeal process here that will simply result in where we > are at now with the possibility of further appeal to the ICO.... > If the information as Mr. Eschenbach describes simply does not exist > here, we can report that and I will, if he still doesn't agree, start > the formal process of the appeal.... > > Cheers, Dave > > ________________________________ > > From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:03 AM > To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) > > > Dear Mr. Palmer: > > Thank you for your response. However, it does not solve the problem. In > your original response you said: > > > > Your request for information received on 28 September now been > considered and I can report that the information requested is available > on non-UEA websites as detailed below. > > The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page > within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two > US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This > site is at: > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php > > This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the > global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained > from this site. > > Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & > Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems > Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) > site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/ > > Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA > Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The > latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but > other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data > (with adjustments for all the numerous problems). > > They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple > station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the > USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all > our data. > > In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 > this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are > as stated below > > Exemption Reason > > > > s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other > means Some information is publicly available on external websites > > > > While it is good to know that the data is available at those two web > sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by > Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I > am asking for: > > > > 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the > preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and > > 2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is > available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences > between the versions of each site's data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR." > > > > Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of > the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not > possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply - > I still cannot access the data. > > I don't understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple > list of the sites and where each site's data is located. Pointing at two > huge piles of data and saying, in effect, "The data is in there > somewhere" does not help at all. > > To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the > stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this: > > > > WMO# Name Source > 58457 HangZhou NCAR > 58659 WenZhou NCAR > 59316 ShanTou GHCN > 57516 ChongQing NMS > > > > etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature > data. > > That is the information requested, and it is not available "on non-UEA > websites", or anywhere else that I have been able to find. > > I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we can > get it resolved satisfactorily. > > Best regards, > > w. > > > ________________________________ > > on 4/12/07 5:22 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk > wrote: > > > > > > Mr. Eschenbach, > Further to my letter of 15 March, I attach further information > regarding your email of 8 March and the appeal of our decision of 13 > February. Don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. > > Cheers, Dave Palmer > > > <> > > ____________________________ > David Palmer > Information Policy Officer > University of East Anglia > Norwich, England > NR4 7TJ > > > > > > 4617. 2007-04-18 09:52:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:52:02 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Award Ceremony to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks for the update. Sounds good. I think I'll be able to make it next year, never been to Vienna so maybe this will be the time. I'mhappy to take the lead in organizing the session next year in any case. Sounds like this was a stunning success, especially in comparison w/ the way the Perugia meeting is shaping up! I think I know Gerrit Lohmann, from what I recall he is a reasonable guy, so sounds like things are in good hands. I'm pretty sure Gore spoke pro bono at AGU, perhaps as a favor to Tim Kileen (I think they know each other). We have tried to get Al Gore to come here to PSU, but no luck. Lonnie got him out to Ohio State a couple years back, but that was early on before the movie had yet appeared, etc. Glad to hear that the Exxon attempt failed, they've got to be kidding! talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > I'm back in Norwich now! Got a plane from Vienna at 7am ! > > CL28 was our usual session. Jean and Christian Dullo were there. > > There is a new Climate person (Gerard Ganssen is now running > all the sessions at EGU). New person is Gerrit Lohmann. Ray and > I got a free lunch out of him. He wants the session to run again > next year - as it was very successful. We had between 100-200 > there for most of the talks except for the 8.30am one, but by > the end of that we had about 100, so very well attended. > > Martin Juckes spoke after Ray and he had about 400 listening. > The numbers dropped back to about 200 after Martin finished. > Gerrit said it was the only session that filled the biggest rooms, > but this was only after 1.5 days. > > There were 3-4 with about 500 seats. They messed up with some > sessions which had 50 seats but more people wanted to listen. > > The meeting to decide next year is tomorrow. I said we'd be > happy to continue - and it was your turn ! > > Next year will be in Vienna again. The year after it will move, > most likely to Budapest, but maybe Lyon. > > The EGU tried to get Gore to come. He asked for 50K dollars > to talk ! Do you know if the AGU paid for Gore? > > There is also discussion of splitting the EGU into soft earth > (where we'd be) and hard earth. This is partly a size issue, but > also EGU is trying to raise more corporate sponsorship to > keep costs down (it was 360 Euros this year and all you > got was a free metro pass and 10 coffees). The EGU would > run both, but at different times each year. They have had > an approach from EXXON (or approached them). Gerrit and many > others have said that if they go down this route there would be > an open revolt from CL and much of the rest of oceans/atmospheres > (at least as far as EXXON is concerned). > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:53 18/04/2007, you wrote: >> thanks for the update Phil, nice to hear... >> >> I hope you're enjoying EGU. I can't remember now, did we have our >> session this year on past millennium or has this now been discontinued? >> >> mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>> Mike, >>> Back in Norwich. Yesterday went well. Ray talked to about 500+. >>> Room was full and I think all appreciated it. >>> Ray and Jane should be at some awards dinner tonight and then >>> they are off to Venice tomorrow. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 15:02 16/04/2007, you wrote: >>>> Michael E. Mann wrote: >>>>> Dear Roland, >>>>> >>>>> Phil and I are still worried about our session. It doesn't appear >>>>> in any of the documents. In a previous email you said it would be >>>>> Thursday afternoon July 5, we're assuming that is still the case. >>>>> Also, for some reason Phil is on your email distribution list but >>>>> I am not. Thanks in advance for adding me in. >>>>> >>>>> From your previous message, I take it that we need to await >>>>> further information from you before we can access the abstracts >>>>> online? I don't know to obtain the list of speakers for our >>>>> session, for example. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, >>>>> >>>>> Mike Mann >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael E. Mann >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >>>> >>>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >>>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >>>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>> >>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 314. 2007-04-18 14:30:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:30:32 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-09 to: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) k364" Phil/Michael, Here is a draft letter to Mr. McIntyre based on the information below.... Ok with you? And thanks for the prompt responses Phil - appreciated! Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:00 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364 Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-09 ; EIR_07-02 Dave, I can't do anything about B. This is because I don't have a copy of the station data we had in 1990. The station database evolves and we weren't able to keep versions of it - as we added, amended and deleted stations. We didn't have the data storage luxuries we have now. Tell him the best he can do is to use the current version of CRUTEM3(v) or CRUTEM2(v) - as the latter is still available on our web site, though not updated beyond 2005. These latest versions are likely different from what we had in 1990. Australia and China have both released more data since then - it is likely that much of this was not digitized in 1990. He will say the grid resolution is now different, but this is again due to greater disk storage available. The details of our updating of the raw station data is discussed in Jones and Moberg (2003). Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate 16, 206-223. He will be well aware of this paper, and he won't like the answer. There is nothing I can do here, except make the helpful suggestions above. If you want to draft a reply I'm here this week, but in Geneva next week. This is the end of the road for this request, when you send the reply. We just don't have what he wants. He can appeal, but aprt from the 2003 paper, there were others in 1993 and 1997 which documented other improvements to the basic raw station data. Does the FOIA apply retrospectively? As you know this was 17 years ago. I'll get to the other FOIA email in a few minutes. Cheers Phil At 16:02 17/04/2007, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil/Michael, A partial result - I thought we answered (A) by way of the data mounted on the site... As to (B), stations in the gridded network ... are these the stations that Eschenbach is requesting the locations for? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:57 PM To: 'Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)' Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-09 ; EIR_07-02 Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your courtesy and attention in this matter, which has successfully resolved part (A) of my request. However part (B) remains outstanding and I re-iterate my previous request for this information: A) the identification of the stations ... for the following three Jones et al 1990 networks: 1. the west Russian network 2. the Chinese network 3. the Australian network B) identification ... of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study Thank you for your attention. Regards, Steve McIntyre -----Original Message----- From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[2] mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:30 AM To: stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca Subject: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_07-09 ; EIR_07-02 Mr. McIntyre, Further to my memo of 3 April and your response of the same date, I attach further information as promised on this matter. As always, don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Info_offer_letter_final_070418.doc" 2402. 2007-04-19 11:46:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:46:08 +0100 from: "Bob Ward" subject: RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, Many thanks for your message of support, despite being busy in Vienna (I'm also here at EGU). The Royal Society is circulating the letter for signatures from Fellows, so hopefully Brian Hoskins will also hear from them. I don't really know what to suggest about the data request - I have already seen some of the commentary on the issue and it seems clear that McKittrick is looking to cause trouble. It seems to me that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't respond positively. I guess it looks better to outsiders to agree - although it seems that permission is needed from the partners organisations, so I suggest you make McKittrick approach them for permission. In terms of managing the release, I am a fan of getting retaliation in first, so it might be worth preparing a rebuttal to the most obvious points that McKittrick may try to make. This sort of preparation may take a bit of time but will probably pay off because an instant rebuttal often seems more definitive than a finely-crafted but delayed response. I hadn't realised that Paul and Matt were former students of yours - I'll mention that you and I have been in contact when I am next in the office. Bob Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [1]www.rms.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 April 2007 10:19 To: Bob Ward Subject: Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle Bob, Been in Vienna and away next week, but happy to sign up for this. I've just sent an email to Brian Hoskins (couldn't think of who else to send it) about their Climate Change controversy web pages. Their argument 1 is too brief on the MWP and LIA and should have been stronger on the English aspects of these. Grapes were not that extensively grown. There were ~40 vineyards in the Domesday Book and there are over 400 now. Wine drinking is more cultural (Romans/Normans as they were used to it) and now it is more in. Anglo-Saxons drank beer and the Celts spirits. Also the Thames only froze over between 1400 and 1830 when the old London Bridge was there with its weir which stopped the tide. Most of the frost fairs occurred when we have Manley's Central England temperature record. On the Ch 4 programme, I met Eric Wolff (BAS) in Vienna and he told me that Carl Wunsch has hired some London lawyers as Ch 4 said they would counter sue him. Also Eric said the NASA figure with the global temperatures on was a plot from 1881 to 1987 that was stretched to extend to the present. The plot looked wrong to me when I saw the programme, but I didn't record it. I saw that the schematic from the First IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 resurfaced. As you say this was superceded by subsequent reports. The one in AR4 will be more comprehensive, but similar to the TAR. I'm involved in a paper from paleo-group meeting last year. In this I will be showing what the schematic is actually based on. It is not just a schematic (as its caption says) it is actually a smoothed series for one location. Hopefully, the review paper will be ready for submission in a few months. Keep up your efforts. I could spend all my time dismissing the claims not just in the programme, but in several recent papers in supposedly peer-review journals (not climate ones). When I've talked recently to journalists, I've stressed they should find out the qualifications of their experts - what I've told them to ask is whether they have papers published in Climate Journals. Only a few on the Ch 4 programme had, and then some were a number of years ago. The NAS and CCSP reports in 2006 and the IPCC (WG1) when CUP get it out soon go a long way to show the current state in Climate Science. It is ridiculous for anyone to ignore these, but I expect many will. I expect more of the same from the skeptics when the AR4 report comes out - in May I'm told. On May 4 you should be able to get pdfs of the chapters. On a related issue, I'd like some advice. I'm being hassled by some of the skeptics (the Climate Audit people). They are requesting much of the data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the UK. They want the raw station data (we make the grids available) and specific data from papers as far back as 1990 (a paper in Nature). I've given them the latter, as amazingly I could find it. Anyway, I've been contacted by someone in Nature who has noticed their letters and UEA responses on the Climate Audit site. I'm in two minds about whether to contact Nature, as it may give them airtime which is not my aim. I've got nothing to hide, but I don't see why I should make the raw data we've collected available - particularly as for some we agreed not to pass it on (with the National Met Service that provided it) to third parties (but we can use it in the grids). I hope you've met a couple of our ex-PhD students Paul Burgess and Matt Swann at RMS. If you see Matt, he's still to finish his PhD, but I expect you're giving him lots of work and he's finding it hard to find the time to fully write up. Cheers Phil At 06:37 19/04/2007, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones I am writing to seek your support for a protest letter against the planned distribution of DVDs of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which contains a number of serious misrepresentations of the science of climate change. The programme was originally broadcast by Channel Four on 8 March and subsequently repeated several times on More 4. Ofcom has received about 150 complaints about the programme, and is due to give its view in the next few weeks. I have submitted a complaint outlining seven major misrepresentations that occur in the programme (see attached document). However, the programme's production company, Wag TV, is already taking advance orders for the DVD, which is due to be distributed shortly. Although Ofcom's role includes enforcement of the Broadcasting Code, its remit does not extend to the distribution of DVD versions of programmes. In effect, Wag TV is not bound to wait for Ofcom's ruling before it distributes the DVD, nor is it required to reflect Ofcom's ruling in the DVD version. Wag TV is using its website to prominently promote sales of the DVD and has devoted a separate website to the programme ([2] http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com), which includes commentary and links to materials that it claims support the version of climate change science that was presented. I believe that it is not in the public interest for the DVD to be distributed without amendment of the serious misrepresentations that were contained in the broadcast versions of the programme. As Ofcom is unable to uphold the public interest in this case, I am seeking to gain signatures on a letter of protest to Martin Durkin, who produced the programme and who is Managing Director of Wag TV. I have sent this letter to a number of leading researchers, such as you, for signature. I hope that you will join me in signing the letter and thus put pressure on Wag TV to correct the misrepresentations before the DVD is distributed. I also hope to attract wider media coverage for the letter once it has been despatched. In view of the plans to distribute the DVD very shortly, I would be grateful if you could let me know as soon as possible, and no later than 10:00 am on Monday 23 April, whether you are willing to sign this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information. Best wishes, Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [3]www.rms.com This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. 5114. 2007-04-20 11:49:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364" date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:49:36 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Phil Jones" Phil, I think what you suggest is fine; and the suggestion might do it.... We don't have to 'manufacture' information but as this is more of a 'sub-set' one could argue that we aren't manufacturing it at all... I had left this type of suggestion out originally but if you are happy to extract the information, I think it a good idea to make the offer... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:00 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364 >Subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) > > > Dave, > I've modified this letter with tracker. If you think we >shouldn't say > the offer at the end, then omit that sentence. > I've heard that requests for data are also being made in the USA > and also Sweden (for some tree-ring series with the latter). > > Cheers > Phil > >At 16:21 19/04/2007, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Phil/Michael, >>Here is the draft of the letter to Mr. Eschenbach for your review and >>comment.... >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:16 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364 >> >Subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) >> > >> > >> > Dave, >> > I looked at the two requests whilst I was in Vienna earlier >> > the week. The one I've already sent is simple and a reply >> > should conclude the matter. >> > >> > For the other (Eschenbach) I can't produce a simple >> > list with the information he wants. As I said I can >> > produce a list of the sites we currently use. I think this >> > would take about an hour to do. It isn't as simple as it >> > sounds as I need to go through the list of stations in >> > the database and extract those not used - which involves >> > using 2 other files. >> > >> > What I can't do though is say what their sources are. I just >> > don't have this information for the same reasons as in the >> > other request. We didn't have the data storage resources in >> > earlier decades to keep this information. It is also likely that >> > quite a few stations are a mixture of sources. >> > >> > Also, he fails to realise that GHCN and NCAR are databases >> > and the ultimate source of all data is the respective NMS in the >> > country where the station is located. Even GHCN and NCAR >> > can't say where they got their data. They will say it >comes from each >> > NMS, but they know (and I do) that some comes from scientists >> > in the country. >> > >> > So, what he's asking for isn't possible - not for UEA (and not >> > for GHCN and NCAR as they are not the original source). >> > >> > So, if you want to draft a letter, use the above. I >don't want to >> > waste the hour's work, as he won't be satisfied with what >I produce, >> > because it won't include the sources. >> > >> > As I said earlier away next week, also the two weeks >after except >> > for April 30 and May 1. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> >At 17:14 17/04/2007, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >> >>Phil, >> >>Thanks for your prompt reply. Is the list of stations in a >> >format close >> >>to what Mr. Eschenbach desires? We are under no obligation to >> >>'manufacture' information but if we can make it understandable with >> >>minimum effort I think that would be to everyone's advantage. >> >>Specifically is the list of stations in any way linked to the >> >"the name >> >>and WMO number of each site and the location of the source >data (NCAR, >> >>GHCN, or National Met Service)" that he desires? >> >> >> >>If we have the data in this form, we have to produce it.... >> >> >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >> >> >Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:01 PM >> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >> >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364 >> >> >Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) >> >> > >> >> > Dave, >> >> > If all he wants is a list of the stations then I can >> >> > probably send him this. It his going to do him >> >> > absolutely no good to get this though. >> >> > I guess if he gets this information he will >> >> > at least be able to see that 98% of the data are >> >> > in the other archives. >> >> > I'm in Vienna next week, Geneva the on after this. >> >> > I'm not back in CRU for a week until the one after >> >> > May 11. He will just have to wait. >> >> > >> >> > There are not significant differences from >> >> > the GHCN nor the GISS datasets. Ask him how he >> >> > defines significant. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers >> >> > Phil >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Phil/Michael, >> >> >> As expected, Mr. Eschenbach is not satisfied with our >most recent >> >> >> letter. I guess the essential question is whether we have >> >> >the list of >> >> >> actual sites used for HadCRUT3, and if not, who does.... I >> >> >would like to >> >> >> avoid a formal appeal process here that will simply result >> >> >in where we >> >> >> are at now with the possibility of further appeal to >the ICO.... >> >> >> If the information as Mr. Eschenbach describes simply >> >does not exist >> >> >> here, we can report that and I will, if he still doesn't >> >agree, start >> >> >> the formal process of the appeal.... >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] >> >> >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:03 AM >> >> >> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >> >> Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Palmer: >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your response. However, it does not solve the >> >> >problem. In >> >> >> your original response you said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your request for information received on 28 >> >September now been >> >> >> considered and I can report that the information requested >> >> >is available >> >> >> on non-UEA websites as detailed below. >> >> >> >> >> >> The Global Historical Climatology Network >(GHCN-Monthly) page >> >> >> within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one >> >> >of the two >> >> >> US versions of the global dataset and includes raw >> >station data. This >> >> >> site is at: >> >> >> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php >> >> >> >> >> >> This page is where you can get one of the two US >> >versions of the >> >> >> global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can >> >> >be obtained >> >> >> from this site. >> >> >> >> >> >> Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at >> >The Climate & >> >> >> Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and >Sun Systems >> >> >> Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric >> >> >Research (NCAR) >> >> >> site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Between them, these two datasets have the data >which the UEA >> >> >> Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 >> >analysis. The >> >> >> latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including >> >> >temperature, but >> >> >> other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of >> >> >station data >> >> >> (with adjustments for all the numerous problems). >> >> >> >> >> >> They both have a lot more data than the CRU have >(in simple >> >> >> station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely >> >within the >> >> >> USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, >> >> >possess all >> >> >> our data. >> >> >> >> >> >> In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of >> >Information Act 2000 >> >> >> this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for >> >> >exemption are >> >> >> as stated below >> >> >> >> >> >> Exemption Reason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> s. 21, Information accessible to >applicant via other >> >> >> means Some information is publicly available on >> >external websites >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> While it is good to know that the data is available at >> >those two web >> >> >> sites, that information is useless without a list of >> >stations used by >> >> >> Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in >> >> >my request, I >> >> >> am asking for: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the >> >> >> preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and >> >> >> >> >> >> 2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is >> >> >> available. This is quite important, as there are significant >> >> >differences >> >> >> between the versions of each site's data at e.g. GHCN >and NCAR." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the >> >> >location of >> >> >> the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), >it is not >> >> >> possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does >> >> >not apply - >> >> >> I still cannot access the data. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for >> >> >is a simple >> >> >> list of the sites and where each site's data is located. >> >> >Pointing at two >> >> >> huge piles of data and saying, in effect, "The data is in there >> >> >> somewhere" does not help at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a >> >list of the >> >> >> stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WMO# Name Source >> >> >> 58457 HangZhou NCAR >> >> >> 58659 WenZhou NCAR >> >> >> 59316 ShanTou GHCN >> >> >> 57516 ChongQing NMS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 >> >temperature >> >> >> data. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is the information requested, and it is not available >> >> >"on non-UEA >> >> >> websites", or anywhere else that I have been able to find. >> >> >> >> >> >> I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I >> >> >trust we can >> >> >> get it resolved satisfactorily. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> w. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> on 4/12/07 5:22 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at >David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mr. Eschenbach, >> >> >> Further to my letter of 15 March, I attach further >> >information >> >> >> regarding your email of 8 March and the appeal of our >> >decision of 13 >> >> >> February. Don't hesitate to contact me with queries >or concerns. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, Dave Palmer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________ >> >> >> David Palmer >> >> >> Information Policy Officer >> >> >> University of East Anglia >> >> >> Norwich, England >> >> >> NR4 7TJ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >Prof. Phil Jones >> >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> >University of East Anglia >> >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> >NR4 7TJ >> >UK >> >--------------------------------------------------------------- >> >------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > 2200. 2007-04-20 16:59:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Vincent Chris Prof \(ENV\) e470" date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:59:50 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: Some possible help/advice needed to: "Phil Jones" Phil, I have been dipping occasionally into the climateaudit website during our interactions the past couple of months as we have dealt with the flurry of FOIA requests. I can therefore see how it feels to you that you are being virtually stalked. You have dealt with the FOIA requests in an open and helpful way. (I am not sure if Chris is aware of the matter with the various requests etc. They all centre around the data used in the papers quoted in the message from Mr Keenan to Dr Wang). Dave Palmer (Chris - he is the central FOIA contact) has mentioned that we can refuse to deal with a request if we perceive it to be vexatious. The tone and content of the message to Dr Wang is clearly unacceptable. We may well need to invoke the vexatious clause for any requests from Mr Keenan and may need to extend this to other climateaudit.org contributors. They are clearly not interested in having a balanced debate about the issues. If a claim were made against you on the basis of misconduct in research there is a procedure that would be invoked. One of the reasons for the procedure is "to protect researchers against malicious, frivolous or ill-founded allegations". The initial stage of the procedure is called "screening" whereby it can be reviewed to see whether there is a case to take forward etc. So, if any claim was made about misconduct in research relating to papers published in very reputable, refereed journals I am sure that it could be dealt with quickly etc. Best wishes Michael Michael McGarvie Senior Faculty Manager Faculty of Science Room 0.22C University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ tel: 01603 593229 fax: 01603 593045 m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 April 2007 14:48 To: Vincent Chris Prof (ENV) e470; Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364 Subject: Some possible help/advice needed Chris, Michael, See the email below. I'm happy to ignore this, but I reckon this isn't going to go away. I've suggested to my co-author (Wei-Chyung Wang) from the 1990 paper that he gets advice from his University. Who do I go to for advice within the Science Faculty? I just wonder if there is anything UEA can do in response to his threat. No rush at the moment as it isn't aimed at me. I think this is malicious by the way and totally without foundation. This has come as a direct result of sending information under the FOIA. I'm also sure we are likely to get more requests as the climate skeptics get desperate. This sort of thing doesn't make for a happy research environment. It is a bit like I'm being virtually stalked. Cheers Phil >From: "D.J. Keenan" >To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" >Cc: "Phil Jones" >Subject: retraction request >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Dear Dr. Wang, >Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. >[GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that >there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained >from 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows. > 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 > have substantial relocations 02 have single-year > relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of the > relocations are very distant--over 20 km. >Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated >here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 > >The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the >histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have >no histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions. > >I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April >13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to >me. I have received no response. > >I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the >claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, >I intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to >your university at Albany. > > >Douglas J. Keenan >http://www.informath.org >phone + 44 20 7537 4122 >The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 1561. 2007-04-23 10:22:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:22:56 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364" Gents, My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he wants the raw station data; we don't know which data belongs to which station, correct? Our letter stated: "We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series." Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but I'm not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. Eschenbach - we've said we don't have data sources, he says the external websites don't have them, so who does? Are we back to the NMS's? I am happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are putting on the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach still insist that we actually possess the information in the form he requests, I can then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then we move on formally.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:37 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) Dear Mr. Palmer: It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where we started. I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the HadCRUT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made available in some other form. You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on non-UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals. I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below. Your most recent letter (Further _information_letter_final_070418_rev01.doc), however, says that you are unable to identify the locations of the requested information. Thus, the original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 was invalid. Therefore, since the information requested is not available on non-UEA websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the information itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I understand that a small amount of this data (about 2%, according to your letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries involved. In that case, a listing of which stations this applies to will suffice. The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in the current climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it can be peer reviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way this can be done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the field. Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is truly not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard scientific practice and your " CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000". I am sure that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without involving appeals or unfavorable publicity. My best regards to you, w. ______________________________________________________________________________________ on 4/20/07 1:02 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mr. Eschenbach, Attached please find a response to your email of 14 April. As always, don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ 3988. 2007-04-23 12:25:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364" date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:25:23 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, I am happy for you to involve Kitty. I am away the next few weeks, so if you want to leave this you can. When you do, you need to point out what has happened with the other request - the threat from that nice chap Keenan. I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests. We make the gridded data available and that should be enough. I think it would be worthwhile having a meeting involving a few more people in the light of the Keenan letter and what has been said on the Climate Audit website from Friday. This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment. This is not for any reasonable scientific point. It is quite simply harrasment. These people are self appointed. Cheers Phil > Gents, > My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he > wants the raw station data; we don't know which data belongs to which > station, correct? Our letter stated: > > > "We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. > This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the > latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series." > > > > Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but > I'm not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. > Eschenbach - we've said we don't have data sources, he says the external > websites don't have them, so who does? Are we back to the NMS's? I am > happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are putting on > the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach still insist > that we actually possess the information in the form he requests, I can > then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then we move on > formally.... > > Cheers, Dave > > ________________________________ > > From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:37 PM > To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) > > > Dear Mr. Palmer: > > It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where we > started. > > I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the > HadCRUT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made available > in some other form. > > You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on > non-UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals. > > > > I can report that the information requested is available on > non-UEA websites as detailed below. > > > > Your most recent letter (Further > _information_letter_final_070418_rev01.doc), however, says that you are > unable to identify the locations of the requested information. Thus, the > original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 was > invalid. > > Therefore, since the information requested is not available on non-UEA > websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the information > itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I > understand that a small amount of this data (about 2%, according to your > letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries > involved. In that case, a listing of which stations this applies to will > suffice. > > The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in the current > climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it can be peer > reviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way this can be > done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the > field. > > Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is truly > not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard > scientific practice and your " CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO > REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000". I > am sure that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without > involving appeals or unfavorable publicity. > > My best regards to you, > > w. > > > ________________________________ > > on 4/20/07 1:02 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk > wrote: > > > > Mr. Eschenbach, > Attached please find a response to your email of 14 April. As > always, don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. > > Cheers, Dave Palmer > > <> > > ____________________________ > David Palmer > Information Policy Officer > University of East Anglia > Norwich, England > NR4 7TJ > > 1184. 2007-04-23 14:04:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364" date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:04:57 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: Phil, One point - if we have the raw data, and can produce it, we have a statutory obligation to provide it save where an exemption under the Act to it's release applies. Not wishing to encourage others to place requests is not a valid exemption under the Act. However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I'm happy to see what of these may apply to the raw data... As to the request itself, there is a specific test for a vexatious request and I'm not sure that this request, at the moment, meets that standard. As always, I'm happy to discuss with you, Michael and anyone else who needs to be involved. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:25 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364 >Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) > > > Dave, > I am happy for you to involve Kitty. I am away > the next few weeks, so if you want to leave > this you can. > When you do, you need to point out what has > happened with the other request - the threat from > that nice chap Keenan. > I do not want to make the raw data available, > as it will involve more and more requests. We > make the gridded data available and that should > be enough. > > I think it would be worthwhile having a meeting > involving a few more people in the light of the > Keenan letter and what has been said on the > Climate Audit website from Friday. > > This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment. > This is not for any reasonable scientific point. > It is quite simply harrasment. These people are > self appointed. > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Gents, >> My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he >> wants the raw station data; we don't know which data belongs to which >> station, correct? Our letter stated: >> >> >> "We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but >without sources. >> This would include locations, names and lengths of record, >although the >> latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series." >> >> >> >> Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but >> I'm not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. >> Eschenbach - we've said we don't have data sources, he says >the external >> websites don't have them, so who does? Are we back to the >NMS's? I am >> happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are >putting on >> the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach >still insist >> that we actually possess the information in the form he >requests, I can >> then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then >we move on >> formally.... >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] >> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:37 PM >> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) >> >> >> Dear Mr. Palmer: >> >> It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where we >> started. >> >> I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the >> HadCRUT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made >available >> in some other form. >> >> You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on >> non-UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals. >> >> >> >> I can report that the information requested is available on >> non-UEA websites as detailed below. >> >> >> >> Your most recent letter (Further >> _information_letter_final_070418_rev01.doc), however, says >that you are >> unable to identify the locations of the requested >information. Thus, the >> original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 was >> invalid. >> >> Therefore, since the information requested is not available >on non-UEA >> websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the >information >> itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I >> understand that a small amount of this data (about 2%, >according to your >> letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries >> involved. In that case, a listing of which stations this >applies to will >> suffice. >> >> The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in >the current >> climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it >can be peer >> reviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way >this can be >> done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the >> field. >> >> Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is truly >> not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard >> scientific practice and your " CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO >> REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION >ACT 2000". I >> am sure that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without >> involving appeals or unfavorable publicity. >> >> My best regards to you, >> >> w. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> on 4/20/07 1:02 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Mr. Eschenbach, >> Attached please find a response to your email of 14 April. As >> always, don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. >> >> Cheers, Dave Palmer >> >> <> >> >> ____________________________ >> David Palmer >> Information Policy Officer >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich, England >> NR4 7TJ >> >> > > > 4131. 2007-04-23 14:40:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364" date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:40:58 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Michael, I have re-read the response from Eschenbech, and it seems that he is asking two things. As we've said, ~98% of the data are available on non-UEA websites (the two we've referred to). What I can do is to devleop the list I said I would - in 3-4 weeks time as I'm not there for any length of time over this period. I can then go through this list and extract the stations that have come from certain countries, with whom we have gotten data directly and signed agreements. This isn't just from the countries (but does include a few scientists). I still feel that, in light of the Keenan response, this is harrassment. Keenan's request was not vaxatious, but his recent email clearly is. What is there to stop them once they get the data from starting down the Keenan route. The latter has a good chance of wasting a lot of my time nnd I don't want thtis to go beyond putting things on web sites. I would like to have a meeting with some more people in ENV or elsewhere at UEA before doing anything. Perhaps Michael can talk to a few people. These requests are harrassment despite what you say - just look at their website! Even if the request letter looks fine, the website shows that it isn't. My belief is that even if I made all the data available it would just open things up and I would be harrassed for months to come. I know I have nothing to hide, but I am getting quite worked up about this. We make the gridded data available. This is enough for normal climatologists. Cheers Phil > Phil, > One point - if we have the raw data, and can produce it, we have a > statutory obligation to provide it save where an exemption under the Act > to it's release applies. Not wishing to encourage others to place > requests is not a valid exemption under the Act. > However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or > some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I'm happy to see what of > these may apply to the raw data... > As to the request itself, there is a specific test for a vexatious > request and I'm not sure that this request, at the moment, meets that > standard. > As always, I'm happy to discuss with you, Michael and anyone else who > needs to be involved. > > Cheers, Dave > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:25 PM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364 >>Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) >> >> >> Dave, >> I am happy for you to involve Kitty. I am away >> the next few weeks, so if you want to leave >> this you can. >> When you do, you need to point out what has >> happened with the other request - the threat from >> that nice chap Keenan. >> I do not want to make the raw data available, >> as it will involve more and more requests. We >> make the gridded data available and that should >> be enough. >> >> I think it would be worthwhile having a meeting >> involving a few more people in the light of the >> Keenan letter and what has been said on the >> Climate Audit website from Friday. >> >> This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment. >> This is not for any reasonable scientific point. >> It is quite simply harrasment. These people are >> self appointed. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>> Gents, >>> My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he >>> wants the raw station data; we don't know which data belongs to which >>> station, correct? Our letter stated: >>> >>> >>> "We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but >>without sources. >>> This would include locations, names and lengths of record, >>although the >>> latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series." >>> >>> >>> >>> Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but >>> I'm not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. >>> Eschenbach - we've said we don't have data sources, he says >>the external >>> websites don't have them, so who does? Are we back to the >>NMS's? I am >>> happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are >>putting on >>> the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach >>still insist >>> that we actually possess the information in the form he >>requests, I can >>> then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then >>we move on >>> formally.... >>> >>> Cheers, Dave >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:37 PM >>> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>> Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04) >>> >>> >>> Dear Mr. Palmer: >>> >>> It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where we >>> started. >>> >>> I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the >>> HadCRUT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made >>available >>> in some other form. >>> >>> You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on >>> non-UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals. >>> >>> >>> >>> I can report that the information requested is available on >>> non-UEA websites as detailed below. >>> >>> >>> >>> Your most recent letter (Further >>> _information_letter_final_070418_rev01.doc), however, says >>that you are >>> unable to identify the locations of the requested >>information. Thus, the >>> original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 was >>> invalid. >>> >>> Therefore, since the information requested is not available >>on non-UEA >>> websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the >>information >>> itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I >>> understand that a small amount of this data (about 2%, >>according to your >>> letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries >>> involved. In that case, a listing of which stations this >>applies to will >>> suffice. >>> >>> The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in >>the current >>> climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it >>can be peer >>> reviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way >>this can be >>> done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the >>> field. >>> >>> Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is truly >>> not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard >>> scientific practice and your " CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO >>> REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION >>ACT 2000". I >>> am sure that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without >>> involving appeals or unfavorable publicity. >>> >>> My best regards to you, >>> >>> w. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> on 4/20/07 1:02 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Mr. Eschenbach, >>> Attached please find a response to your email of 14 April. As >>> always, don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns. >>> >>> Cheers, Dave Palmer >>> >>> <> >>> >>> ____________________________ >>> David Palmer >>> Information Policy Officer >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich, England >>> NR4 7TJ >>> >>> >> >> >> > 5346. 2007-04-23 21:15:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:15:55 +0100 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Philosophical transactions to: Kathreen Ruckstuhl Kathreen, See suggested reviewer list in Keith's letter - Ed Cook, Brian Luckman and Lisa Graumlich. Is there a recommended ENDNOTE style for references in Philosophical Transactions? Tom At 19:22 23/04/2007, you wrote: >Tom Melvin wrote: > >>Kathreen, >> >>Attached is the promised manuscript in pdf format (suitable for review). >> >>Tom >> >>Dr. Tom Melvin >> >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593161 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >Brilliant, thank you! could you suggest 3 reviewers? > >Cheers, Kathreen > > Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 4499. 2007-04-24 11:02:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Apr 24 11:02:11 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: to: E.Karslake@uea.ac.uk Sorry Eli just seen your message- its up to you , but some discussion of the drought /solar or solar/lunar mixed forcing as far as the evidence goes would be good. This is a controversial topic and if true I do not think the mechanisms are known anyway. Hope this helps Keith At 16:42 23/04/2007, you wrote: hi keith do i need to cover how these factors affect drought in my presentations on mechanisms or is it sufficient just to mention them; Hale solar magnetic cycle the lunar nodal tidal cycle the Pacific Decadal Oscillation the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) thanks, elie. 3343. 2007-04-24 14:46:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:46:05 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: Jones et al] to: Phil Jones Phil, Gavin has some good advice here, seems to reinforce the thoughts in your earlier email and Ben's suggestion as well. Probably best to put the data up in their most raw format (except for those you can't legally--in those cases give a pointer to the person involved). This will, as Gavin notes, blunt the line of attack that has the greatest traction. If there is some way we can be helpful via RealClimate (e.g. in helping get the word out that the data have been posted once available, etc), please let us know. I'm happy for us to use this as a resource in any way that might be helpful. mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on mail.meteo.psu.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=10.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Delivered-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Received: from tr10n04.aset.psu.edu (tr10g04.aset.psu.edu [128.118.142.105]) by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B077A204B4D for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from isotope.giss.nasa.gov (A-169-154-208-65.giss.nasa.gov [169.154.208.65]) by tr10n04.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with ESMTP id l3OHW5ap055008 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:32:05 -0400 Received: from isotope.giss.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by isotope.giss.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l3OHXBDo021942 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:33:11 -0400 Received: (from gavin@localhost) by isotope.giss.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id l3OHXBS8021940 for mann@psu.edu; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:33:11 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: isotope.giss.nasa.gov: gavin set sender to gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov using -f Subject: Jones et al From: Gavin Schmidt To: "Michael E. Mann" In-Reply-To: <462A2044.7020809@meteo.psu.edu> References: <20070421113553.90D3320401A@mail.meteo.psu.edu> <462A158E.2030204@meteo.psu.edu> <1535.24.8.147.161.1177165452.squirrel@webmail.cgd.ucar.edu> <462A2044.7020809@meteo.psu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1177435990.4637.3528.camel@isotope.giss.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 24 Apr 2007 13:33:11 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO X-PSU-Spam-Hits: 2 X-PSU-Spam-Level: ** Mike, This current situation is a little tricky. As we saw with the whole HS affair, very few things have traction like the idea that data is being withheld (possibly only suppression of free speech is as powerful). You don't need to know your PC from your elbow to see that as an issue and so it easily catches fire among those who would like to see the whole issue go away but who don't know anything about it. However, the listing of the sites and sources etc. is completely peripheral to the real motivations (as you and Kevin correctly note). Phil is being targeted solely because of the three databases for the global SAT trends, his is the only one for which the raw data is not available. All of the issues could be examined using the NOAA or GISS analyses but what would be the point? The idea is not to find out anything interesting, but to keep pushing the 'data is being hidden' meme. If Phil were to release the whole database, they would spend a week trying to do something, but then get bored and move on to someone else who is apparently hiding something. These games that are being played with the FOIA requests and the like aren't going to stop - just playing those games is enough for these people, regardless of the response, because the very fact they're doing it leads people to think the data is hidden. The current situation where they ask ridiculous and irrelevant questions and the response is well-meaning but 'lawyerly' just feeds the fire. They aren't interested in asking questions that can be answered, but in asking questions that just put Phil on the defensive. The less he can respond, the happier they will be. Frankly, I would simply put the whole CRU database (in an as-impenetrable-as-possible form) up on the web site along with a brief history of it's provenance (and the role of the NMSs) and be done with it. If specific NMS contracts forbid posting of their raw data, then he should remove the ones that he contractually can't post and direct peoples attentions to the NMS's concerned. Why should Phil be the fall guy for nutty 'commercial' restrictions imposed by various governments? Bottom line: This isn't going to stop. Gavin PS. feel free to forward to Phil et al if you like. 121. 2007-04-25 08:48:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:36 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: [Fwd: Jones et al] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk thanks Phil, Tom is probably even more vulnerable being in the states. He could become a new center of attack if NCDC indeed revises in a way that substantially increases the trends... mike [1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mike, Gavin, Managed to read your message Gavin. I knwo this isn't going to stop and will get worse as the WG1 report publication nears. Another issue that may overtake things is new work at NCDC, which is likely to raise recent temps (as the impact of the greater % of buoys is accounted for) and also reduce earlier temps (pre -1940) for reasons that aren't that clear. Tom Peterson will be presenting this here tomorrow, so will learn more. Upshot is that their trend will increase.... Cheers Phil Phil, Gavin has some good advice here, seems to reinforce the thoughts in your earlier email and Ben's suggestion as well. Probably best to put the data up in their most raw format (except for those you can't legally--in those cases give a pointer to the person involved). This will, as Gavin notes, blunt the line of attack that has the greatest traction. If there is some way we can be helpful via RealClimate (e.g. in helping get the word out that the data have been posted once available, etc), please let us know. I'm happy for us to use this as a resource in any way that might be helpful. mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [2]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [3]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 698. 2007-04-25 14:42:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:42:37 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU 10-minute Climatologies to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, On 25 Apr 2007, at 11:13, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Harry, > I'm happy for you to release these as 2.1. These > are presumably in addition to CRU TS 2.0. For TS read CL I presume.. > I guess > the CL bit relates to Climatology. > I thought they were. Check with Mike, as he's dealt with > a few requests as well. Don't waste too much time putting these > together. I didn't. I get between 5 and 15 requests a week, mostly they are for the same data sets and so easy to manage. > How are things going by the way on the CRU TS 3.0 by the way? I > hope well, and can be wrapped up fairly soon. Me too. The merging program has now successfully merged the 1991-2006 file with the main file. I'll now merge the US file in. Cheers Harry > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Hi Phil >> >> I've had a request for several data sets, including CRU CL 2.0 and >> CRU CL 2.1. >> >> Whereas CRU CL 2.0 is available for download from the CRU site, 2.1 >> appears to be missing - despite being marked as 'available' in the >> HRG table: >> >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg.htm >> >> I've had a hunt around and think I've found the appropriate files, >> the trouble is that they're tucked away on DPE1A: >> >> ls -l /cru/dpe1a/f014/data/grid/cru_cl_2.1/ >> total 6320 >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 549157 May 14 2001 ateam.elv.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 1292563 May 14 2001 euro-lan.elv.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 1662818 May 14 2001 euro-rpb.elv.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 447877 Dec 17 2001 >> obs.clim6190.ateam.cld.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 526069 Apr 25 2001 >> obs.clim6190.ateam.dtr.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 771163 May 11 2001 >> obs.clim6190.ateam.pre.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 630439 Apr 25 2001 >> obs.clim6190.ateam.tmp.Z >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 f014 cru 542254 Dec 17 2001 >> obs.clim6190.ateam.vap.Z >> >> The dates seem to back up the idea of CLD and VAP being derived from >> the earlier (2.0) DTR, PRE and TMP. >> >> The question is, are these OK to release? I'm inclined to do so (with >> suitable caveats) but would appreciate your views.. >> >> Cheers >> >> Harry >> Ian "Harry" Harris >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ >> United Kingdom >> >> >> > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 242. 2007-04-26 13:00:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: myles , Tim Barnett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch , Thomas R Karl , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Chris Miller date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:00:48 +0100 from: Nathan Gillett subject: Re: 3 things, please reply by May 2 to: Gabi Hegerl Gabi, On Jerry Mehl's paper: I agree with the points raised regarding the timing of the integrations. For the high-res runs, the paper already suggests a start-date 'during the latter half of the 20th century', so I think it's just a case of putting a fixed date in the title (e.g. 1970) to clarify this. Similarly, for the low-res runs, a pre-industrial spin-up and 20th century run are already suggested, so again a start date in the title (1900), is all that is required. From a practical point of view, these continuous past to future simulations will be useful for doing up-to-date detection - we'll be able to do attribution studies up to 2010 or 2012, or whenever, rather than only up to 8 eight years ago, as is the case now. For impacts D&A, it will be useful to have non-climate variables archived and publicly available as well e.g. carbon fluxes, forest fire, land cover, ice sheet variables etc, where available. A separate natural-only ensemble, run to ~2010 (assuming no future volcanos and extrapolated solar forcing) would also be very useful for D&A. From a policy and communications perspective I think it would be very useful to have some emissions-driven integrations - a benchmark business-as-usual, and one or more mitigation scenarios. These would allow the community to answer the question 'Is it worth doing something about climate change?', 'What are the costs of not acting to mitigate climate change?', and would allow WGII and III to do cost-benefit analyses of mitigation scenarios. Commenting on the AR4 one of the most common questions which I'm asked is 'Is it too late act? - ie. what climate change is going to happen anyway, and what can we hope to avoid by changing policy?'. While I can see the benefits of the proposed prescribed concentration stabilisation scenarios in terms of intercomparing model climate responses and carbon cycles, I don't think they will be as useful for answering these policy-relevant questions, except in an indirect manner. To have only stabilisation runs assumes a solution to the climate change problem without looking first at what would happen if no action were taken. I appreciate this isn't really an IDAG point, but would like to raise it anyway. Any time in the proposed meeting window would be fine for me, Cheers, Nathan Minor points on the paper: For S Hemisphere climate specifying ozone is important - SHem ocean circulation and associated carbon flux changes, Antarctic temperature change etc. Randel and Wu (2007) anomalies would be suitable in the past, and either CCM output for the future, or depletion scaled by EESC. I know it's only a schematic, but the temperature curve should look different to the CO2 curve in Fig 1. Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi IDAG people, > > Three things: > > Jesse has put the collection of powerpoints from our meeting > (those that people were not uncomfortable to > share) on a webpage, instructions below, you are welcome to find talks and get them. > > Secondly, I attach Jerry Meehls writeup on the planned AR5 experiments, it would be > helpful if we could comment on them as group. Please send comments to me, and I will > collect and circulate our group reaction before sending to Jerry. My personal view is > that the high-res near future runs are a great idea, but should start early enough for > us to do some high res attribution, so eg 30-50 years over the 20th before going into > 21rst. > > Also, Doug says that if we would soon decide on our next meeting timing, we may be able > to get a particularly attractive location at NCAR (forgot what its called). We tentatively > planned some 3 day window between February 8 to march 16. Myles points out that > Brits wanting to bring kids would do well with dates on either side of the weekend > 16-17 February for the Southern part, and 9-18 for the Northern part (which is when school > is out). > > Greetings > > Gabi > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: sprng mtg presentations > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:36:51 -0400 > From: JKenyon > To: Gabi Hegerl > > > > Dear colleagues, > a collection of powerpoints from our Spring meeting is available as a > download in a gzipped tar file. > The file can be found at the top of our special web page for the spring > meeting at: > http://www.env.duke.edu/downloads/kenyon/idag_spring2007.html > Please let me know if this form is unsuitable for you. We did this > because there was some concern from members that they didn't want the > presentation easily available, so instead of linking in each individual > presentation, we thought it made it less attractive to casual surfers to > zip it and tar it as one large file. Also note that the webpage itself > is not linked to any other webpage - you have to type in the address > directly. > If you would also like a copy of Mike Wehner's presentations, please > contact him directly. > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Jesse Kenyon > Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > Box 90227 > Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > Ph: 919-681-8160 > email: kenyon@duke.edu > > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gabriele Hegerl > Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > Box 90227 > Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 > email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > -- **************************************************************************** Dr. Nathan Gillett, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1603 593 647 Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507 784 Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ **************************************************************************** 2854. 2007-04-28 05:02:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , , , , date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:02:53 -0400 from: "Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]" subject: Re: 3 things, please reply by May 2 to: , Hi, Gabi I agree with what David said here. The dates that are good for David also work for me. I just come back (still at Paris airport) from Congo. Cheers Xuebin ---------------------- Dr. Xuebin Zhang Research Scientist Climate Research Division Environment Canada 416 739 4713 ----- Original Message ----- From: David Karoly To: Gabi Hegerl Cc: myles ; Tim Barnett ; Nathan Gillett ; Phil Jones ; Jesse Kenyon ; Reto Knutti ; Tom Knutson ; Toru Nozawa ; Doug Nychka ; Claudia Tebaldi ; Ben Santer ; Richard Smith ; Daithi Stone ; Stott, Peter ; Michael Wehner ; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Hans von Storch ; Thomas R Karl ; Bamzai, Anjuli ; Chris Miller Sent: Wed Apr 25 18:47:01 2007 Subject: Re: 3 things, please reply by May 2 Hi Gabi, 2) I think that the new coordinated model experiments should have high resolution runs starting in 1970 (giving more than 30 years of obs data for d&a analysis) and running until 2040. We want to also stress that we would like different forcing combinations at least for the 1970-2005/2010 period, to allow attribution to different forcings. The high resolution runs need to NOT be cold start but to be spun up either from observed ocean data or from lower resolution coupled ocean atmosphere runs with data assimilation. Also, for lower resolution, we need to have some runs starting in 1880 or 1900. If we don't have long control runs at high resolution to estimate climate variability, we may need more ensemble members, or clever ways to estimate decadal climate variability. We should also make some IDAG recommendations on the specific variables that should be saved that are in addition or different from the current ones on the AMIP CMIP3 archive, like monthly mean Tmin and Tmax, or daily near surface specific humidity, as well as high time and space resolution surface and upper air data etc. Gabi, I can't go to the WGCM meeting in Hamburg in 3-5 September, as I have other meetings in Oz and the US around this time. Will you be able to go, as it will be important that the d&a community is represented there. 3) In terms of dates, I will likely be in the US for the AMS annual mtg during 20-24 January in New Orleans. If I stay in the US, I would prefer the IDAG mtg to be as early in Feb as possible, around 9 Feb, or as late in March as possible if I go back to Oz in between. Best wishes, David Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi IDAG people, > > Three things: > > Jesse has put the collection of powerpoints from our meeting > (those that people were not uncomfortable to > share) on a webpage, instructions below, you are welcome to find talks and get them. > > Secondly, I attach Jerry Meehls writeup on the planned AR5 experiments, it would be > helpful if we could comment on them as group. Please send comments to me, and I will > collect and circulate our group reaction before sending to Jerry. My personal view is > that the high-res near future runs are a great idea, but should start early enough for > us to do some high res attribution, so eg 30-50 years over the 20th before going into > 21rst. > > Also, Doug says that if we would soon decide on our next meeting timing, we may be able > to get a particularly attractive location at NCAR (forgot what its called). We tentatively > planned some 3 day window between February 8 to march 16. Myles points out that > Brits wanting to bring kids would do well with dates on either side of the weekend > 16-17 February for the Southern part, and 9-18 for the Northern part (which is when school > is out). > > Greetings > > Gabi > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr David Karoly Williams Chair and Professor of Meteorology School of Meteorology, National Weather Center University of Oklahoma phone: +1-405-325-6446 120 David L. Boren Blvd., fax: +1-405-325-7689 Norman, OK 73072-7307 email: dkaroly@ou.edu USA http://weather.ou.edu/~dkaroly/Personal.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 319. 2007-04-29 19:53:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: quick note on TAR to: mann@psu.edu Mike your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes Keith Keith At 18:14 29/04/2007, you wrote: Keith, just a quick note to let you know I've had a chance to read over the key bits on last millennium in the final version of the chapter, and I think you did a great job. obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) contentious areas in the entire report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the science accurately, but in a way that I believe will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo! I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. looking forward to buying you a beer next time we have an opportunity :) mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [1]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4204. 2007-04-30 16:49:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:49:42 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-las] Public release of the WG1 Report to: Bette Otto-Bleisner , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Mark Chandler , Dominique Raynaud , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, joos Hi Chap 6 LAs - you all received the email below. It turns out that we're finding a few things that 1) TSU didn't fix as requested and 2) cropped up in final layout since we got the proofs. It appears that we can get things fixed still perhaps, so please look at the chapter ASAP if you can, and send any fixes/typos to me and Eystein. We don't know if we can get things fixed, but we should try, especially if they are items that we asked to be fixed already. thanks! Peck Dear Authors and Review Editors We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and layout corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a result we are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all Chapters, and Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, List of acronyms) publicly available from the WG1 home page ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) today. The supplementary material (for those chapters that have it) is nearly complete and will be added shortly. You are of course very welcome to use and now distribute any of this material. In some cases figures have been adjusted slightly here by our graphics designer and we intend to create separate Powerpoint files soon with the final figures from each chapter as a convenient resource for your use as well. An index is being prepared by a professional indexer; we still need a Foreword from the Secretariat; and we are discussing the cover layout with CUP. A complete package should go to CUP for publication on May 7 as planned and when we know what the book printing schedule is likely to be we will let you know. We cannot easily communicate the sense of accomplishment that this brings. We are extremely grateful for all your hard work that has created a superb report and one that we truly believe now sets a higher standard for all future assessments. Thanks and best regards from Susan, Martin, Melinda M, Kristen, Melinda T, and Roy (IPCC WG1 West) Dahe and Zhenlin (IPCC WG1 East) -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 390. 2007-05-01 09:15:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:15:18 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Perugia to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Sounds good re Keenan. Lets see what this joker does next... Re, WUN: Oh, didn't realize it was postponed until Jun 27. We'll already be in Italy (Lorraine has a meeting nearby the week before ours so we'll spend two weeks there). I have booked flights, hotel, and have registered for Perugia already. Might not be a bad idea for you to do this too. I think you might have missed the data for cheapest registration though. Enjoy Stockholm! Talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > Keith is a bit down because of all the teaching things he had to pick > up as someone has left. Seems as though Climate Audit have > forgotten me this week, but I will likely get centre stage in a while. > On the email I sent you about Wei-Chying, he's found all the > site details. They are in paper files that the Chinese Met > Administration (CMA) > have. So he's told Keenan, who now needs to get them from CMA > (he will have to pay). Only the site details for sites exchanged in > some long ago US/China bilateral are online. > > I wondered what you are talking about re WUN, then I realised. > I've changed the date for this to June 27. I did have May 2, but > couldn't > make it as I'll be in Stockholm. > > Have you booked/registered yet for Perugia. I'll have to get to that > when I'm back after May 11. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:19 01/05/2007, you wrote: >> hanks Phil, >> >> ok, I'll see what I can do. you probably want to book hotel room in >> Perugia quickly, because Caspar tells me those are disappearing. >> >> Re, IPCC--I agree. I thought Keith did a great job in the face of >> lots of pressure from the other side (and w/ Susan not always being >> as helpful as she could have been!). I sent Keith an email saying as >> much. Seemed to raise his spirits a bit, sounds like he's a bit down >> these days, easy to understand given everything he's had to deal with... >> >> mike >> >> p.s. you are giving the WUN seminar tomorrow, right? I'll see you >> (virtually) there! >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>> Mike, >>> I'll forward some more emails from Roland that I may not have >>> and some others that might enable you to look at the >>> abstracts. >>> I've yet to register, or book anything. Away from tomorrow >>> at 11am till back in here May 14. Will likely have some email >>> contact, but not always. >>> >>> Unsurprisingly the skeptics aren't keen on Ch 6! I think >>> it is a pretty good assessment, as is Ch 3 and the rest of the >>> report. >>> They will likely try the argument that the CLAs and LAs have >>> assessed their own work. If they do this, I'll leave this to Susan >>> to respond to. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 02:31 01/05/2007, you wrote: >>>> Hi Phil, >>>> >>>> I never heard back from Roland List about our session. Would you >>>> mind trying to reach him so that we can sort through the abstracts >>>> and finalize our session? >>>> >>>> Sorry for the hassle. This is about the worst-organized conference >>>> I've ever been associated with, and I'm sure that the the low >>>> number of submitted abstracts is a result of that. Oh well, at >>>> least it'll be a nice vacation. You'll get to meet Megan, who will >>>> just have turned 18 months! >>>> >>>> talk to you later, >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael E. Mann >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >>>> >>>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >>>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >>>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>> >>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1237. 2007-05-01 14:29:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: kfarnsworth@usgs.gov, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, kxu@vims.edu date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:29:55 -0400 from: John Milliman subject: Re: ms 1141378 to: "Jesse Smith" I must admit, Jesse, that I was disappointed but not surprised with your decision. Positive actions are always quicker - and easier - to make. Reviewer #2 must have felt some time-pressure, because his review clearly shows that he did not read the paper carefully. Still, you were left with what you had to work with: and clearly we missed the Milly et al. paper (2005).... Part of the problem - and one that I am sure is not new to you - is that in order to keep to size-restrictions by Science, we had to "gloss" over some parts that needed to be addressed in more detail Without your kind letter (below) - which does not even look like a form letter - I would feel a lot more irked by the slowness of the review (76 days!). In your shoes, however, I probably also would have rejected the paper. But I also strongly feel that in the long run Science will have missed out on a good paper (which, I suspect you often do - for similar reasons to mine). Sincerely, John Content-Type: text/html Content-Description: HTML Dear John, You have by now received the official notice of our decision about your submission "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000", and I am sorry that it could not have been different. I also want to apologize again for the length of time it took to complete the evaluation of the paper, but the combination of slow, late referees, my travel schedule, our general overload of manuscripts, and (though least important in terms of time) the difficulty which I sometimes have rejecting a paper that I appeals to me personally, all contributed to the slowing of the review process. Unfortunately, every day we must reject publishable research because of stringent space requirements and the need to keep the journal to a manageable size: currently we are able to publish less than 6% of what is submitted here. I wish you the best of luck, and hope to see your manuscript in print soon. Sincerely, Jesse ======================= Dr. Jesse Smith Senior Editor ---------------------------------------------- Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 USA ---------------------------------------------- (202) 326-6556 (202) 408-1256 (FAX) [1]hjsmith@aaas.org ======================= >>> John Milliman 4/30/2007 7:48:04 AM >>> Dear Jesse: Today marks the 75th day since I submitted our paper, "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000", to Science, and while platinum anniversaries are generally to be lauded, in this case I have only increasing concern. If all the reviews, which as I understand from your last e-mail, were received before you left for EGU, had been positive or negative, I presume you would have made your decision by now; which would mean that the reviews are mixed. If so, I suspect that some of the reviews may have questioned our delineation of or explanation of "excess" rivers. As we said in our submission letter, " We anticipate that some reviewers could question our lack of a more concrete explanation of excess rivers..." Three of the 9 outsider reviews that we obtained prior to submission (and since) submission, raised this problem, but could offer any other explanation. In the interim, we have come up with several other talking points that strengthen our explanation. Without seeing the reviews, of course, I can only surmise as to why you have delayed a decision on our paper. But I hope - particularly given the very long time that this review has taken - that we could have an opportunity to discuss this further with you before you reach a final (which, as I understand, usually it is a "really final") decision. Sincerely, John Dear John, Thank you for your email, and I apologize for how long the review process is taking. Two of the referees were very slow, and all the reviews came back only just before I left town for EGU. I will be able to go over them when I get back to the office next week, and will be in touch as soon as I can after that. Best regards, Jesse ======================= Dr. Jesse Smith Senior Editor ---------------------------------------------- Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 USA ---------------------------------------------- (202) 326-6556 (202) 408-1256 (FAX) hjsmith@aaas.org ======================= 2731. 2007-05-01 15:23:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:23:00 +0100 from: "chris bradley" subject: Re: An enquiry on climate change technical information. to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk I am very grateful for you spending your time to reply when you have other urgent matters. Please do not let my questions hold you up. I will look in depth into these particular documents. I am still nervous over measurement accuracy, when considering humidity instruments, but the argument is much more complete with these factors included. The oceanic trends are very convincing. Sea level rise, argued as sea temperature rise, is a strong scientific cause-and-effect that I find sound, though I understand that rise rate has been linear and constant for over 100 years, along with a long thermal-inertia time-lag, suggesting a non-anthropogenic effect? If all energy indicators are +ve including sea level, atmospheric height, wind speed AND humidity, then the ~+1C rise is a severely under-representing statistic of increasing net energy flux!? best regards, Chris MB. >From: Phil Jones >To: "chris bradley" >Subject: Re: An enquiry on climate change technical information. >Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:51:14 +0100 > > Dear Chris, > I'm off after today until May 14, so rushing to get a few things >done, > so a brief reply. First you might be interested in the chapters from > the WG1 report of the IPCC, which are now freely available (see below). > For Atmospheric Obs you want Ch 3. > > A few other thoughts > > 1. Max and min temperature are changing at the same rate now. > So large scale temperature changes are representative of both, > at large spatial scales. > > 2. I have had a student just finished a PhD on humidity. She is > writing up a couple of papers from the work, but you can see > her thesis as it is now online. >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/ > > In this she shows that specific humidity (at the surface) is > going up the rate expected from the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, > about 7% per degC. Relative humidity has remained much the > same over the period of records (which is only 1973-2003). Most of the > thesis is about sorting out the humidity data. > > 3. There is a measure called Apparent Temperature, which includes > humidity and also wind speed. This is going up just like temperature, > slightly more but not significantly more, as humidity is going up. > There is more on this in Ch 3. > > 4. On total energy, you might look on google for Ocean Heat Content. This > is where much of the extra heat is going. This is discussed in Ch 5 of > the IPCC Report. > > Sorry this is brief > > Cheers > Phil > > > >Dear Authors and Review Editors > >We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and layout >corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a result we >are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all Chapters, and >Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, List of acronyms) >publicly available from the WG1 home page ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) >today. The supplementary material (for those chapters that have it) is >nearly complete and will be added shortly. > >You are of course very welcome to use and now distribute any of this >material. In some cases figures have been adjusted slightly here by our >graphics designer and we intend to create separate Powerpoint files soon >with the final figures from each chapter as a convenient resource for your >use as well. > >An index is being prepared by a professional indexer; we still need a >Foreword from the Secretariat; and we are discussing the cover layout with >CUP. A complete package should go to CUP for publication on May 7 as >planned and when we know what the book printing schedule is likely to be we >will let you know. > >We cannot easily communicate the sense of accomplishment that this brings. >We are extremely grateful for all your hard work that has created a superb >report and one that we truly believe now sets a higher standard for all >future assessments. > >Thanks and best regards from >Susan, Martin, Melinda M, Kristen, Melinda T, and Roy (IPCC WG1 West) >Dahe and Zhenlin (IPCC WG1 East) > >-- >Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >Boulder, CO 80305, USA >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-las mailing list >Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu >http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las > > >At 12:51 01/05/2007, you wrote: > >>Phil, >> >>Thank you for the email exchange we had last year, and the info you sent >>through. Because we were both busy at the time I did not pursue the >>discussion but would like to do so. The issue to hand that I am raising is >>a matter of a paradigm shift, and such things are always a little >>difficult to put across in a few emails. >> >>The point in the discussion that I was aiming to get to is whether the >>'average temperature' has any useful and physical reality along with it, >>and I believe I may paraphrase your responses as being that its use is >>purely for convenience as it forms a convenient comparator between given >>atmospheric systems and models (and also between systems or models >>themselves). I believe you did not dispute that the 'average temperature' >>might be a measure that might equally capture an increasing minimum >>temperature whilst the maximum temperature is stable, but that the use as >>a comparative statistic is still valid. >> >>It is the notion of this validity I would like to probe a little. >> >>I think I may summarise the essential basis for the theory of CO2 driven >>global warming is that more energy is now entering the earth's atmospheric >>system than is leaving it, because of anthropogenic CO2. A scientific >>basis for evaluating if this essential statement is right or wrong would >>be to find measures for the sum total of energy in the earth's atmosphere. >>You have published widely on the average temperature and I need to >>understand why this is seen as a complete measure of energy in and out of >>the system and/or how it supports models which include all such factors. >> >>I am not thinking of conflicting with your use of average temperature, as >>above, that it can be used as an essential marker to determine equivalence >>with other systems (ie past and future) and models, but the paradigm issue >>at hand here is whether those models also go on to analyse and simulate >>for all the other factors that contribute to 'atmospheric energy'. >> >>Specifically, and most significantly, I am thinking of humidity. The heat >>capacity of dry air is approx 1J/gK. If we take a global average >>temperature of 18C and look at 1% humidity, this would be equivalent to >>0.16g/m3. So to heat up 1m3 of dry air by 1K would take 1000J. To add 1% >>humidity would take 2272J/g (lat. heat fusion) x 0.16g = 363J. So (based >>on a 18C estimate) a change of a little under -3% humidity is equivalent >>to +1C of atmospheric temp. >> >>I work in a UKAS accredited measurement laboratory, and if we could >>measure accurately to 3% humidity, then we'd let NPL know as they have >>difficulty resolving to this level of accuracy themselves. Therefore I >>know, as a matter of fact, that even if humidity was measured alongside >>the temperature records you have processed, then the measurement accuracy >>of field humidity instruments is equivalent to +-2C, if converted to an >>equivalnet temp. This exceeds the statistical range of ave temp depicted >>for last century. >> >>April has been a warmer month than usual, but also seems much less humid >>to me. Compare this April with previous with a T-3xH statistic (T=deg C, >>H=%RH) instead? Have you tried applying humidity data to your temperature >>data in this way? >> >>Other such major factors, I think, are global air speeds and height of >>atmosphere versus QNH pressure. >> >>I think I have made the point sufficiently now. I do not see an issue >>within the temperature data collected, but is it sufficient to say >>anything about the net energy flux within the atmosphere? The paradigm >>shift is that the average temperature is not a measure of atmospheric >>energy and so should not be used as such. Surely it can only be used in >>association with, and to support, the findings of other models that, then, >>derive a full J/m2 (equivalent energy over a given area of the globe) >>value. It is this J/m2 value that needs to be considered and quoted in >>arguments, which may even prove to show a much more distinct effect? >> >>best regards, >> >>Chris MB. >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office >>Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/ 320. 2007-05-02 08:10:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nathan Gillett , peter gleckler , i.harris@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:10:38 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Multi-model SST detection results to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, Thanks very much for the quick reply. It would be nice to get hold of CRU TS 3.0, even at the 0.5 x 0.5 degree resolution. For the SST detection and attribution analysis that I described yesterday, I reduced the spatial dimensionality (to get better estimates of covariance matrices, EOFs, etc.) by regridding all model and observational SST data to a common 10 x 10 lat/long grid. I think it would make sense to do the detection and attribution analysis involving the land 2m temperature changes at the same 10 x 10 resolution. So it isn't essential for me to get the CRU TS 3.0 data at 5 x 5 resolution - we might as well have just one regridding step (from 0.5 x 0.5 to 10 x 10) rather than two. As in the SST case, the primary focus would be on land 2m temperature changes over 1950 to 2006. I'm hopeful that the changing coverage/variance issues won't be that severe over this period. Let me back up a little and outline why I want to look at CRU TS 3.0. I've always thought that it would be fun to contrast the S/N behavior of SST and land 2m temperature. Based purely on the amplitude of unforced variability, one might expect S/N ratios to be more more favorable for SST changes than for land 2m temperature changes. But it's not that simple! Due to land/ocean differences in specific and total heat capacity, we expect the GHG-induced surface temperature signal to be larger over land than over oceans. And then there's the issue of the spatial heterogeneity of the forcings. Arguably, anthropogenic forcings over land are more spatially heterogeneous than over oceans (e.g., no changes in land surface properties over oceans!). Such land/ocean forcing differences must also influence the S/N behavior of temperature changes over land and oceans. So I suspect, based on S/N arguments, that it's better to search for an anthropogenic surface temperature signal over the oceans rather than the land. Actually showing this might be useful. Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben, > CRU doesn't have an infilled land database at the 5 by 5 degree > resolution. > We do at the 0.5 by 0.5 degree resolution though. It would take a > bit of work to average these together to the coarser resolution, but it > ought to be possible. > We have a new version of this (CRU TS 3.0) that Ian Harris (Harry) > is finishing off. It runs from 1900 to 2006. It doesn't take care of > variance issues, so will have problems when in regions with poor data > earlier in the 20th century. Should be OK though from 1950, if you > want to start then. > Harry is i.harris@uea.ac.uk. I think the temperature is finished, but > Nathan could check. I'm away now till the HC meeting in Sweden > and Spain. > Another option is to use the infilled 5 by 5 dataset that Tom Smith > has put together at NCDC. All infilling has the problem that when there > is little data it tends to revert to the 1961-90 average of zero. All > infilling techniques do this - alluded to countless times by Kevin > Trenberth and this is in Ch 3 of AR4. This infilling is in the current > monitoring version of NCDC's product. The infilling is partly the reason > they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from the > coastal stations. I think NCDC and the HC regard the permanent > sea ice as 'land', as it effectively is. > As a side issue , the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic is going > to cause loads of problems monitoring temps there as when SST data > have come in from the areas that have been mostly sea ice, it is always > warm as the 61-90 means are close to -1.8C. Been talking to Nick > Rayner about this. It isn't serious yet, but it's getting to be a problem. > In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot > as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average > for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value. > > See you in Exeter in a week's time. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 01:40 02/05/2007, Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear Nathan, >> >> I'm now in the process of transferring SST data from the AR4 >> pre-industrial control runs. I'm hoping that the data transfer will be >> finished by tomorrow. As described in the Supporting Text of our PNAS >> water vapor paper, I've changed the time model of all control runs. >> The time model is the same as in the 20c3m runs - i.e., "months since >> 1800". This slightly complicates life if you want to subtract a >> model's instantaneous control run drift from its 20c3m run. You then >> have to figure out the time (in the new "months since 1800" time >> model) at which the 20c3m run was spawned from the pre-industrial >> control. I find, however, that the advantages of using a uniform time >> model far outweigh the disadvantages. >> >> With some help from Peter, I managed to obtain some preliminary >> results for the detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed >> SST data. To my knowledge, most formal pattern-based D&A work that has >> dealt with temperature changes close to Earth's surface has used >> combined SSTs and land 2m temperatures. I'm not aware of any >> pattern-based work (other than your work with SST changes in the >> Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions) that has focused >> on SST changes alone. I'm assuming that the dearth of "SST only" >> fingerprint work arises in part from pesky masking and regridding >> problems (the same problems we had to address in the PNAS water vapor >> paper). >> >> As I mentioned several days ago, I essentially replicated all of the >> data "pre-processing" we had done for the water vapor paper: i.e., the >> same procedures were used for masking and regridding SST data to a >> uniform 10 x 10 lat/long grid, calculation of the V and No-V SST >> fingerprints, and concatenation of SST data from the V and No-V >> control runs. I also employed the same spatial domain that we used for >> the PW analysis (all oceans, 50N-50S). >> >> One of the choices I have to make in estimating detection time is the >> selection of a "start date" for calculation of trends in the signal >> time series Z(t) and Z*(t) (the projections of the observed data onto >> the raw and optimized fingerprints, respectively). For the water vapor >> paper, the start date was dictated by the start date of the SSM/I PW >> data (1988). Here, however, we are using NOAA ERSST data, which are >> available from 1880 onwards. I chose a start date in 1950. I think >> this is a defensible choice, partly because the spatial coverage of >> SST data is more stable over time in the second half of the 20th >> century than in the first. Furthermore, a 1950 start date is a >> somewhat conservative choice in view of the "flattening" of the >> observed global-scale SST increase in the 1960s and 1970s. A start >> date in the mid-1970s would probably yield shorter detection times. >> >> The detection time results are encouraging. In the "spatial mean >> included" case, we invariably obtain robust detection of the V and >> No-V model fingerprints in the NOAA ERSST data. As you pointed out >> previously, Nathan, the fingerprint estimated from the No-V 20c3m runs >> is basically an "ANTHRO-ONLY" fingerprint. For a 1950 start date, the >> detection times are all with +/- 5 years of 1980, irrespective of >> whether the V or No-V models are used to estimate fingerprints, >> optimize fingerprints, or assess statistical significance. This means >> that, if we had begun monitoring observed SST changes in 1950, we >> would have been able to identify an anthropogenic fingerprint roughly >> 30 years later. I should point out that (as in the vapor paper), we've >> tried to be conservative in our significance testing procedure, and >> have intentionally retained residual control run drift. >> >> Results are more ambiguous in the "spatial mean removed" case. In that >> setting, whether we can or cannot detect an anthropogenic fingerprint >> is much more sensitive to V/No-V dataset choices. Why might that be? A >> preliminary hypothesis is that in the "mean removed" case, greater >> attention is focused on differential SST changes in the western and >> eastern Pacific. The recent GRL paper by Soden and Vecchia provides >> some model-based evidence that such differential SST changes may be >> forced, and are accompanied by changes in the Walker circulation. I >> suspect that these differential west/east SST changes may evolve in a >> complex way over time, and that in the "mean removed" case, we might >> have more luck detecting an "ANTHRO" fingerprint if go to full >> space-time optimal detection. But that's only a guess on my part, and >> my intuition has often been wrong! >> >> In the next few days, I'll fool around with several different "start >> dates", and will also start looking at the spatial patterns of the raw >> and optimized fingerprints, the dominant noise modes, etc. As I >> mentioned previously, it would be nice to contrast the "SST-only" D&A >> results with "land-only" D&A results. Does CRU have "land-only" >> temperature data in which missing land 2m temperatures have been >> statistically infilled? In other words, is there a land 2m temperature >> counterpart to the HadISST product? (I've copied this email to Phil, >> who I'm sure will be able to answer my last question.) >> >> Anyway, looks like this work is worth pursuing. It will be very >> interesting to compare your space-time results with the results we've >> obtained thus far. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Benjamin D. Santer >> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 >> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. >> Tel: (925) 422-2486 >> FAX: (925) 422-7675 >> email: santer1@llnl.gov >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3407. 2007-05-02 11:08:49 ______________________________________________________ cc: kfarnsworth@usgs.gov, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, kxu@vims.edu date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:08:49 -0400 from: John Milliman subject: Re: ms 1141378 to: "Jesse Smith" Thanks, Jesse, for your follow-up note. You should have by now exorcized any guilt that you may have had concerning the long review. And we will take you up on your kind offer of featuring the paper as Editors' Choice when the paper is published. We are just in the initial stages of revision, although, in reality, not much revision is needed. GRL will probably be our choice. I did want to let you know - as much for my peace of mind as for your information - that when reading the Milly et al. paper last night (a main stumbling block for the two negative reviewers), I did remember the paper in late 2005. The reason we did not cite it is for the very reason that we stated in our introduction: the GRDC "1900-70 database", which they used, contains only 38 rivers (if one deletes multiple entries and tributaries), only 3 from Asia, 1 from Africa, and none from South America. The database is clearly biased towards North America and northern Europe, thus precluding any global view. As far as I can tell, Milly et al. "modeled many of their river discharges, apparently not taking into account (at least they do not cite any relevant references) such climatic variables as PDO or AMO. Their resulting maps therefore mix observations and modeling results; a comparison of modeled vs gauged data (their Fig. 2c), however, suggests an R^2 of ~0.1. I now remember - and you can understand - why we did not use or cite this paper. Glad Science didn't publish Milly et al., but I sure wish that your reviewers would have read it more carefully before judging our paper. Sincerely, John Dear John, The letter you received that contained the decision and the reviews was a form letter, but the one to which you responded was not: I felt that you needed, and deserved, a more personal response, particularly in light of the long time it took to complete the review process. I do hope that you will take us up on the offer to feature the paper as an Editors' Choice in Science when it is published, since we do believe your paper is a good one. Finally, the size issue is a real factor in many of our decisions, and one which has definite impacts on manuscripts, sometimes. It is simply an unavoidable (and at times unfortunate) consequence of our format. Sincerely, Jesse ======================= Dr. Jesse Smith Senior Editor ---------------------------------------------- Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 USA ---------------------------------------------- (202) 326-6556 (202) 408-1256 (FAX) hjsmith@aaas.org ======================= >>> John Milliman 05/01 2:29 PM >>> I must admit, Jesse, that I was disappointed but not surprised with your decision. Positive actions are always quicker - and easier - to make. Reviewer #2 must have felt some time-pressure, because his review clearly shows that he did not read the paper carefully. Still, you were left with what you had to work with: and clearly we missed the Milly et al. paper (2005).... Part of the problem - and one that I am sure is not new to you - is that in order to keep to size-restrictions by Science, we had to "gloss" over some parts that needed to be addressed in more detail Without your kind letter (below) - which does not even look like a form letter - I would feel a lot more irked by the slowness of the review (76 days!). In your shoes, however, I probably also would have rejected the paper. But I also strongly feel that in the long run Science will have missed out on a good paper (which, I suspect you often do - for similar reasons to mine). Sincerely, John >Content-Type: text/html >Content-Description: HTML > >Dear John, > >You have by now received the official notice of our decision about >your submission "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River >Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000", and I am sorry that it >could not have been different. I also want to apologize again for >the length of time it took to complete the evaluation of the paper, >but the combination of slow, late referees, my travel schedule, our >general overload of manuscripts, and (though least important in >terms of time) the difficulty which I sometimes have rejecting a >paper that I appeals to me personally, all contributed to the >slowing of the review process. Unfortunately, every day we must >reject publishable research because of stringent space requirements >and the need to keep the journal to a manageable size: currently we >are able to publish less than 6% of what is submitted here. > > >I wish you the best of luck, and hope to see your manuscript in print soon. > > > > > >Sincerely, > > > > > >Jesse > > > > >======================= >Dr. Jesse Smith >Senior Editor >---------------------------------------------- >Science >1200 New York Avenue, NW >Washington, DC 20005 >USA >---------------------------------------------- >(202) 326-6556 >(202) 408-1256 (FAX) >hjsmith@aaas.org >======================= > >>>> John Milliman 4/30/2007 7:48:04 AM >>> > >Dear Jesse: > Today marks the 75th day since I submitted our paper, >"Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The >Global Ocean, 1951-2000", to Science, and while platinum >anniversaries are generally to be lauded, in this case I have only >increasing concern. > If all the reviews, which as I understand from your last >e-mail, were received before you left for EGU, had been positive or >negative, I presume you would have made your decision by now; which >would mean that the reviews are mixed. If so, I suspect that some >of the reviews may have questioned our delineation of or explanation >of "excess" rivers. > As we said in our submission letter, " We anticipate that >some reviewers could question our lack of a more concrete >explanation of excess rivers..." Three of the 9 outsider reviews >that we obtained prior to submission (and since) submission, raised >this problem, but could offer any other explanation. In the >interim, we have come up with several other talking points that >strengthen our explanation. > Without seeing the reviews, of course, I can only surmise as >to why you have delayed a decision on our paper. But I hope - >particularly given the very long time that this review has taken - >that we could have an opportunity to discuss this further with you >before you reach a final (which, as I understand, usually it is a >"really final") decision. > Sincerely, > John > > > >>Dear John, >> >>Thank you for your email, and I apologize for how long the review >>process is taking. Two of the referees were very slow, and all the >>reviews came back only just before I left town for EGU. I will be able >>to go over them when I get back to the office next week, and will be in >>touch as soon as I can after that. >> >>Best regards, >> >>Jesse >> >> >> >>======================= >>Dr. Jesse Smith >>Senior Editor >>---------------------------------------------- >>Science >>1200 New York Avenue, NW >>Washington, DC 20005 >>USA >>---------------------------------------------- >>(202) 326-6556 >>(202) 408-1256 (FAX) >>hjsmith@aaas.org >>======================= 3024. 2007-05-02 11:56:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: kfarnsworth@usgs.gov, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, kxu@vims.edu date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:56:26 -0400 from: John Milliman subject: Re: Decision from Science to: Phil Jones Thanks, Phil, for the reply - and for the IPCC write-ups. You seem to travel more than even I do. The e-mail just sent to Jesse Smith at Science, I think, speaks about my increasing disregard for the Milly paper. If anyone ever wants evidence about the luck of the draw in reviewers, one only has to look at the Milly et al. paper published in Nature and the Milliman et al. paper rejected by Science. On the other hand, Jesse Smith clearly likes the paper, saying that he would like to use it in Editors Choice one it is published. Right now Kevin Xu (with whom I have been talking this morning) are leaning towards GRL. We may the luxury of adding another figure - apparently, as you have noted, papers can go onto a fifth, sometimes even a sixth, page. If there were to be a new figure, I can always pull up (and modify) the seasonal plots that we (ultimately) decided not to include in the Science ms. That shows pretty clearly the disconnect between seasonal pptn and runoff trends. Many of the other comments by the reviewers are either easily addressed or off the mark. Katie, Larry, if you could weigh in on any other comments - or responses - to the reviews, that would be great. I would like to get this thing off my desk within the next week or so. Just to keep you up to date, we presently have 135 rivers in our data base with the hope of expanding it by several more (e.g., we may have a full 50 yrs now for the Amur, and there are 45 years for a river in the Philippines). What do you all think about changing the size of our symbols in Fig. 1, as suggested by the one reviewer? I note that Milly et al. also used different sizes for their symbols, which the reviewer obviously had not problem with.... On looking at the ms again - and, of course, the figures - do any of you have any other comments or suggestions? Best wishes, John John, Off on travels for the next 10 days, so a brief reply. The path of least resistance is likely GRL, but to say a little more JGR would be better, then you're not constrained by the 4 page length (although it seems most GRL papers now go onto 5 pp). At the end of my message, I've put in the link to the AR4 chapters of IPCC, which can now be downloaded. Of particular interest is Ch 3 and 4. Ch3 is quite large, so takes a while to download. Ch4 has some discussion of permafrost which may be relevant to include. Ch3 has a Figure (3.14) which shows large-scale comparisons (largish regions, which aren't that great climatically) between GHCN and CRU. For almost all of them the two datasets agree amazingly well. This Figure will help you deal with the comments from Rev 2 (#3). The figure does exactly what the reviewer wants. The reviewer doesn't know what they are talking about on this issue, by the way! GHCN does do homogeneity checks on the precip time series, but the density in most regions of the world is inadequate to make any reliable adjustments. The adjustments tend to cancel out if you looked at GHCN unadjusted cf the adjusted dataset. So that is that one dealt with. Why people think GHCN is better is beyond me. Much of their data in many developing parts of the world comes from CRU !! Must be a US reviewer!! The Milly paper point has to be dealt with, as you've said. Adding the seasonal analyses will address Rev 2's #4. Winter precip in the arctic is relatively small (provided it is measured OK), so showing this would be important. Winter's are long in the Arctic, so the choice of seasons to do any analysis over are important. Arctic runoff in winter in pretty constrained, as it is flow under the ice. It could be that when freeze-over occurs it is at higher levels recently, so the area under the ice at the gauging station is larger. If the level of freezeover is the same, then volume underneath is the same, so the flow can't go above a certain limit. The thoughts in this para may be rubbish, but I've always wondered about winter flow under the ice. Rev 3 didn't say much ! Rev 1 looks at though it might be Rob Wilby here in the UK. Can't think why anyone would refer to his paper in GRL.? Again these comments refer to Milly, so there needs to be some reconciliation of the trends some people have got in many of the rivers. Hope these comments useful. The references to the CRU dataset annoyed me, but I've calmed down now. Might have some email when away, but back May 14. Cheers Phil Dear Authors and Review Editors We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and layout corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a result we are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all Chapters, and Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, List of acronyms) publicly available from the WG1 home page ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) today. The supplementary material (for those chapters that have it) is nearly complete and will be added shortly. You are of course very welcome to use and now distribute any of this material. In some cases figures have been adjusted slightly here by our graphics designer and we intend to create separate Powerpoint files soon with the final figures from each chapter as a convenient resource for your use as well. An index is being prepared by a professional indexer; we still need a Foreword from the Secretariat; and we are discussing the cover layout with CUP. A complete package should go to CUP for publication on May 7 as planned and when we know what the book printing schedule is likely to be we will let you know. We cannot easily communicate the sense of accomplishment that this brings. We are extremely grateful for all your hard work that has created a superb report and one that we truly believe now sets a higher standard for all future assessments. Thanks and best regards from Susan, Martin, Melinda M, Kristen, Melinda T, and Roy (IPCC WG1 West) Dahe and Zhenlin (IPCC WG1 East) -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las At 20:12 01/05/2007, Larry Smith wrote: Sorry John. It's your call, of course - but the path of least resistance would seem to be GRL or another short-format journal. best, Larry On Tue, 1 May 2007, John Milliman wrote: Well, after 76 days - count them - Science finally came back with two reviews, neither of which was particularly favorable. In fact, other than the fact that both pointed out us/me missing the Milly (2005) paper, it does not look to me that either reviewer really read the paper very thoroughly: some of their questions are actually answered if they only searched a bit further. Both reviewers, however, were tardy, no doubt requiring more than one reminder from Science, suggesting (to me) that they probably ultimately rushed their readings of the paper. As you might expect, however, this is not the end of the line for me. But I do need to sit down and think about the next approach. Some of the reviewers' questions really reflect the concise nature that the paper had to be in order to be considered for Science. The seasonal change in pptn vs discharge, as you may remember, is something that we decided not to include, even though it showed exactly what we said in the ms. Clearly I need to go back and read the Milly paper. But I also need to think about whether we stick with a shorter ms for GRL, or expand it a bit and try for another journal. Any suggestions, comments? John Ref: 1141378 Dear Dr. Milliman: Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000." We have now received the detailed reviews of your paper. Unfortunately they are not positive enough to support publication of the paper in Science. Although we recognize that you could likely address many of these specific criticisms in a revised manuscript, the overall nature of the reviews is such that the paper would not be able to compete for our limited space. We hope that you find the comments helpful in preparing the manuscript for submission to another journal. We would appreciate it if you would let us know before its publication when and where the paper is to appear, so that it can be nominated as an "Editor's Choice" feature in Science. We are grateful that you gave Science the opportunity to consider your work. Sincerely, Jesse Smith, Ph.D. Senior Editor Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3677. 2007-05-02 13:57:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl , dkaroly@ou.edu, myles , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch , Thomas R Karl , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Chris Miller date: Wed, 02 May 2007 13:57:02 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: 3 things, please reply by May 2 to: Tom Knutson Hi Gabi and everybody, I agree with all the main points made so far. I think it would be a good idea to future-proof our "past" simulations (as we did with our current HadGEM1 simulations calling the "past" segment up to 2010). The forcings for this predictive part of the "past" simulations could follow the business as usual path advocated by Nathan and for solar we can carry on the solar cycle and for volcanoes assume no big ones (if we get one we'll have to re-run of course; or if we have one between now and when we start these expts decay the aerosol). So for AR5 having attribution ensembles available that go up until at least 2010 would be a good idea I think. We would like also to have initial condition ensembles for d+a of course. Ideally also we would have separate forcings simulations to at the least separate out the ghg component from the other anthropogenic factors (to separate out TCR from forcing uncertainty) and separate natural forcings simulations. Any dates for the meeting are fine with me - by that stage IPCC SYR will have finished - wey hey. Can we go skiing ? Best wishes, Peter On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 16:49 -0400, Tom Knutson wrote: > Gabi et al. > > I don't have any further recommendations on overall design. I agree > with David and Nathan that the transition between past and future > segments of the runs needs to be handled more cleanly than was done > in AR4, allowing analyses to be extended to some extent as more years > of observations become available (i.e. as time marches on...) > > I also agree that a fairly large number of ensemble members will be > needed, particularly to deal with the issue of large multi-decadal > internal variability, such as the AMO. > > Regarding the additional upper-air variables to save, here are the > variables that we are currently using to identify tropical storms in > our regional model at GFDL. > Although there are a number of methods of detecting storms in use, > that may use slight variants on these, this at least gives a flavor > for what is typically used: > > 6-hour time resolution grids of: > 1) 850mb U, V > 2) lowest model level or 10-meter U,V > 3) Sea level pressure > 4) Temperature at 300mb, 500mb, and a few levels in-between > (in order to compute vertically averaged temperature in > the 300-500mb layer). > > Concerning meeting times for next winter/spring I have no > preference among the choices put forward. > > -- Tom Knutson > > > David Karoly wrote: > > Hi Gabi, > > > > 2) I think that the new coordinated model experiments should have high > > resolution runs starting in 1970 (giving more than 30 years of obs data > > for d&a analysis) and running until 2040. We want to also stress that we > > would like different forcing combinations at least for the > > 1970-2005/2010 period, to allow attribution to different forcings. > > The high resolution runs need to NOT be cold start but to be spun up > > either from observed ocean data or from lower resolution coupled ocean > > atmosphere runs with data assimilation. > > Also, for lower resolution, we need to have some runs starting in 1880 > > or 1900. > > > > If we don't have long control runs at high resolution to estimate > > climate variability, we may need more ensemble members, or clever ways > > to estimate decadal climate variability. > > > > We should also make some IDAG recommendations on the specific variables > > that should be saved that are in addition or different from the current > > ones on the AMIP CMIP3 archive, like monthly mean Tmin and Tmax, or > > daily near surface specific humidity, as well as high time and space > > resolution surface and upper air data etc. > > > > Gabi, I can't go to the WGCM meeting in Hamburg in 3-5 September, as I > > have other meetings in Oz and the US around this time. Will you be able > > to go, as it will be important that the d&a community is represented there. > > > > 3) In terms of dates, I will likely be in the US for the AMS annual mtg > > during 20-24 January in New Orleans. If I stay in the US, I would prefer > > the IDAG mtg to be as early in Feb as possible, around 9 Feb, or as late > > in March as possible if I go back to Oz in between. > > > > Best wishes, David > > > > Gabi Hegerl wrote: > >> Hi IDAG people, > >> > >> Three things: > >> > >> Jesse has put the collection of powerpoints from our meeting > >> (those that people were not uncomfortable to > >> share) on a webpage, instructions below, you are welcome to find talks > >> and get them. > >> > >> Secondly, I attach Jerry Meehls writeup on the planned AR5 > >> experiments, it would be > >> helpful if we could comment on them as group. Please send comments to > >> me, and I will > >> collect and circulate our group reaction before sending to Jerry. My > >> personal view is > >> that the high-res near future runs are a great idea, but should start > >> early enough for > >> us to do some high res attribution, so eg 30-50 years over the 20th > >> before going into > >> 21rst. > >> > >> Also, Doug says that if we would soon decide on our next meeting > >> timing, we may be able > >> to get a particularly attractive location at NCAR (forgot what its > >> called). We tentatively > >> planned some 3 day window between February 8 to march 16. Myles points > >> out that > >> Brits wanting to bring kids would do well with dates on either side of > >> the weekend 16-17 February for the Southern part, and 9-18 for the > >> Northern part (which is when school > >> is out). > >> Greetings > >> > >> Gabi > >> > > > 868. 2007-05-02 15:32:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:32:52 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Progress to: Phil Jones Hi Phil Sorry to miss you this morning. Just to let you know that I've found several potentially-major problems with the anomaly program anomdtb, which as far as I know was used to produce CRU TS 2.1. In the 'duplication' section, stations within 8km (ref. notes and the Mitchell & Jones IJC paper) of each other are rolled together: the station with the lower WMO code donates its data to fill any missing values in the second station, and is then marked for no further use by setting its WMO code to -999 (in the internal arrays, obviously). I was investigating the high number of duplications found, and discovered that, even though stations were marked for exclusion in this way, they continued to be evaluated as possible duplicates and so could contribute the same data to multiple stations. Problem One, worrying but not critical. There is no protection to prevent a chain of stations, all within 8km of their neighbours, to pass inherited data from one end to the other, a distance which could be well over 8km. Since no context checking is done on inherited data to ascertain suitability, this could result in inappropriate values being inserted into a station some distance from the originator. Problem Two, worrying but probably not critical. Now the killer. The 'duplication' test calls a routine with two pairs of lat/lon values and gets back an approximate Greta Circle distance between them, in km. If this figure is below the threshold (set at 8km) then the process is initiated. However, for reasons I have yet to fathom, the lats and lons are scaled by 0.01 when they are read into the arrays, and so most of the duplication incidents are false! For example, these two stations are flagged as duplicated and the first (Lugano) is excluded: 67700 460 -90 273 LUGANO SWITZERLAND 1864 2006 101864 -999.00 160660 456 -87 -999 MILANO MALPENSA ITALY 1961 1970 101961 -999.00 Yet they are over 50km apart! The faulty routine says the distance is 5.4km because it sees lats of 4.56 and 4.60, and lons of -0.90 and -0.87. Problem Three, probably critical. I'll make the necessary adjustments. I think the problem is the read routine, and how it decides which scaling factor to use - so it's possible CRU TS 2.1 escaped if it used a different data set style. Just thought you ought to know. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 214. 2007-05-09 15:59:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:59:51 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Fwd: 2007JD008705 (Editor - John Austin): Review Overdue - First to: Keith Briffa Dear Prof. Briffa, As you can see, I am slowly winding my way towards reviewing Simon's paper. Will do so by next week. I must say that being slow is something you can relate to. I saw Henry Diaz last week and he indicated that you are the reason why the Tucson proceedings book has not been published yet. Shame on you! Your chapter is really important and it is your obligation to submit it. After what Malcolm and I did for you to get Tom funded by Leverhulme, I think you should do the right thing. Regardless, looking forward to seeing you in November. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Begin forwarded message: From: Edward Cook <[2]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Date: May 9, 2007 3:50:08 PM EDT To: [3]jgr-atmospheres@agu.org Cc: Edward Cook <[4]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: 2007JD008705 (Editor - John Austin): Review Overdue - First notice Next week is likely. ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [5]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On May 9, 2007, at 3:27 PM, [6]jgr-atmospheres@agu.org wrote: Dear Dr. Cook: On April 04, 2007, you agreed to review "Simulation of ENSO forcings on U.S. drought by the HadCM3 coupled climate model." by Simon Busby, Keith Briffa, and Timothy Osborn [Paper # 2007JD008705] and submit your comments by today. We have not received your review. Please let us know whether you will be able to submit these comments within the next week. To view the manuscript and complete the review form, click the below link. <[7]http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A7Bc3CyOC5A6mvb5F7A92bal4gef 7fDaNUgATmor6QZ> (NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to share this link with colleagues, please be aware that they will have access to your entire account for this journal.) Thank you for your continuing assistance and support of Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. We look forward to receiving your comments. Sincerely, John Austin Editor, JGR-Atmospheres 2732. 2007-05-09 16:55:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:55:59 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: [Fwd: CRU TS 2.1] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Maximilian, CRU TS 3.0 is in the process of being completed and tested. When released it will run to 06/2006. I will keep your details and hopefully let you know when it is released - but do check the CRU 'High-resolution gridded datasets' page regularly! http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg.htm Cheers Harry > ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- > Subject: CRU TS 2.1 > From: "Maximilian Auffhammer" > Date: Thu, May 3, 2007 4:51 am > To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Dear Professor Jones: > > I am coauthoring a paper on the agricultural impacts of atmospheric > brown > clouds with V. Ramanathan at Scripps. In our first paper published > in PNAS, > we used your Tmin grids from the CRU TS 2.1 dataset. We are > extending the > sample to 2005 in order to study the impacts of within season rainfall > distribution on crops. > > Is there an update of this dataset, which includes the three or > four most > recent years of data? The NOAA website mentions that such an update > is in > the works. > > I would be very grateful for any information. > > Kind regards from sunny California, > > Maximilian Auffhammer > > Assistant Professor > Agricultural and Resource Economics & > International Area Studies > UC Berkeley > 207 Giannini Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-3310 > Tel: (510) 643-5472 > Fax: (510) 643-8911 > email: auffham@are.berkeley.edu > http://are.berkeley.edu/~auffham > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 947. 2007-05-11 19:21:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:21:20 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: 2007GL030571 (Editor - James Famiglietti): Request to Review from to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_11789112805933" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:21:20 UT Message-Id: <117891128030@gems> *PLEASE ACCEPT OR DECLINE USING THE LINK PROVIDED BELOW* Dear Dr. Jones: Would you be willing and available to review "Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction" by David Frank, Jan Esper, and Edward Cook, submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical Research Letters. This is a resubmission of a rejected manuscript which you previously reviewed. The manuscript's abstract is: Proxy records may display fluctuations in local climate variability that are artifacts of changing replication and interseries correlation of constituent time-series and also from methodological considerations. These biases obscure the understanding of past climatic variability, including estimation of extremes, differentiation between natural and anthropogenic forcing, and climate model validation. Herein, we evaluate as a case-study, the Esper et al. [2002] extra-tropical millennial-length temperature reconstruction that shows increasing variability back in time. We provide adjustments considering biases at both the site and hemispheric scales. The variance adjusted record shows greatest differences before 1200 when sample replication is quite low. A moderated amplitude of peak warmth during Medieval Times by about 0.4 {degree sign}C (0.2 {degree sign}C) at annual (40-year) timescales slightly re-draws the longer-term evolution of past temperatures Many other regional and large-scale reconstructions appear to contain variance-related biases. If you agree to review this manuscript, I would ask for your comments within 14 days from your acceptance. To ACCEPT, click on the link below: [1]http://grl-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A4K5DCpP3A6BFkh2D2A9rOoUAZyBni6y3aQd0gEJi AZ If you are unable to review this manuscript at this time, I would appreciate any suggestions of other potential reviewers who would be qualified to examine this manuscript. (Via reply e-mail.) To DECLINE, click on the link below: [2]http://grl-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A5K6DCpP3A4BFkh3E7A9rOoUAZyBni6y3aQd0gEJi AZ If you have any questions or need more information feel free to reply to this e-mail. Thank you for your consideration and support of Geophysical Research Letters. Sincerely, James Famiglietti Associate Editor Geophysical Research Letters 2449. 2007-05-14 09:47:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Clare Goodess" , c.harpham@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:47:04 +0100 (BST) from: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Fwd: Meeting Agenda - 21st May to: "Phil Jones" I meant the new UHI simulations with mosaic land tiling and urban heat emissions that Richard Betts will perform for SCORCHIO. Clare > > Clare, Colin, > As far as I understand the new HadRM3 runs are transient runs (17 in > all) > using perturbed physics. I can probably find out by emailing Dave > Sexton. > > I am away on May 21 - in Schipol with Keith/Dimitrios for the day > re ECOCHANGE. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:23 11/05/2007, Clare Goodess wrote: >>Phil/Colin >> >>This is the technical SCORCHIO meeting. Phil I don't think you're >>available to go. I am definitely going. Would it be a good for Colin >>to go too if he is available? >> >>CRU's input will really start once we have outputs from the new >>HadRM3 simulations. The timetable for these will be discussed at the >>meeting, but my understanding is that these are likely to take place >>somewhat later than originally planned in order to allow better >>specification of boundary conditions - particularly the urban heat >> sources. >> >>Please could you let me know if you have any thoughts about any of >>the agenda items. >> >>Outputs required to run the BETWIXT WG is straightforward (i.e. we >>know the variables and time resolution needed). >> >>But the question of spatial scales needs some >>thought/discussion. The weather generator can be run for any of the >>city stations for which we have enough observed data - and then the >>Manchester team could do the spatial extrapolation from these >>sites. And/or we could also work with spatially-interpolated >>gridded parameters to start with (how appropriate are those produced >>for UKCIP08?). Maybe both approaches will have to be tested. >> >>I think there is also an issue to do with consistency of the UKCIP08 >>scenarios and the planned HadMR3 UHI simulations. Is it possible, >>for example, to isolate the 'anthropogenic urban' forcing effect >>from the latter simulations and then add that to the UKCIP08 >>scenario perturbations? We probably can't answer a lot of the >>questions until we have results to play with. But the question now >>is, do we have any suggestions as to which greenhouse gas emissions >>scenario is used for the HadRM3 simulations. The BETWIXT HadCM3 >>simulations used 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. Should the new simulations stick >>with this (I don't think they will be transient runs) or use >>something more comparable to A1B say? >> >>And please let me/Claire know if there are additional items you >>think should be on the agenda (though bear in mind this is only a 2 >>hour meeting!). >> >>Best wishes, Clare >> >> >> >> >>>From: "Claire Smith" >>>Reply-To: "Claire.Smith-2@manchester.ac.uk" >>> >>>To: "sarah.lindley@manchester.ac.uk" , >>> "Clare Goodess" , "c.harpham@uea.ac.uk" >>> , "Betts, Richard" >>> >>> , "Geoff.levermore@manchester.ac.uk" >>> >>>CC: "Stuart Barr" , "John Handley" >>> >>>Subject: Meeting Agenda - 21st May >>>Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:56:56 +0100 >>>Organization: University of Manchester >>>X-Mailer: Oracle Connector for Outlook 10.1.2.0.3 71207 (11.0.8118) >>>X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en >>>X-Authenticated-Sender: Claire Smith from >>>mace-r-mcjsscs2.mace.manchester.ac.uk (mace.manchester.ac.uk) >>>[130.88.114.106]:1228 >>>X-Authenticated-From: Claire.Smith-2@manchester.ac.uk >>>X-UoM: Scanned by the University Mail System. See >>>http://www.itservices.manchester.ac.uk/email/filtering/information/ >>>for details. >>>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.2 >>>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >>> >>>Dear all >>> >>>I have booked a room for us at the MRC head office in London >>>between 2 and 4 pm on May 21st ( >>>http://www.mrc.ac.uk/AboutUs/Findus/index.htm) to discuss in more >>>detail how the various work packages feed into one another. I have >>>attached a short agenda, but feel free to let me know if you want >>>to include anything else on it. >>> >>>John, Stuart, I have included you on the email but don't worry if >>>you are unable to make it. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Claire >>> >>>School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Eng. >>>University of Manchester >>>PO Box 88 >>>Sackville Street >>>Manchester >>>M60 1QD >>>Tel direct: +44(0)161 306 2352 >>>www.mace.manchester.ac.uk >>> >> >>Dr Clare Goodess >>Climatic Research Unit >>School of Environmental Sciences >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >> >>Tel: +44 -1603 592875 >>Fax: +44 -1603 507784 >>Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 887. 2007-05-14 10:55:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:55:24 +0100 from: "R Selley" subject: Re: Query re. UK isotherms to: "Phil Jones" Phil, Thank you so much for your detailed response to my query and for the attached paper which is invaluable. My interest in viticulture was primarily to see if there were any geological controls (there are, but they are indirect). To begin with climate change was not at the front of my mind. After putting together a database of British vineyards I noted that they were either Roman, Medieval, Little Ice Age or Modern, with gaps. It was irresistible to draw their northern limits on a map of the UK. This revealed the ebb and flow correlative with the 'Received wisdom' proxy temperature. Re. Isotherm maps. Yes, I have the IPCC reports, and Houghton's 'Global Warming - the complete briefing' and have surfed the Met Office, Hadley Centre and other web sites to try to find annual isotherms. Why I am so obsessed with annual rather than seasonal isotherms is that globally the world's main wine-growing regions occur between the 10 & 20 degree C annual average isotherms Re. your comments that the rises and falls of British viticulture may be cultural rather than correlative with climate change. The Celts were into wine drinking in a big way, and imported it in considerable quantities from Euroland. Likewise the Saxons imported wine for communion and conviviality, and had planted vineyards before 1066. Once again thank you for your detailed response and the 2004 paper. I would be most grateful for later publications on this topic. Best regards Dick Professor R C Selley Department of Earth Science & Engineering, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP Phone: : +44 (0)1306 882026 email: [1]r.selley@btinternet.com Website: [2]www.ese.imperial.ac.uk/homepage.php?StaffID=108 Also: [3]www.encyclopediaofgeology.com & [4]www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: [5]Phil Jones To: [6]r.selley@btinternet.com Cc: [7]Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:59 AM Subject: FW: Query re. UK isotherms Dear Dick, Getting isotherm maps is quite difficult, especially for recent times. There are probably maps for 1961-90 or 1971-2000 developed by the Met Office for the UK. There are anomaly maps for recent months and years on their website, so the 'normals' for the base periods (61-90 or 71-00) must be available, but we don't have them. It would be best if you had one single measure that grapes respond to - such as May-Sept temperature average or some degree-day threshold. The latter may be more what the viticulturalists use, but it is far easier getting monthly means. For the future, you need to look at one of the UKCIP reports (their UKCIP02). UKCIP is the UK Climate Impacts Programme at Oxford. By the way I'm somewhat skeptical about whether climate (or temperature) is the single factor affecting the spread and shrinkage over time of vineyards. The Romans and the Normans came with a grape growing culture, but in between the Celts, Saxons and Vikings were not that much into grapes - preferring other forms of alcohol. The recent upsurge now is also more cultural than climatic. Grape growing is always put forward as one of the main pieces of evidence to warmer times in the Medieval period, but it isn't that convincing, bearing in mind other more direct evidence. I have discussed this in a paper, which I'm attaching for your interest. See pages 6-8 in particular. Cheers Phil -----Original Message----- From: R Selley [[8] mailto:r.selley@btinternet.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:08 AM To: cru@uea.ac.uk Subject: Query re. UK isotherms Dear Reader, Please can you help me and forward the following query to a climate guru in your group who can assist with the following query: I am a geologist interested in geo-viticulture who has strayed into climate change, having discovered that I can map the ebb and flow of British vineyards across the countryside correlative with temperature over the last 2K (see [9]www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk). Naturally it would be fun to map the future advance of vineyards, and indeed the optimum zones for different grape varieties, correlative with global warming. As I am only a geologist I am unfamiliar with the literature and web resources on climate data. I have a map of UK isotherms for 1900. Where can I find one for 2000, or thereabouts? Thank you. Regards Dick Selley Professor R C Selley Department of Earth Science & Engineering, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP Phone: : +44 (0)1306 882026 email: [10]r.selley@btinternet.com Website: [11]www.ese.imperial.ac.uk/homepage.php?StaffID=108 Also: [12]www.encyclopediaofgeology.com & [13]www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 485. 2007-05-14 11:15:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:15:49 +0100 from: "Roger Coe" subject: Global Temperature Record to: "'Phil Jones'" Dear Phil, Thank you for your kind reply to my earlier email concerning the current global temperature trend. I have delayed further comment in order to read the IPCC WG1 full report which is now available online with its excellent Chapter 3. The hadcrut3 data is shown to 2005 in for example Figure TS.26 together with decadal average values showing a clear reduction in the upward trend. However I have been unable to find any comment on the most recent data since 1998 and Figure TS.6 and elsewhere only emphasise the historical upward trend. There are several factors such as sulphate aerosols and indirect solar radiation discussed in the report which could be influencing this lower trend (I made it 0.119C per decade) but I have seen no direct comment in relation to the recent downward trend. This is important in view of the wide acceptance of the IPCC overall conclusions for government and international policies. and decisions currently being made. Perhaps you could share with me your own interpretation of the recent data given of course the short timescale involved. Thank you again Roger Coe 2644. 2007-05-14 12:35:36 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:35:36 +0100 from: "Mark New" subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL to: "'Phil Jones'" Phil, Thanks for this - gives me some guidance and I can now go ahead and think through a decision. These emails will not go any further. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 14 May 2007 11:54 > To: Mark New > Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL > > > Mark, > This is a difficult one. I began by reading the paper (v2) and then > the comments on this version. I also briefly looked at the responses > the authors had made to v1. > > The first issue that struck me was that the paper was too long for > GRL, but your unit calculation seems to indicate it will fit.I have > noticed > many GRL papers going over the old 4 page limit ! > > There seem 2 issues related to the paper, firstly their usage of > the various MSU/sonde series (which rev 1 takes issue with) and second > the issue of the model uncertainties (and the use of the QUMP > simulations to address that). > > Reviewers 2 and 3 clearly don't understand what the authors have done > wrt this second issue. The paper is NOT an extension of Santer et al. > (2005, 2006), as it doesn't relate to inter-model uncertainty, but to > intra-model uncertainty - with just the one model (HadCM3). I can't see > how the authors could have made it clearer what they have done. Maybe > if they went for JGR they would have more time to explain - say which > parameterizations were perturbed etc. > > The work is clearly novel enough for GRL - it is clearly too novel for > Rev 3. > > Rev 2 isn't that up with the upper air datasets when he/she suggests > referring to Angell/Oort and Prabhakara. These datasets were dismissed > in the CCSP report - which I was on the review panel for, by the way. > > So, in summary so far, Rev 2 and 3 are not aware of the way climate > modelling is going, haven't understood the paper and are not that aware > of what are good or bad upper air datasets. > > The more difficult review is #1 (Christy). He is saying the paper can > be > published (and he likes the way some aspects are illustrated), but he > wants his data and his interpretation of it to come to the fore. > > His review contains a number of inaccuracies: > > 1. There was warming before 1979. All this controversy wouldn't > have happened if the satellite record had started in 1975. There was a > climate jump in 1976/77 and this is alluded to in the AR4 Chapter > on Obs (you can download all the chapters now by the way). > There was also some warming before this at the global surface > and in HadAT2 which goes back to 1958. > > 2. There are other MSU analyses (Vinnikov and Grody, UMd and > also Zou et al by NOAA). These don't produce a 2LT series like > UAH and RSS, but for Ch 2 they get more warming than either > UAH and RSS - Zou et al is for a later period from 1987, but this > does include the problematic period Christy goes on about in 1992. > > These datasets are clearly not one of the 8 datasets that Christy et al > (2007) refer to. > > 3. Christy shouldn't refer to yet to be submitted papers. > > 4. He also shouldn't say assumed anthropogenic warming as that is > peripheral to the arguments in the paper. > > 5. You can't use Reanalyses - as they have their own problems. They are > better after 1987, OK for some things from 1979, but not trends. This is > concluded in the IPCC Chapter as well. > > 6. My own view of all this, is that it is the sondes that are likely > wrong, > especially in the tropics. There is a mixture at some sites of day and > night launches and these require different adjustments. RSS is about > right, as it agrees with the surface. The latter just cannot be that > wrong > over the period from 1979. There is a lot more going into the surface > data than the sondes. The surface isn't an issue raised in the paper > though. > > Going with my thought of suggesting this should go to JGR, where they > can expand on the arguments isn't going to get over the Christy review. > He > will make the same points. > > I'm probably biased but my own view is that the paper is probably OK, > and it > is the reviewers that are not the problem. Christy is defending his > career and the > other two seem to not fully understand what the QUMP runs with HadCM3 > are about. > > I guess this making these sorts of decisions is what being an editor is > all > about. Can you not consult some of your other GRL editors, or the > principal > one? > > I am assuming that all of the above is just between you and me. > Some of my emails over the last few years have begun appearing on > Climate Audit with delays of about 1 hour up to 2 years. I'm only > joking in this last sentence, but I am being more careful what I > say in some emails. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 19:23 10/05/2007, you wrote: > >Thanks Phil, > > > >What I am looking for is a comment on the three reviews, particularly > >whether you think they are fair, and any comments in the reviews you > think > >are not fair, or plain wrong. > > > >Finally, a comment on what (if anything) you think is new from a GRL > >perspective; to be published in GRL it has to be one or more of the > >following, therefore needing rapid publication: > > > >Important new science at the forefront of an AGU discipline > >Innovative research with interdisciplinary/broad geophysical application > >Instrument or methods manuscript that introduces new techniques with > >important geophysical applications > > > >Thanks, > > > >Mark > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 10 May 2007 17:51 > >To: Mark New > >Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL > > > > > > Dear Mark, > > I thought I'd try and look during the HC Review. > > I didn't realise who was involved - some of the > > authors were around the Table. So definitely > > has to be next week! I can guess who the > > reviewers are !!! > > > > Do you want a yes/no response to what you should > > do - with reasons, or do you want a formalish review? > > Hopefully the former - is there anything new, are > > the reviews reasonable etc? > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Dear Phil, > > > > > > By next week would be fine, sooner even better! > > > > > > I attach the following: > > > > > > Version 1: manuscript and reviews > > > > > > Version 2: authors letter, response to reviewers, revised manuscript, > > > reviews. > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > > >> Sent: 08 May 2007 20:43 > > >> To: Mark New > > >> Subject: Re: Advice on paper submitted to GRL > > >> Importance: High > > >> > > >> > > > >> Mark, > > >> I'm in Tarragona at the moment, but will be in Exeter > > >> tomorrow for the rest of the week (HC review). > > >> I can look but only next week, if that is soon > > >> enough. > > >> I will likely check in at UEA on Sunday, so > > >> send if timing is OK with you. > > >> > > >> There will likely be quite a bit to catch up with > > >> next week, as MOHC doesn't allow wifi and I doubt > > >> the hotel will have a connection. > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Phil > > >> > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Phil > > >> > > >> > > >> Phil, > > >> > > > >> > I am struggling to make a decision on a paper by Peter Thorne that > > >> uses > > >> > the > > >> > Met Office perturbed physics ensemble to address the > > >> MSU-Radiosonde-GCM > > >> > "debate". I wonder if you would mind reading the paper, and the > > >> reviews > > >> > (which are by good people) and letting me know whether you think it > > >> > actually > > >> > take the science forward significantly? > > >> > > > >> > Included below are the authors' statement about the significance of > > >> the > > >> > work, and the abstract. If you can look at this, I will send the > two > > >> > version1 and 2 of the article, and all the reviewers comments. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > > > >> > Mark > > >> > > > >> > -------------------- > > >> > > > >> > 1. We address the continuing debate over the reality or otherwise > of a > > >> > reported discrepancy between climate model and observed behaviour > in > > >> > tropospheric temperature trends within the tropics. > > >> > > > >> > 2. We show that climate models are highly constrained, and that the > > >> > discrepancy could arise through observational dataset uncertainties > / > > >> and > > >> > or > > >> > choice of time period. > > >> > > > >> > 3. It implies that a discrepancy is less likely to exist than > > >> previously > > >> > reported and therefore climate models are more likely to be grossly > > >> > adequate > > >> > within the tropics. It therefore impacts most of the climate > science > > >> and > > >> > adaptation and mitigation communities. > > >> > > > >> > Abstract Controversy remains over whether climate models capture > > >> > observed changes in tropospheric temperature structure, > particularly > > >> in > > >> > the > > >> > tropics. In this region, theory and climate models predict > > >> tropospheric > > >> > amplification of surface temperature perturbations and trends. > > >> > Observations, > > >> > although exhibiting amplification of perturbations, show either > weak > > >> > amplification or damping of trends over the satellite era. This has > > >> led > > >> to > > >> > significant concerns regarding the reliability of climate models. > > >> Here, > > >> we > > >> > examine whether comparisons of modeled and observed trend > > >> amplification > > >> > factors are sensitive to structural uncertainties in both climate > > >> models > > >> > and > > >> > observational datasets, and to temporal sampling uncertainty. When > > >> > considered in combination, these uncertainties preclude a finding > of > > >> > "irreconcilable differences" between modeled and observed > > >> amplification > > >> > factors. This conflicts with a recent expert assessment which > > >> concluded > > >> > that, "discrepancies within the tropics remain to be resolved". > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007 > >15:07 > > > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007 > >15:07 > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > 4692. 2007-05-14 17:25:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:25:44 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: cru ts2.1 to: Sandy.Harrison@bristol.ac.uk Hi Sandy, Please see: New, M., M. Hulme and P. Jones (1999). "Representing twentieth- century space-time climate variability. Part I: Development of a 1961-90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology." Journal of Climate 12: 829-856. It's available as a PDF here: http://www.ouce.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/research/publications/ new_et_al_20th_climate_part1_JoC.pdf On page 832 they discuss the definition of a 'wet day' - the decision is to go with 0.1 mm. However, do bear in mind that the CRU TS 2.1 'rd0' variable is, in part, derived from monthly precipitation - where the relationship to daily rain day definition is obviously more convoluted! Our local precipitation expert tells me that, in effect, 'any' precipitation may be used to define a rain day. I think this is taking advantage of rain being measured to one decimal place! Hope that helps, Harry On 14 May 2007, at 7:57, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:42:37 +0100 >> From: "SP Harrison, Geographical Sciences" >> >> To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> Subject: cru ts2.1 >> Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01SIcReq/ >> uhOp7yIrkdq7tPuOA6YediLr9P9yF8Yqedqu1huU=; >> token_authority=postmaster@bristol.ac.uk >> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (Win32) >> X-Spam-Score: -21.4 >> X-Spam-Level: --------------------- >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> Hi Phil, >> >> No, I am not bugging you about updates -- although it would be >> good to know where you are with this. >> >> Actually, I would like to know what threshold (if any) was applied >> in the definition of a wet day in the CRU TS2.1 data set. I have >> not been able to find this anywhere in the documentation. The >> reason I'm interested is that we are trying to derive wet days >> from GCM output, and I am wondering whether we can use/should use >> the sort of threshold that might be used with real climate data .. >> or whether we should deal with the drizzle problem by setting the >> threshold higher. So the first step is ... what is the threshold >> used in the CRU data sets. >> >> Any thoughts on this would be appreciated ... >> >> Cheers, >> Sandy >> >> ---------------------- >> Professor Sandy P. Harrison >> University of Bristol >> School of Geographical Sciences >> University Road >> Bristol BS8 1SS >> UK >> Sandy.Harrison@bristol.ac.uk >> >> PA - Katie Pellicci >> Katie.Pellicci@bristol.ac.uk > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 3148. 2007-05-15 11:52:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:52:29 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: Monsoon reconstruction paper to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Looking forward to the new TS 3.0(!!!!) and the new scPDSI calculated from it. How will Gerard determine where it is rubbish? From my own perspective, I would prefer to determine that myself. Will I send the paper to Climate Audit? Have I gone senile or insane? Since not yet on both accounts, nah! I agree that Venus is better than Mars for those bastards. It is more hell-like by all accounts. The audit folks might want to debate the existence of greenhouse warming there as well. Not even Bush would recommend sending astronauts to Venus. Mars after being bathed in cosmic rays for months to get there is okay by his logic. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On May 15, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Ed, No worries. There are no data over the high Himalaya for most of the period before 1950. The high-res grids relax to the climatology, which doesn't go well in the scPDSI calculations. We will have a new version of CRU TS soon, which after much deliberation we've decided to call CRU TS 3.0 !!!! Gerard now has a permanent job at KNMI and he will be calculating scPDSI at some point (as he did before, but also with a Penman PET calculation as well as Thornthwaite). He's going to also mask out the areas of the world where it calculates rubbish. I'll look at the paper if/when I get some time. I'm sure it is up to the usual standard. When it comes out, send it off to Climate Audit. This will take the pressure of me and Keith. Those people should all be sent off to Mars, better still Venus ! Cheers Phil At 15:35 15/05/2007, you wrote: Hi all, I am attaching a paper that I have submitted to The Palaeobotanist (based on an invited talk at a meeting in Lucknow last November) on the experimental reconstruction of the summer monsoon over India and the Tibetan Plateau from tree rings in High Asia. Much more needs to be done on the topic, but it shows the potential anyway. Since the paper uses scPDSI based on CRU TS 2.1 data, and I was somewhat critical of said data prior to 1950 over the Tibetan Plateau, I thought you should see it. FYI and any comments are appreciated. Cheers, Ed  ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [2]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Hi all, I am attaching a paper that I have submitted to The Palaeobotanist (based on an invited talk at a meeting in Lucknow last November) on the experimental reconstruction of the summer monsoon over India and the Tibetan Plateau from tree rings in High Asia. Much more needs to be done on the topic, but it shows the potential anyway. Since the paper uses scPDSI based on CRU TS 2.1 data, and I was somewhat critical of said data prior to 1950 over the Tibetan Plateau, I thought you should see it. FYI and any comments are appreciated. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [3]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1337. 2007-05-16 11:27:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:27:52 +0100 from: Sandy.Harrison@bristol.ac.uk subject: Re: cru ts2.1 to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, We corresponded some time ago about the need for an updated version of the gridded time series data sets going through to 2006. We are using TS2.1 for our historical veg runs, and this finishes in 2002 -- whereas it would be nice to see what we predict for recent years. I guess this is what will constitute TS3.0 .......and I'm glad to hear that this will be lodged at BADC and updated regularly. Still it would be good to know when we could expect this to be on-line. And I apologise up-front for nagging you about this -- and especially if the gridded data set is already available and I've missed it -- its just that this is such a valuable resource !! Cheers, sandy Quoting Phil Jones : > > Sandy, > Not quite sure what you mean here. There is the 2006 > temperature estimate on the main CRU web site. It is also > in Ch 3 of the AR4 of WG1 - that can now be downloaded > (see below). > > Once Harry finishes all the work on CRU TS 3.0, he will > install it all at BADC. They will then run the updates every > 6 months, so they will be able to run July-Dec 06 immediately. > They will be able to do Jan-Jun 07 about Aug/Sep time. > > I'll then write a paper on the dataset. > > Cheers > Phil > > > We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and > > layout corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a > > result we are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all > > Chapters, and Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, > > List of acronyms) publicly available from the WG1 home page ( > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) today. The supplementary material (for > those chapters that have it) is nearly complete and will be added > shortly. > > > At 09:31 16/05/2007, you wrote: > >Thanks for this Phil ! Any news of the CRU update to 2006 ? > >S > > > > > > > >Quoting Phil Jones : > > > > > > > > Sandy, > > > Here's the two New et al papers from 1999 and 2000. > > > 0.1mm is quite high for GCM/RCM precip as it is for > > > a largish box. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 11:06 15/05/2007, SP Harrison, Geographical Sciences wrote: > > > >Thanks for this prompt response Harry. > > > >I'm afraid that I could not access the New et al paper -- > access > > > >denied -- so if you could email me a pdf I'd be grateful. > > > >The 0.1 threshold sounds very low for most GCMs, so we may have > to > > > >play around with this -- but it gives me a starting place. > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Sandy > > > > > > > >--On 14 May 2007 17:25 +0100 Ian Harris > wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi Sandy, > > > >> > > > >>Please see: > > > >> > > > >>New, M., M. Hulme and P. Jones (1999). "Representing > twentieth- > > > century > > > >>space-time climate variability. Part I: Development of a > 1961-90 > > > mean > > > >>monthly terrestrial climatology." Journal of Climate 12: > 829-856. > > > >> > > > >>It's available as a PDF here: > > > >> > > > >>http://www.ouce.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/research/publications/ > > > >>new_et_al_20th_climate_part1_JoC.pdf > > > >> > > > >>On page 832 they discuss the definition of a 'wet day' - the > > > decision is > > > >>to go with 0.1 mm. > > > >> > > > >>However, do bear in mind that the CRU TS 2.1 'rd0' variable is, > in > > > part, > > > >>derived from monthly precipitation - where the relationship to > > > daily > > > >>rain day definition is obviously more convoluted! > > > >> > > > >>Our local precipitation expert tells me that, in effect, 'any' > > > >>precipitation may be used to define a rain day. I think this > is > > > taking > > > >>advantage of rain being measured to one decimal place! > > > >> > > > >>Hope that helps, > > > >> > > > >>Harry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------- > > > >Professor Sandy P. Harrison > > > >University of Bristol > > > >School of Geographical Sciences > > > >University Road > > > >Bristol BS8 1SS > > > >UK > > > >Sandy.Harrison@bristol.ac.uk > > > > > > > >PA - Katie Pellicci > > > >Katie.Pellicci@bristol.ac.uk > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >------ > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > > > > 4302. 2007-05-16 11:41:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:41:28 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Don't become a TV presenter and forget the day job ! to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, well it would be a shame if you don't go, we certainly won't have much of a session in that case. I hope you will go, but I agree that if we cannot even put together a session plan, we're in a tight spot... Lorraine has a conference near Pisa the week before, so it was an easy call for me to go in any case, but it will be quite a disappointment if there is no Holocene session. I will contact Mike McCracken to see if there is anything he can do, talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Yes - I have all from you. One day you should get a more complete paper to look over. No idea when though. I'm getting more annoyed with IUGG - thinking of not bothering to go, even! I can't think of who else to contact on this. The email I sent went to all those who should be taking action! None of the people who sent abstracts for our session know anything, except you - and that is that there is complete chaos. Cheers Phil At 16:15 16/05/2007, you wrote: thanks Phil, will continue to bug these guys myself. I think you have everything you need from me on the review paper, right? I'm hoping the IUGG people get back to you soon. This has been truly appalling! mike Phil Jones wrote: I'll put a PS at the front to Gavin re Wengen! Keith and Tim here are doing things on this. Gene has sent something to Caspar - maybe that is like sending something to a black hole. Also Francis told me last week he'll be doing something in the next few weeks. SO, we'll need your part soon ! Remind Caspar is you're in contact. Also PS to Mike - nothing from Perugia! Mike, Gavin, Probably not worth doing anything at the moment, as this doesn't seem to be getting any attention here. [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm This link to something Mike Hulme has said might be more up your street. There is also a link on the BBC site to the Christian college view of Climate Change/Global Warming. I liked the name of one of contributor's who thought it all a Left-wing plot - Dr Thomas Ice a Senior Theologian at Liberty University. He could certainly do with thawing out. The report contrasted this college with a Menonite one in Virginia. It is amazing how easy it is to guess the side people are on before they speak! Cheers Phil At 16:55 15/05/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote: thanks for forwarding Phil, Its amazing how much nonsense they are able to pack into a few pages. The Beck Co2 stuff we just dealt w/ last week, and most of the other issues have been dealt with in the past at RC. However, if folks think this is getting enough attention, maybe we need a specific RC post debunking this. I've copied to Gavin for his thoughts too, mike Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, FYI, for what it's worth and it isn't worth anything! Mike - you could critique this on Real Climate, but I guess like all of us you're fed up with all this sort of stuff. This is supposed to be a reputable journal. I even had something there years ago - maybe I should withdraw it in protest ! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [6]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [7] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [8]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [10]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1241. 2007-05-16 12:05:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:05:28 +0100 from: "Mike Hulme" subject: RE: FYI: Analysis Finds Large Antarctic Area Has Melted to: "'Phil Jones'" Phil, Nothing scary about this. Quite interesting really. I have never claimed anyone at UEA has "mis-reported" - even if I thought they had. Research paper is at : [1]www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/twp98_summary.shtml Submitted for publication. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 16 May 2007 10:51 To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: Fwd: FYI: Analysis Finds Large Antarctic Area Has Melted Mike, Not sure if this is the sort of scaremongering reporting you are referring to! Also not sure who you are referring to as misreporting here at UEA. Maybe Dave, but he's not here now! Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 04:36:14 -0500 To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Analysis Finds Large Antarctic Area Has Melted X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.7 X-UEA-Spam-Level: + X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/science/earth/16melt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=science &pagewanted=print May 16, 2007 Analysis Finds Large Antarctic Area Has Melted By ANDREW C. REVKIN While much of the world has warmed in a pattern that scientists have linked with near certainty to human activities, the frigid interior of Antarctica has resisted the trend. Now, a new satellite analysis shows that at least once in the last several years, masses of unusually warm air pushed to within 310 miles of the South Pole and remained long enough to melt surface snow across a California-size expanse. The warm spell, which occurred over one week in 2005, was detected by scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA and the University of Colorado, Boulder. Balmy air, with a temperature of up to 41 degrees in some places, persisted across three broad swathes of West Antarctica long enough to leave a distinctive signature of melting, a layer of ice in the snow that cloaks the vast ice sheets of the frozen continent. The layer formed the same way a crust of ice can form in a yard in winter when a warm day and then a freezing night follow a snowfall, the scientists said. The evidence of melting was detected by a National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellite, the QuickScat, that uses radar to distinguish between snow and ice as it scans the surfaces of Greenland and Antarctica. There have been other areas in Antarctica where such melt zones have been seen, but they are not common so far inland, said Son Nghiem, a scientist at the NASA laboratory who directed the analysis with Konrad Steffen, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Some melting also occurred at an elevation of more than 6,000 feet, in regions where temperatures usually remain far below freezing year-round. It is too soon to know whether the warm spell was a fluke or a portent, Dr. Nghiem said. "It is vital we continue monitoring this region to determine if a long-term trend may be developing," he said. Dr. Steffen said if such conditions intensified or persisted for a long time, the melting could conceivably produce streams of water that could, as has been measured in Greenland, percolate down to bedrock and allow the thick ice sheets coating the continent to slide a bit faster toward the sea. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company * Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Figure. NASA's QuikScat satellite detected extensive areas of snowmelt, shown in yellow and red, in west Antarctica in January 2005. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1660. 2007-05-17 11:46:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: More Rubbish to: Phil Jones yep, I'm watching the changing of the guard live on TV here! New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point, including the HS! Heard anything back from IUGG yet? I thought Mike's email was helpful, if that doesn't do the trick I don't know what will, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > > Apparently there is a lot in New Scientist this week. As usual > our copy has gone walkabout! > > Blair is out on June 27 - Gordon Brown then ! > > Phil > > > At 16:33 17/05/2007, you wrote: >> as I was looking at this, I had CNN on in the background. Live >> conference, with Bush and Blair both agreeing about the importance of >> significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions. >> >> jokes like Carter have become completely irrelevant. they are a sad >> anachronism... >> >> mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Just in case you've not seen it. Another piece of bad science. >>> >>> It is the same old stuff, so not worth doing anything at Real >>> Climate, >>> but might be worth doing something on Figure 5. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3420. 2007-05-18 06:01:36 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 18 May 2007 06:01:36 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: More unexpected delays.. to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Dave, The tmin and tmax databases, apart from not being synched, seem to have a number of duplicate station entries which are thwarting my synch program. They will therefore have to be 'cleaned', as well as synched, before the separate Australian series can be added, and DTR produced. Cheers Harry 5327. 2007-05-18 08:23:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:23:39 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: This and that to: Phil Jones Hi Phil I am about to depart on 3 consecutive weeks of trips: to AGU next week, then to Crete for a hurricane mtg the following week, and then to Washington DC for a ocean obs mtg. Meanwhile I have been finishing off an article for Scientific American on hurricanes and global warming. It is very trying and they insist on putting in their own figures and ignoring the ones I sent and my suggestions. I have had some influence but not enough. Suspect this will lead to criticism. Comes out about June 22 in July issue. I also was invited to respond to Nature for a new blog they have launched: We have launched the blog at [1]http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback and would very much welcome your input. So you will see one there that I posted. The New Scientist link looks useful. Cheers Kevin Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Been meaning to email you! Good that this error in Fig 3.18 was spotted and caught in time. Thanks for the ppt a few weeks ago. I've used them (well the earlier ones from Paris) in at least 4 talks - the Royal Society in London, the French Academy, in Seoul and at a local sugar beet research station and at a meeting in Spain last week. Good also that now I can now leave a copy - basically about 20 slides that constitute 30 minutes' talk. Only done this for the last talk as the others were before the end of April. This link is good if you've not seen it. [2]http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 Helps to counter some of the awful papers that seem to be appearing (by Carter in some Australian metallurgical magazine and David Bellamy - in the Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers in the UK). I won't bother emailing these unless you really want to read this rubbish. Cheers Phil At 04:41 18/05/2007, you wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by moffatt.cgd.ucar.edu id l4I3fCYE001083 Halldor I am attaching a corrected version of the figure. You can see the reason it was changed was to alter the units from K/decade to degrees C per decade but unfortunately the label was altered also. Kevin Trenberth > Dear Martin, > > I hope that this figure will also be quickly fixed in the online version > of the > report. It's figures from the online version that find their way to public > presentations. This one (3.18) is very useful for model comparisons > (such as fig 9.1), but in its current form cannot be used for this > purpose. > > Furthermore, given the obscene amount of airtime the purported difference > between satellite data and surface measurements has gotten over the years > (even though the issue really was dealt with almost a decade ago), this > figure (3.18) is one of the more important ones in the chapter. > > Sincerely, > > Halldr > > > On 5/17/07, Martin Manning [3] wrote: >> >> Dear Dr Bjornsson >> >> Thank you for identifying this typographic problem with Figure 3.18 of >> the >> WG I report. It appears that the X-axis label font was changed during >> the >> copy-editing and layout stages which led to the values on the axis no >> longer >> lining up with the grid lines. Thanks to your alertness we now expect to >> be >> able to fix this before the report is printed. >> >> Regards >> Martin Manning >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Typo in axis label fig 3.18 >> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:21:25 +0000 >> From: halldor bjornsson [4] >> Reply-To: [5]halldor@vedur.is >> To: [6]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov >> >> >> >> On p. 267 (page 33 of the 103 pages in chapter 3 downloaded from >> >> [7]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Ch03.pdf) in the >> MSU discussion there is this paragraph: >> >> "Global time series from each of the MSU records are shown >> in Figure 3.17 and calculated global trends are depicted in >> Figure 3.18. These show a global cooling of the stratosphere >> (T4) of 0.32C to 0.47 C per decade and a global warming >> of the troposphere (T2) of 0.04C to 0.20C per decade for >> the period 1979 to 2004." >> >> This is fine, no problem there.... >> >> The problem is that figure 3.18 shows negative trends throughout, - but >> with >> a marker line cutting through -0.2 on the X axis, but not 0, leading >> me to suspect that there is a typo in the X axis labels in Fig 3.18.... >> >> Is this a typo? >> >> Sincerely, >> Halldor >> -- >> Halldr Bjrnsson >> Deildarstj. Ranns. & run >> Veursvi Veurstofu slands >> >> Halldr Bjornsson >> Weatherservice R & D >> Icelandic Met. Office >> >> >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> IPCC WGI TSU >> NOAA Chemical Sciences Division >> 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 >> Boulder, CO 80305, USA >> Phone: +1 303 497 7072 >> Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 >> Email: >> [8]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov >> >> >> -- >> Recommended Email address: [9]mmanning@al.noaa.gov >> Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >> NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >> 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >> Boulder, CO 80305, USA > > > -- > Halldr Bjrnsson > Deildarstj. Ranns. & run > Veursvi Veurstofu slands > > Halldr Bjornsson > Weatherservice R & D > Icelandic Met. Office > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [10]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [11]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [12]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [13]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 850. 2007-05-18 14:48:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "myles" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Jesse Kenyon" , "Reto Knutti" , "Tom Knutson" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Daithi Stone" , "Stott, Peter" , "Michael Wehner" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "francis" , "Gabi Hegerl" , "Hans von Storch" , "Karl Taylor" date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:48:14 -0700 (PDT) from: "Tim Barnett" subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: "Gabi Hegerl" hi gabi.....some suggestions in haste for the oceans...daily averaged near surface (10m?) wind stress 1950 on (at least). also daily averaged heat budget components at the ocean surface. stuff like this for baroclinic components of change. i assume sea ice is a given. hi freq data to look at storm track changes. over land....add daily snow cover and major river flows into the oceans if the models have them. add soil moisture, probably monthly. with will have lots to do with hydrological cycle. start from 1950 at least global...let's see those clouds. they are supposed to be 'the' key climate variable, models do them poorly and we have new satellite data sets to see just how poorly or how well. runs....beyond D&A...yes i agree we need a whole set of runs with different future GHG forcings. since the memory is in the ocean and that partially determines the response time (what's in the pipeline) we need emission reduction scenarios to see what track we are on as we begin to reduce co2. e.g. how much do we need to reduce emissions to ensure Lake Mead does not go dry? in the future there will be lots of stress on 'what do we have to do NOT to exceed some threshold" yes continuous runs 1900-2100. the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some famous models that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer....so let's preempt any potential problems. > Hi all. > > From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the > 5AR run > proposal, but I am not sure > I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and > he said getting > suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. > My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and > then propose > it at the WGCM meeting. > > I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am > asking you to > add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but > please keep in mind that > we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work > with in the next > years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to > haul the data over > etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few > ensemble members etc > get sent...) > > Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful > > Gabi > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gabriele Hegerl > Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > Box 90227 > Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 > email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > > 2297. 2007-05-18 15:58:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: myles , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch , Karl Taylor date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:58:24 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: Gabi Hegerl Hello everybody, We're having a lively debate in the Hadley Centre about whether climate change experiments should be run as part of the model development process, ie whether model developers should test their model against climate change as they are developing their model. I think it might be worthwhile us developing and expressing a view on this as we don't want to risk getting into a position where attribution results in AR5 are undermined by the development and model tuning procedure adopted by modelling centres. Also I don't think you quite captured the point that another reason for separating out the ghg response from the response to other forcings is to aid understanding, as we are finding out in trying to understand the precipitation response. I think that requesting ALL, GHG, and NAT ensembles would be the basic set. Best wishes, Peter On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:33 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi all. > > From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the > 5AR run > proposal, but I am not sure > I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and > he said getting > suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. > My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and > then propose > it at the WGCM meeting. > > I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am > asking you to > add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but > please keep in mind that > we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work > with in the next > years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to > haul the data over > etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few > ensemble members etc > get sent...) > > Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful > > Gabi > 5066. 2007-05-18 17:26:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, myles , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:26:15 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: Karl Taylor Hi all, I see this. On the other hand, when some republicans did a grilling about attribution in some house subcommittee, I was very happy to be able to resort to Tim's argument that the model runs were older than the heat uptake data and therefore, there was no secret tuning in the 2001 ocean attribution results.. So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing... and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested. Slippery slope... I suspect Karl is right and our clout is not enough to prevent the modellers from doing this if they can. We do loose the ability, though, to use the tuning variable for attribution studies. Should we ask to admit in their submission what variables were considered when tuning, and if any climate change data were considered and at what temporal and spatial representation (global mean trend?), and advise that we will not be able to use those models for any future attribution diagrams? That would at least lay it in the open... Gabi Karl Taylor wrote: > Hi Peter and all, > > There will clearly be different perspectives on this. A model > developer will want to make use of all available observational > information to help decide whether his model is realistic or not. > > We can envision two candidate models that appear equivalent in most > respects, but one fails to produce ENSO's. The developer would choose > the one that simulated ENSO. > > Likewise, suppose two candidate models were identical in most > respects, but one could accurately simulate the climate of the 20th > century (when all forcings were included), whereas the second had a > very low global sensitivity and produced too little warming. The > developer would again want to choose the model that reproduced the > observed trends. In fact this model would probably produce a better > estimate when forced by future emissions scenarios too (because, > presumably, its sensitivity is closer to the truth). > > It would be hard to argue that information about 20th century trends > shouldn't be used in model development. > > I agree that this may rule out attribution studies (following the > established approaches), but wouldn't we have to argue that > attribution studies are more important that model projections to > convince the groups not to consider trends in the model development > cycle? > > cheers, > Karl > > > peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > >> Hello everybody, >> >> We're having a lively debate in the Hadley Centre about whether climate >> change experiments should be run as part of the model development >> process, ie whether model developers should test their model against >> climate change as they are developing their model. I think it might be >> worthwhile us developing and expressing a view on this as we don't want >> to risk getting into a position where attribution results in AR5 are >> undermined by the development and model tuning procedure adopted by >> modelling centres. >> >> Also I don't think you quite captured the point that another reason for >> separating out the ghg response from the response to other forcings is >> to aid understanding, as we are finding out in trying to understand the >> precipitation response. I think that requesting ALL, GHG, and NAT >> ensembles would be the basic set. >> >> Best wishes, >> Peter >> >> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:33 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on >>> the 5AR run >>> proposal, but I am not sure >>> I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, >>> and he said getting >>> suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. >>> My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, >>> and then propose >>> it at the WGCM meeting. >>> >>> I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am >>> asking you to >>> add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild >>> (but please keep in mind that >>> we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will >>> work with in the next >>> years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling >>> centres to haul the data over >>> etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few >>> ensemble members etc >>> get sent...) >>> >>> Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful >>> >>> Gabi >>> >> -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 1761. 2007-05-20 10:46:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "myles" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Jesse Kenyon" , "Reto Knutti" , "Tom Knutson" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Daithi Stone" , "Michael Wehner" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "francis" , "Hans von Storch" date: Sun, 20 May 2007 10:46:15 +0200 from: "Knutti Reto" subject: RE: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: "Gabi Hegerl" , "Karl Taylor" Hi Gabi, Even if the 20th century trends are not explicitly used in tuning, model developers will remember how the previous model versions compared to observed trends. Also, they will look at climate sensitivity and TCR, which is related to the observed trends. So I think it's hard to argue that the observed trends should not be used. May I suggest a slight rewording of the following sentence... "Reto points out that there is a problem with 20th century forcing for the runs with carbon cycle that makes the use of non-CO2 forcing problematic, but essential for getting the 20th century right. EMIC tests might help." into... Reto points out there is a problem with the non CO2 forcing in the runs with interactive carbon cycle. Non CO2 must be included in order to provide meaningful projections and to be able to compare the 20th century model results to observations. However, the idea of estimating the carbon cycle feedbacks based on comparing a coupled carbon cycle simulation with a carbon cycle under constant climate assumes no other forcings. EMICs with coupled carbon cycle (as already used in AR4) may help with tests on how to deal with the non CO2 forcing. Apart from that, I think your document gets the main points. Regards from Zurich, Reto ---------------------------------------------- Reto Knutti Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Universittstrasse 16 (CHN N 12.1) CH-8092 Zrich, Switzerland reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir Phone: +41 44 632 35 40 Fax: +41 44 633 10 58 ---------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:hegerl@duke.edu] > Sent: Freitag, 18. Mai 2007 23:26 > To: Karl Taylor > Cc: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk; myles; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; > Phil Jones; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; Reto Knutti; Tom Knutson; Toru > Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi > Stone; Michael Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; francis; Hans von Storch > Subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th > > Hi all, > > I see this. On the other hand, when some republicans did a grilling > about attribution in some house subcommittee, > I was very happy to be able to resort to Tim's argument that the model > runs were older than the heat uptake data > and therefore, there was no secret tuning in the 2001 ocean attribution > results.. > > So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long > suspected us of doing... > and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between > aerosol forcing and > sensitivity also suggested. > Slippery slope... I suspect Karl is right and our clout is not enough > to > prevent the modellers from doing this > if they can. We do loose the ability, though, to use the tuning > variable > for attribution studies. > > Should we ask to admit in their submission what variables were > considered when tuning, and if any climate > change data were considered and at what temporal and spatial > representation (global mean trend?), > and advise that we will not be able to use those models for any future > attribution diagrams? That would at least lay it in the open... > > Gabi > > Karl Taylor wrote: > > > Hi Peter and all, > > > > There will clearly be different perspectives on this. A model > > developer will want to make use of all available observational > > information to help decide whether his model is realistic or not. > > > > We can envision two candidate models that appear equivalent in most > > respects, but one fails to produce ENSO's. The developer would > choose > > the one that simulated ENSO. > > > > Likewise, suppose two candidate models were identical in most > > respects, but one could accurately simulate the climate of the 20th > > century (when all forcings were included), whereas the second had a > > very low global sensitivity and produced too little warming. The > > developer would again want to choose the model that reproduced the > > observed trends. In fact this model would probably produce a better > > estimate when forced by future emissions scenarios too (because, > > presumably, its sensitivity is closer to the truth). > > > > It would be hard to argue that information about 20th century trends > > shouldn't be used in model development. > > > > I agree that this may rule out attribution studies (following the > > established approaches), but wouldn't we have to argue that > > attribution studies are more important that model projections to > > convince the groups not to consider trends in the model development > > cycle? > > > > cheers, > > Karl > > > > > > peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > > > >> Hello everybody, > >> > >> We're having a lively debate in the Hadley Centre about whether > climate > >> change experiments should be run as part of the model development > >> process, ie whether model developers should test their model against > >> climate change as they are developing their model. I think it might > be > >> worthwhile us developing and expressing a view on this as we don't > want > >> to risk getting into a position where attribution results in AR5 are > >> undermined by the development and model tuning procedure adopted by > >> modelling centres. > >> > >> Also I don't think you quite captured the point that another reason > for > >> separating out the ghg response from the response to other forcings > is > >> to aid understanding, as we are finding out in trying to understand > the > >> precipitation response. I think that requesting ALL, GHG, and NAT > >> ensembles would be the basic set. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> Peter > >> > >> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:33 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all. > >>> > >>> From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions > on > >>> the 5AR run > >>> proposal, but I am not sure > >>> I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry > yesterday, > >>> and he said getting > >>> suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. > >>> My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, > >>> and then propose > >>> it at the WGCM meeting. > >>> > >>> I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and > am > >>> asking you to > >>> add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild > >>> (but please keep in mind that > >>> we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will > >>> work with in the next > >>> years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling > >>> centres to haul the data over > >>> etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few > >>> ensemble members etc > >>> get sent...) > >>> > >>> Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful > >>> > >>> Gabi > >>> > >> > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gabriele Hegerl > Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > Box 90227 > Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 > email: hegerl@duke.edu, > http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > 757. 2007-05-21 12:20:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl , peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, myles , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:20:45 -0700 from: Karl Taylor subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: Knutti Reto Hi all, Concerning Reto's point about trying to estimate the carbon cycle feedbacks in the absence of climate change: this indeed is not possible if you have "other" forcings. I have been thinking about several related issues concerning the experiment design and which scenarios should be run, and I think feedback analysis in general will need to be done with idealized experiments (like 1%/yr expts.), not with either historically realistic or reasonably realistic scenarios runs (for the future). More on this after I have a chance to write my thoughts down. cheers, Karl Knutti Reto wrote: > Hi Gabi, > > Even if the 20th century trends are not explicitly used in tuning, model developers will remember how the previous model versions compared to observed trends. Also, they will look at climate sensitivity and TCR, which is related to the observed trends. So I think it's hard to argue that the observed trends should not be used. > > May I suggest a slight rewording of the following sentence... > "Reto points out that there is a problem with 20th century forcing for the runs with carbon cycle that makes the use of non-CO2 forcing problematic, but essential for getting the 20th century right. EMIC tests might help." > > into... > Reto points out there is a problem with the non CO2 forcing in the runs with interactive carbon cycle. Non CO2 must be included in order to provide meaningful projections and to be able to compare the 20th century model results to observations. However, the idea of estimating the carbon cycle feedbacks based on comparing a coupled carbon cycle simulation with a carbon cycle under constant climate assumes no other forcings. EMICs with coupled carbon cycle (as already used in AR4) may help with tests on how to deal with the non CO2 forcing. > > Apart from that, I think your document gets the main points. > > Regards from Zurich, > > Reto > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Reto Knutti > Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science > Swiss Federal Institute of Technology > Universittstrasse 16 (CHN N 12.1) > CH-8092 Zrich, Switzerland > reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch > http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir > Phone: +41 44 632 35 40 > Fax: +41 44 633 10 58 > ---------------------------------------------- > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:hegerl@duke.edu] >> Sent: Freitag, 18. Mai 2007 23:26 >> To: Karl Taylor >> Cc: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk; myles; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; >> Phil Jones; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; Reto Knutti; Tom Knutson; Toru >> Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi >> Stone; Michael Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; francis; Hans von Storch >> Subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th >> >> Hi all, >> >> I see this. On the other hand, when some republicans did a grilling >> about attribution in some house subcommittee, >> I was very happy to be able to resort to Tim's argument that the model >> runs were older than the heat uptake data >> and therefore, there was no secret tuning in the 2001 ocean attribution >> results.. >> >> So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long >> suspected us of doing... >> and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between >> aerosol forcing and >> sensitivity also suggested. >> Slippery slope... I suspect Karl is right and our clout is not enough >> to >> prevent the modellers from doing this >> if they can. We do loose the ability, though, to use the tuning >> variable >> for attribution studies. >> >> Should we ask to admit in their submission what variables were >> considered when tuning, and if any climate >> change data were considered and at what temporal and spatial >> representation (global mean trend?), >> and advise that we will not be able to use those models for any future >> attribution diagrams? That would at least lay it in the open... >> >> Gabi >> >> Karl Taylor wrote: >> >>> Hi Peter and all, >>> >>> There will clearly be different perspectives on this. A model >>> developer will want to make use of all available observational >>> information to help decide whether his model is realistic or not. >>> >>> We can envision two candidate models that appear equivalent in most >>> respects, but one fails to produce ENSO's. The developer would >> choose >>> the one that simulated ENSO. >>> >>> Likewise, suppose two candidate models were identical in most >>> respects, but one could accurately simulate the climate of the 20th >>> century (when all forcings were included), whereas the second had a >>> very low global sensitivity and produced too little warming. The >>> developer would again want to choose the model that reproduced the >>> observed trends. In fact this model would probably produce a better >>> estimate when forced by future emissions scenarios too (because, >>> presumably, its sensitivity is closer to the truth). >>> >>> It would be hard to argue that information about 20th century trends >>> shouldn't be used in model development. >>> >>> I agree that this may rule out attribution studies (following the >>> established approaches), but wouldn't we have to argue that >>> attribution studies are more important that model projections to >>> convince the groups not to consider trends in the model development >>> cycle? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everybody, >>>> >>>> We're having a lively debate in the Hadley Centre about whether >> climate >>>> change experiments should be run as part of the model development >>>> process, ie whether model developers should test their model against >>>> climate change as they are developing their model. I think it might >> be >>>> worthwhile us developing and expressing a view on this as we don't >> want >>>> to risk getting into a position where attribution results in AR5 are >>>> undermined by the development and model tuning procedure adopted by >>>> modelling centres. >>>> >>>> Also I don't think you quite captured the point that another reason >> for >>>> separating out the ghg response from the response to other forcings >> is >>>> to aid understanding, as we are finding out in trying to understand >> the >>>> precipitation response. I think that requesting ALL, GHG, and NAT >>>> ensembles would be the basic set. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:33 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all. >>>>> >>>>> From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions >> on >>>>> the 5AR run >>>>> proposal, but I am not sure >>>>> I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry >> yesterday, >>>>> and he said getting >>>>> suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. >>>>> My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, >>>>> and then propose >>>>> it at the WGCM meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and >> am >>>>> asking you to >>>>> add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild >>>>> (but please keep in mind that >>>>> we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will >>>>> work with in the next >>>>> years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling >>>>> centres to haul the data over >>>>> etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few >>>>> ensemble members etc >>>>> get sent...) >>>>> >>>>> Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful >>>>> >>>>> Gabi >>>>> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl >> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> > 158. 2007-05-21 12:24:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:24:31 +0530 from: IPCC SyR Review subject: [Wg1-ar4-las] Expert review of draft IPCC Synthesis Report - to: IPCC SyR Review Message from the IPCC Chair Dear colleagues The first draft of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is now available for joint expert/government review. As you have submitted expert comments on one or more of the draft Working Group reports, we would like to invite you to undertake an expert review of the draft Synthesis Report. This invitation also extends to Lead Authors and Review Editors of the three Working Group reports. However, if you have agreed to act as Review Editor for a topic of the Synthesis Report, please do not submit comments on this specific topic to ensure an impartial conduct of the review process of the Synthesis Report. Details contained in this message on how to access the draft are sent to you on a confidential basis in your personal capacity as expert reviewer. You may not distribute, cite or quote from this draft, which will undergo appropriate revision by the Core Writing Team in response to comments received. You may access the draft via the following website (note password is case sensitive): http://www.ipcc-syr.teri.res.in/EXPR username: ar4syregr password: syrEgrev07 The deadline for submission of your review comments is 15 July 2007. Due to tight time schedules, it is essential that we receive your comments by this deadline. Thank you very much in advance for your input to this important report. With warm personal regards, Yours sincerely, RK Pachauri Chair, IPCC _______________ Technical Support Unit for the Synthesis Report Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The Energy and Resources Institute India Habitat Centre Lodhi Road New Delhi, 110 003 INDIA T: + 91 11 2468 2116 F: + 91 11 2468 2144 E: syr.review@teri.res.in _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las 5265. 2007-05-21 22:16:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Gabi Hegerl" , , "myles" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Jesse Kenyon" , "Reto Knutti" , "Tom Knutson" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Daithi Stone" , "Michael Wehner" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "francis" , "Hans von Storch" date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:16:00 +0200 from: "Knutti Reto" subject: RE: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: "Karl Taylor" Dear Karl, dear all, I agree with you, to estimate the carbon cycle feedback, there should be no other forcings. However, from talking to Jerry it is my understanding that the simulations proposed in the EOS article prescribe CO2 with the intention to derive allowable emissions for that CO2 path. Those allowable emissions should then be given to WGIII to calculate the cost and possible ways to follow such an emission pathway. This however is not meaningful with scenarios without non CO2 forcing. The allowable emissions will already be off today. So to me, it is not clear whether two sets are needed. An idealized set with CO2 only to estimate the carbon cycle feedback, and a set with all forcings and a plausible CO2 scenario for which the allowed emissions can be given to WGIII. Another question: so far, the only simulations proposed are coupled carbon cycle and high resolution short term. Are there any plans to do 1%/yr, 2xCO2, A1B/B1/A2? Not that we would learn much more in terms of climate, but to be able to compare the new and old generation of models, some of those seem crucial. One question that always comes up in every IPCC report is why are the new projections lower or higher than the old ones. Having at least one common scenario is key to answer that. Regarding ensembles, my opinion is that if there are several scenarios (like B1, A1B and A2 in AR4), it would be better to have many members for one and only one or two for the other scenarios, such that there is at least one scenario where many members are available for those who need them. The conclusions from other scenarios are mostly the same anyway. In addition, it would be nice if a minimum number of ensemble members could be done by each group. In many statistical exercises, the number of ensemble members must be the same for each model (signal to noise), which resulted in people often using only one member per model because a few models provided only one. I don't know whether that's feasible though. Reto ---------------------------------------------- Reto Knutti Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Universittstrasse 16 (CHN N 12.1) CH-8092 Zrich, Switzerland reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir Phone: +41 44 632 35 40 Fax: +41 44 633 10 58 ---------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13@llnl.gov] > Sent: Montag, 21. Mai 2007 21:21 > To: Knutti Reto > Cc: Gabi Hegerl; peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk; myles; Tim Barnett; > Nathan Gillett; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; Reto Knutti; > Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; > Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Michael Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; francis; > Hans von Storch > Subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th > > Hi all, > > Concerning Reto's point about trying to estimate the carbon cycle > feedbacks in the absence of climate change: this indeed is not possible > if you have "other" forcings. I have been thinking about several > related issues concerning the experiment design and which scenarios > should be run, and I think feedback analysis in general will need to be > done with idealized experiments (like 1%/yr expts.), not with either > historically realistic or reasonably realistic scenarios runs (for the > future). More on this after I have a chance to write my thoughts down. > > cheers, > Karl > > > Knutti Reto wrote: > > Hi Gabi, > > > > Even if the 20th century trends are not explicitly used in tuning, > model developers will remember how the previous model versions compared > to observed trends. Also, they will look at climate sensitivity and > TCR, which is related to the observed trends. So I think it's hard to > argue that the observed trends should not be used. > > > > May I suggest a slight rewording of the following sentence... > > "Reto points out that there is a problem with 20th century forcing > for the runs with carbon cycle that makes the use of non-CO2 forcing > problematic, but essential for getting the 20th century right. EMIC > tests might help." > > > > into... > > Reto points out there is a problem with the non CO2 forcing in the > runs with interactive carbon cycle. Non CO2 must be included in order > to provide meaningful projections and to be able to compare the 20th > century model results to observations. However, the idea of estimating > the carbon cycle feedbacks based on comparing a coupled carbon cycle > simulation with a carbon cycle under constant climate assumes no other > forcings. EMICs with coupled carbon cycle (as already used in AR4) may > help with tests on how to deal with the non CO2 forcing. > > > > Apart from that, I think your document gets the main points. > > > > Regards from Zurich, > > > > Reto > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Reto Knutti > > Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science > > Swiss Federal Institute of Technology > > Universittstrasse 16 (CHN N 12.1) > > CH-8092 Zrich, Switzerland > > reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch > > http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir > > Phone: +41 44 632 35 40 > > Fax: +41 44 633 10 58 > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:hegerl@duke.edu] > >> Sent: Freitag, 18. Mai 2007 23:26 > >> To: Karl Taylor > >> Cc: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk; myles; Tim Barnett; Nathan > Gillett; > >> Phil Jones; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; Reto Knutti; Tom Knutson; > Toru > >> Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; > Daithi > >> Stone; Michael Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; francis; Hans von Storch > >> Subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I see this. On the other hand, when some republicans did a grilling > >> about attribution in some house subcommittee, > >> I was very happy to be able to resort to Tim's argument that the > model > >> runs were older than the heat uptake data > >> and therefore, there was no secret tuning in the 2001 ocean > attribution > >> results.. > >> > >> So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have > long > >> suspected us of doing... > >> and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation > between > >> aerosol forcing and > >> sensitivity also suggested. > >> Slippery slope... I suspect Karl is right and our clout is not > enough > >> to > >> prevent the modellers from doing this > >> if they can. We do loose the ability, though, to use the tuning > >> variable > >> for attribution studies. > >> > >> Should we ask to admit in their submission what variables were > >> considered when tuning, and if any climate > >> change data were considered and at what temporal and spatial > >> representation (global mean trend?), > >> and advise that we will not be able to use those models for any > future > >> attribution diagrams? That would at least lay it in the open... > >> > >> Gabi > >> > >> Karl Taylor wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Peter and all, > >>> > >>> There will clearly be different perspectives on this. A model > >>> developer will want to make use of all available observational > >>> information to help decide whether his model is realistic or not. > >>> > >>> We can envision two candidate models that appear equivalent in most > >>> respects, but one fails to produce ENSO's. The developer would > >> choose > >>> the one that simulated ENSO. > >>> > >>> Likewise, suppose two candidate models were identical in most > >>> respects, but one could accurately simulate the climate of the 20th > >>> century (when all forcings were included), whereas the second had a > >>> very low global sensitivity and produced too little warming. The > >>> developer would again want to choose the model that reproduced the > >>> observed trends. In fact this model would probably produce a > better > >>> estimate when forced by future emissions scenarios too (because, > >>> presumably, its sensitivity is closer to the truth). > >>> > >>> It would be hard to argue that information about 20th century > trends > >>> shouldn't be used in model development. > >>> > >>> I agree that this may rule out attribution studies (following the > >>> established approaches), but wouldn't we have to argue that > >>> attribution studies are more important that model projections to > >>> convince the groups not to consider trends in the model development > >>> cycle? > >>> > >>> cheers, > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> > >>> peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello everybody, > >>>> > >>>> We're having a lively debate in the Hadley Centre about whether > >> climate > >>>> change experiments should be run as part of the model development > >>>> process, ie whether model developers should test their model > against > >>>> climate change as they are developing their model. I think it > might > >> be > >>>> worthwhile us developing and expressing a view on this as we don't > >> want > >>>> to risk getting into a position where attribution results in AR5 > are > >>>> undermined by the development and model tuning procedure adopted > by > >>>> modelling centres. > >>>> > >>>> Also I don't think you quite captured the point that another > reason > >> for > >>>> separating out the ghg response from the response to other > forcings > >> is > >>>> to aid understanding, as we are finding out in trying to > understand > >> the > >>>> precipitation response. I think that requesting ALL, GHG, and NAT > >>>> ensembles would be the basic set. > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes, > >>>> Peter > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:33 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all. > >>>>> > >>>>> From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions > >> on > >>>>> the 5AR run > >>>>> proposal, but I am not sure > >>>>> I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry > >> yesterday, > >>>>> and he said getting > >>>>> suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this > point. > >>>>> My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with > it, > >>>>> and then propose > >>>>> it at the WGCM meeting. > >>>>> > >>>>> I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and > >> am > >>>>> asking you to > >>>>> add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild > >>>>> (but please keep in mind that > >>>>> we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will > >>>>> work with in the next > >>>>> years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling > >>>>> centres to haul the data over > >>>>> etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few > >>>>> ensemble members etc > >>>>> get sent...) > >>>>> > >>>>> Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful > >>>>> > >>>>> Gabi > >>>>> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Gabriele Hegerl > >> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > >> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > >> Box 90227 > >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 > >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, > >> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > >> > > 3346. 2007-05-22 11:53:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:53:34 +0100 from: "Jon Stewart" subject: RE: BBC science radio Climate Change to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, Thank you very much for this, I'll have a proper read now. I appreciate your advice. I'll perhaps try and touch base with you next week, Best regards, Jon ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 May 2007 11:13 To: Jon Stewart Subject: Re: BBC science radio Climate Change Jon, A brief reply as I'm preparing for a meeting the rest of the week. I'll be back in all next week and also all of June. Other people you might like to contact are Mike Schlesinger - been in the subject since the 1970s, now more involved in policy issues in the US. "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" - been in the subject as long on the climate modelling side. He is now head of Climate Research at the Met Office. There are others, but you have appear to have a critical number with these two and those you had. I guess it's taken 30 years to get to such a high level of acceptance/agreement because the modelling has improved and things are beginning to happen in the observations. There has also been 4 IPCC Reports each one stronger than the previous. There is an interesting chapter at the start of the current 'Science/WG1' report on the history of IPCC. You can get this from (details below). Look at Chapter 1, which gives the predictions from the first 3 reports compared to what has happened. Even though the issue has the prominence it has, not much has happened to reduce future impacts. Many govts are stalling and there is still a band of skeptics making lots of waves trying to muddy waters. The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you're doing your bit. Cheers Phil We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and layout corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a result we are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all Chapters, and Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, List of acronyms) publicly available from the WG1 home page ( [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) today. The supplementary material (for those chapters that have it) is nearly complete and will be added shortly. At 18:24 21/05/2007, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones, The BBC is planning another radio programme on the issue of climate change. Unlike the World Service programme you kindly took part in at the end of last year, this show (on Radio4) will be looking back. We want to put climate change in its historical context, and examine why it's taken 30 years to reach public/ political acceptance. We're still in the early stages at the moment, but I was hoping to ask your advice on people you think should be included. We're looking for pioneers in the field. I've emailed your predecessor, Tom Wigley, along with people like James Hansen and Steve Schneider. Are there other people who have been publishing/ talking about the issue since the 1970s? I'd be very grateful for any advice and guidance you can offer. You can reach me by email, or on 020 7557 1026 Thank you very much for your help, Jon Stewart BBC Science Radio [2]www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science [3]http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/science_in_action.shtml 630 SE Bush House, Strand, London. WC2B 4PH Tel: +44 20 7557 2471 Fax: +44 20 7557 3008 [4]http://www.bbc.co.ukThis e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.Further communication will signify your consent to this. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [5]http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. 3932. 2007-05-22 12:18:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:18:37 +0100 from: "Palutikof, Jean" subject: RE: Interesting thread on Climate Audit to: "Phil Jones" How very unpleasant. The problem is they are like rottweilers - they never give up. So the best policy from the TSU point of view seems to me to make it EASIER for them to access stuff, rather than try to slow them down by stashing it at Harvard/National Met Archives. Then at least we can get it all out in the open without having to wade through accusations of trying to prevent them accessing stuff. Jean ======================== Dr Jean Palutikof Head IPCC WGII TSU Met Office, Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212 Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 jean.palutikof@metoffice.gov.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 May 2007 11:23 To: Palutikof, Jean Subject: RE: Interesting thread on Climate Audit Jean, I presumed WG1 would have a digital archive as well. I know they have been getting fed up with CA requests, but their action seems a little obdurate. FYI, UEA has just sent a final letter to one of CA denying them access to the CRU station temperature database, following their request under FOI. I have sent them some data from a 1990 paper - I amazing had this ! - but this wasn't enough for them. I sent rural temperature data, but they wanted the station data that went into the gridded products in 1990! They seem to have forgotten storage problem issues from the late-80s. Having sent them this data, there then was a threat from one of them - see below. Wei-Chyung Wang was one of the co-authors on the paper from 1990. All the Chinese station histories are available from CMA in Beijing. They have said they will send these (in Chinese) if Keenan requests them and pays them preparation money. Cheers Phil Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows. 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here: [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions. I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response. I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at Albany. Douglas J. Keenan [2]http://www.informath.org phone + 44 20 7537 4122 The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK At 11:12 22/05/2007, you wrote: Interesting. We've been talking about a digital archive here, so we'll keep an eye on this. Jean ======================== Dr Jean Palutikof Head IPCC WGII TSU Met Office, Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212 Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 jean.palutikof@metoffice.gov.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[3] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 May 2007 10:52 To: Palutikof, Jean Subject: Interesting thread on Climate Audit Jean, May be worth a look. WG1 appear to have lodged hard copies of the responses to comments on the various drafts of the chapters with Harvard University Library, where they can be consulted during normal working hours! Maybe this is an issue for each WG separately, rather than a collective IPCC decision. Either way, the skeptics will kick up quite a fuss. Cheers Phil At 14:05 17/05/2007, you wrote: WG1 have a bunch of small changes to make, just as they thought they'd signed-off. So we're taking it in a relaxed fashion - hopefully early August. Jean ======================== Dr Jean Palutikof Head IPCC WGII TSU Met Office, Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212 Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 jean.palutikof@metoffice.gov.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 17 May 2007 13:45 To: Palutikof, Jean Subject: Re: Batjargal Jean, Thanks. I did look for him in Paris at the WG1 meeting. Apologies for not seeing you when I was down last week, but I wanted to get off quickly to drive to Bristol to see Poppy. Are the WG2 chapters nearing completion? We've just found that WG1 changed the axis of Fig 3.18. Someone in Iceland spotted it. I guess they will try to change it before CUP print the thing. Cheers Phil At 11:39 17/05/2007, you wrote: I saw him in Geneva (although it took a while and the exchange of cards for us to recognize each other). He sends his regards. He is currently working for the WMO in New York. Jean ======================== Dr Jean Palutikof Head IPCC WGII TSU Met Office, Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212 Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 jean.palutikof@metoffice.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1694. 2007-05-22 19:10:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:10:10 -0400 from: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" subject: RE: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: "Gabi Hegerl" , "myles" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Jesse Kenyon" , "Reto Knutti" , "Tom Knutson" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Daithi Stone" , "Stott, Peter" , "Michael Wehner" , "Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]" , "Hans von Storch" , "Karl Taylor" Hi all, Sorry for my late response, and also, I apologize if I mention things here already mentioned by others. I have a few comments on Gabi's list ... Start date: I think 1950 would be good, which would allow us continue to usefully do detection on a 50+ year period. This is important, particularly for variables where signal-to-noise ratio is lower (e.g., one can anticipate a lot more work on extremes, and on precip for the AR5). I agree that starting from lower resolution climate of the 20th century runs would probably be preferable to starting from observed intial states. There is the issue of lack of initial spread that Gabi mentions, but also the problem of the ocean models drifting back to their own climates over the initial few decades - an effect that would be confounded with the response to forcing that we would be interested in. For the lower resolution century runs, an 1850 start date would be ok, although I can see arguments for starting earlier. It depends upon how much can be sold to those who have to do the runs. Internal varibility: I think this is going to be a difficult problem. Intra-ensemble variability will give some information, but perhaps not enough, particularly given that we probably have to continue to use dimension reduction approaches, and thus will need to divide whatever internal variability information we have into two samples. Perhaps it will be possible to use lower resolution controls if we can demonstrate that their rendition of internal variability is indistiguishable from that inferred from higher resolution late 20th century ensembles at the scales that we retain in D&A analyses. Another option might be to determine whether we can estimate the high resolution internal variability by appropriately scaling lower resolution estimates of internal variability. We probably need to give some thought to exactly how we would use high res runs for climate change detection given that the fine features in these runs could be filtered out when we use standard dimension reduction approaches. Variables saved: I'm fine with the list, but would urge 50+ years, 1950 onwards. We should add vertically integrated specific humidity to the list (monthly probably ok). What about other things to close the hydrological cycle (run off, evaporation) and some things related to the cryosphere (e.g., snow cover, snow mass, sea ice extent, and to the extent that they are included, mass balance for ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers). Regarding lowest model level winds, or 10m winds ... There can be quite a difference between these two, so we should probably specify the 10m level? A problem is that the 10m wind is a diagnosed quantity, so I think it would be good if the use of a standard scheme for diagnosing the 10-m wind were requested (I think as is done for pmsl). Tuning against the 20th century evolution: The quick reaction I got from folks here was that it was simply still too expensive to generally take that approach, and they couldn't quite conceive of what one might adjust. Those with experience with QUMP like approaches would probably have more insight, and thus are already implicitly doing a bit of tuning of this type. We probably can't legislate against it. As a community, we use a hierarchy of models, and the dividing line between models for which one can and cannot feasibly tune against the 20th century evolution is presumably a function of computing cost (which is reducing for an given level of model complexity) and model formulation. The computing boundary is certainly moving towards making this feasible for more complex models. Whether tuning is desirable presumably depends upon the objective of the modelling exercise. I hope this is useful. If you eventually get this, it means that my current e-mail problems have finally be resolved by our tech support types in Toronto :). Cheers, Francis Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada Toronto: 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 Phone: (416)739-4767, Fax: (416)739-5700 Victoria: PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250)363-8229, Fax: (250) 363-8247 -----Original Message----- From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:hegerl@duke.edu] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:34 AM To: myles; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; Reto Knutti; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael Wehner; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Gabi Hegerl; Hans von Storch; Karl Taylor Subject: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th Hi all. From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the 5AR run proposal, but I am not sure I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and he said getting suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and then propose it at the WGCM meeting. I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am asking you to add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but please keep in mind that we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work with in the next years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to haul the data over etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few ensemble members etc get sent...) Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful Gabi -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 1579. 2007-05-23 14:24:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: myles , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch , Karl Taylor date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:24:13 +0100 (BST) from: Dith Stone subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: Gabi Hegerl Gabi and co., Re the question to me concerning control simulations, I think these are needed to check against drifting models. It certainly was necessary this time around; maybe in several years all the modelling groups will have overcome this but I would feel more comfortable knowing the information would be there. The drift can clearly be quite influential if you are looking for a linear trend response. Re forcing data, for volcanic forcing it would have to be at least monthly, I'd say. Cheers, DA On Fri, 18 May 2007, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi all. > > From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the > 5AR run > proposal, but I am not sure > I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and > he said getting > suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. > My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and > then propose > it at the WGCM meeting. > > I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am > asking you to > add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but > please keep in mind that > we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work > with in the next > years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to > haul the data over > etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few > ensemble members etc > get sent...) > > Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful > > Gabi > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gabriele Hegerl > Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > Box 90227 > Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 > email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Acting Departmental Lecturer, AOPP, Dept. of Physics, U. of Oxford, U.K. Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. MAIL: Dith Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923 E-MAIL: stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk WEBPAGE: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/stoned/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 1941. 2007-05-23 20:25:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:25:31 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Unfortunately.. to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, On 23 May 2007, at 19:58, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Harry, > Hope you're better soon. I thought an email > with that title meant more program problems! Ho, ho! As I'm sure I've mentioned before, if you want to know what's going on you only have to read the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file in /cru/cruts. Most recent (undated) entries are at the end. > That doesn't sound that right, but do get rid of > the cough ! I'm trying! Thanks :-) Harry > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Hi >> >> Had another bad night with the coughing so having a day in bed to see >> if I can win the battle! >> >> Harry >> >> Ian "Harry" Harris >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sceinces >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich, UK NR4 7TJ >> >> > > 5132. 2007-05-24 16:45:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:45:45 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Paper recently out to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Our budget analyst has not yet got back to us on this. -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:40 PM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: Paper recently out Anjuli, Thanks. Phil > Thanks. Let me find out the status of your award. They don't like > inquiries from us program managers, but if you still haven't heard, > it's time to check. > > Anjuli > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:29 AM > To: Bamzai, Anjuli > Subject: Paper recently out > > > >> Anjuli, > This paper has appeared yesterday. It isn't that exciting, > but it is something we said we'd do in our previous grant period - > the one ending end of April. > I sent an email last week to the Chicago office > about the new grant but haven't heard anything back. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ---- > > > 4090. 2007-05-25 12:20:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:20:39 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: Re: [Fwd: non-disclosing NMS] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I have had a good look at the filed letters and other hard-copy that Mike Hulme passed to me when he went to Tyndall. There is no shortage of letters that include restrictions for the use of the data. Unfortunately, most of the correspondence relates to the transactions to acquire climate normals - i.e. not time-series. I have copied a selection of the letters. I have also found a string of letters etc. which relate to a data transfer from DWD. This may be directly relevant to time-series. I have put all of this into your pigeon hole. You mentioned the Mali data. I know that it was quite a time before Daouda felt that he could let us have the data. I think that he got permission (we have passed them to UKMO - at least) from someone. I have no actual proof that they imposed use conditions. Given that he never replies to e-mails, he is hardly likely to deny anything. I know that the Syrians imposed use restrictions when Mike Hulme bought some time-series from them. I do not know where the actual letter was filed. I have failed to find it. I processed the files! In addition, I was fairly sure that the Algerians imposed restrictions (I got the data via Elena and Juerg) when they allowed us to use their data. The e-mail from Mohamed Kadi, who gave permission, is not very explicit with respect to use conditions (copy of this in the collecion of hard-copy). However, Elena was unable to pass the data to us without the permission from Algeria. There must be plenty of other cases where use conditions have been imposed but I can't be more specific at the moment. Cheers David On Thu, 24 May 2007 P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > David, > Thanks. Don't reply to Keenan. I'll do that > next week. He wants countries, but I'm more than > likely to send him dataset names as well as countries. > > Douda's data is likely one. I'm thinking only > of temperature data here, so forget any precip-related > letters. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Phil, >> >> A large number of series were collected by Mike Hulme and Mark New. Mike >> kept a collection of letters etc. from NMAs and other sources. It could >> be that some of the letters are useful. I don't recall many instances of >> us having to agree to not passing data to third parties - but there must >> be some. >> >> I'll think about this ..... >> >> Cheers >> >> David >> >> On Thu, 24 May 2007 P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> >>> David, >>> This is from one of the arch skeptics. Can you have >>> a think and begin to form a list of which datasets >>> came with conditions, written or unwritten? >>> I will do the same as well and send him something >>> next week. It hasn't got to be complete or given >>> much time, but I need to reply with something. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------- Original Message >>> ---------------------------- >>> Subject: non-disclosing NMS >>> From: "D.J. Keenan" >>> Date: Thu, May 24, 2007 9:53 am >>> To: "Phil Jones" >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Phil, >>> >>> According to Steve McIntyre, some of your raw station data >>> was obtained from National Met Services who asked you to >>> not disclose that data. Is this correct? If so, will you send >>> me a list of the countries with which CRU/UEA has such >>> non-disclosure agreements? Or, if it is easier, direct me >>> to an appropriate person to ask for this? >>> >>> Sincerely, Doug >>> >>> >>> >> > > > 2636. 2007-05-25 13:22:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl , myles , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch , Karl Taylor date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:22:30 -0400 from: Tom Knutson subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu Hi Tim et al, I had a quick response from my perspective at GFDL on Tim's comments earlier on the tuning vs good luck of modeling groups. > the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some > famous models that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but > whose forcing is really > different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt > the modeling world will be able to get away with this much > longer....so let's preempt any potential problems. At GFDL, we were generally aware, during the coupled model development process, of the model's equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling. I have a plot on my door showing values of 2.6 to 4.6 at various stages of development. However this was not used as means of tuning the model or in choosing a model. Also we did not run more than historical scenarios with more than one model and then choose between them. In fact we ran historical scenarios with our two pre-tuned models (tuned on their performance at simulating present day climate) and reported on them both. Although our "All forcing" model agrees pretty well with obs over the 20th century (Knutson et al. J. CLimate, 2006), we did not include any indirect aerosol forcing, as that part of the model is still under development. Some estimates are that this "missing forcing" is quite substantial, so when it is included in future experiments, we may well obtain worse agreement than shown in our current All-Forcing runs. -- Tom Knutson Tim Barnett wrote: > hi gabi.....some suggestions in haste > > for the oceans...daily averaged near surface (10m?) wind stress 1950 on > (at least). also daily averaged heat budget components at the ocean > surface. stuff like this for baroclinic components of change. i assume > sea ice is a given. hi freq data to look at storm track changes. > > over land....add daily snow cover and major river flows into the oceans if > the models have them. add soil moisture, probably monthly. with will > have lots to do with hydrological cycle. start from 1950 at least > > global...let's see those clouds. they are supposed to be 'the' key > climate variable, models do them poorly and we have new satellite data > sets to see just how poorly or how well. > > runs....beyond D&A...yes i agree we need a whole set of runs with > different future GHG forcings. since the memory is in the ocean and that > partially determines the response time (what's in the pipeline) we need > emission reduction scenarios to see what track we are on as we begin to > reduce co2. e.g. how much do we need to reduce emissions to ensure Lake > Mead does not go dry? in the future there will be lots of stress on 'what > do we have to do NOT to exceed some threshold" > > yes continuous runs 1900-2100. > > the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some famous models > that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really > different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the > modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer....so let's > preempt any potential problems. > >> Hi all. >> >> From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the >> 5AR run >> proposal, but I am not sure >> I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and >> he said getting >> suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. >> My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and >> then propose >> it at the WGCM meeting. >> >> I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am >> asking you to >> add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but >> please keep in mind that >> we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work >> with in the next >> years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to >> haul the data over >> etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few >> ensemble members etc >> get sent...) >> >> Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful >> >> Gabi >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl >> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> >> > -- Tom Knutson -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab /NOAA | phone: +1-609-452-6509 P.O. Box 308 | fax: +1-609-987-5063 Forrestal Campus, U.S. Rt. 1 N | e-mail: Tom.Knutson@noaa.gov Princeton, New Jersey 08542 U.S.A. | http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk 293. 2007-05-25 16:30:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 25 16:30:41 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: Invitation as Speaker at the Conference Communicating Climate to: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , "Sarah Raper" , Nathan Gillett Hi IPCC authors... would any of you be interested in a trip to Prague in late September to make a keynote on: "How can we make sure that the public understands basic facts the physical science of climate change?" I'll be declining as it's immediately before my heavy 1st-year teaching begins. But I can suggest an alternative if you want. The attached flyer is interesting, together with the meeting itself, because of the climate sceptical position take very firmly by the current Czech president, who has even written a book on the subject I believe! "Blue, not green planet" by President Vaclav Klaus. At first I thought it might be a meeting for sceptics to support the president's position, but the flyer and the programme of speakers don't give this impression -- indeed it sounds more like they are wanting to criticise their president's position! Let me know if anyone's interested! Tim Reply-To: From: "Eva van de Rakt" To: Cc: "'Anka Dobslaw '" Subject: Invitation as Speaker at the Conference Communicating Climate Science, September 25, 2007, Prague Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:11:46 +0200 Organization: Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung Prag X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Acee3wKYgzUoAq0rQJqFvM25itK4yg== X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Tim Osborn, On the occasion of the expert conference "Communicating Climate Science after IPCC - Exchanging Experiences on Communicating Scientific Concepts and Results on Climate Change" we would like to cordially invite you as a main speaker. The conference is organized by the Environmental Centre of the Charles University Prague and the Prague Office of the Heinrich Boell Foundation and will take place at the Charles University in Prague on September 25, 2007. Please find the draft concept and programme of the conference attached. We would appreciate if you could share your expert knowledge with the participants in panel no. 1 (9:15-10:45) on the issue: How can we make sure that the public understands basic facts the physical science of climate change? The working language will be English. Please feel free to contact us for further information. Thanks in advance for your answer. Sincerely, Eva van de Rakt Director Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung Spalena 23 110 00 Prague 1 Czech Republic Tel.: +420 251 814 175 Fax: +420 251 814 174 Email: [1]v.d.rakt@boell.cz 2315. 2007-05-25 17:40:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:40:04 +0100 from: "Jon Stewart" subject: RE: BBC science radio Climate Change to: Hi Phil, That's great, thank you very much. I've just emailed Tom too, to check his availability. Yes, sorry - I meant Colorado not California - too many time zones in my head today! I hope your wait isn't too painful, and you have a good trip home Cheers, Jon -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 May 2007 17:28 To: Jon Stewart Subject: RE: BBC science radio Climate Change Jon, Meeting in Chicago finished suddenly, so I have 4.5 hours to wait now for the plane home. As I said, I can pm days the week of June 4 (except the 5th). This is from memory, so I'll confirm next week. Happy to participate by the way. I'm happy to talk with Tom as well, if you can do the link. Tom is normally in Boulder, but I guess he could be in California that week. Cheers Phil > Dear Phil, > > Thank you very much for your advice. I'm waiting to hear back from > John Mitchell at the moment - it seems this is a busy week for most > people! I hope your meeting has gone well. > > We are getting a better idea of the structure the programme should take. > After we have looked at climate change in it's historical context we > would like to bring things up to date, and I wonder if you would be > happy to participate? > > We are very keen to come and visit you at UEA, both to recount some of > the history (with UEA having been at the forefront of climate research > for 3 decades) but also to find out what's being done now. > > Our proposal is to bring our presenter, Peter Evans to UEA to talk to > you. We are also planning to talk to Tom Wigley, and wondered if you > and he would be happy having a joint discussion with Peter. A reunion > of sorts. Tom is of course in California, so he would join us on an > ISDN line, organised by your press office. I've had a brief chat with > Annie Ogden who thinks that would be possible. > > Do you have any time in the week starting Mon 4th June? I imagine this > will have to be an afternoon thing, because of the time difference > with Tom. Failing that, how about early in the week starting Mon 11th June? > > I'm going to send a similar email to Tom. Hopefully when we all come > back on Tuesday I'll be able to pinpoint a date that suits you both. > > Many thanks in advance, > > Jon Stewart > > BBC Science Radio > www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science > http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/science_in_action.shtml > 630 SE Bush House, Strand, London. WC2B 4PH > Tel: +44 20 7557 2471 > Fax: +44 20 7557 3008 > > ________________________________ > > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 22 May 2007 11:13 > To: Jon Stewart > Subject: Re: BBC science radio Climate Change > > > > Jon, > A brief reply as I'm preparing for a meeting the rest of the week. > I'll be back in all next week and also all of June. > Other people you might like to contact are > > Mike Schlesinger - been in the subject > since the 1970s, now more involved in policy issues in the US. > > "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" > > - been in the subject as long on the climate modelling side. He is > now head of Climate Research at the Met Office. > > There are others, but you have appear to have a critical number with > these two and those you had. > > I guess it's taken 30 years to get to such a high level of > acceptance/agreement because the modelling has improved and things > are beginning to happen in the observations. > > There has also been 4 IPCC Reports each one stronger than the previous. > > There is an interesting chapter at the start of the current > 'Science/WG1' > report on the history of IPCC. You can get this from (details below). > Look > at Chapter 1, which gives the predictions from the first 3 reports > compared to what has happened. > > Even though the issue has the prominence it has, not much has > happened to reduce future impacts. Many govts are stalling and there > is still a band of skeptics making lots of waves trying to muddy waters. > The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you're doing > your bit. > > Cheers > Phil > > > We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and > layout corrections to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a > result we are making the final versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all > Chapters, and Annexes (Glossary, List of authors, List of reviewers, > List of acronyms) publicly available from the WG1 home page ( > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) today. The supplementary material (for > those chapters that have it) is nearly complete and will be added shortly. > > > > > > > At 18:24 21/05/2007, you wrote: > > > > Dear Professor Jones, > > The BBC is planning another radio programme on the issue of climate > change. Unlike the World Service programme you kindly took part in at > the end of last year, this show (on Radio4) will be looking back. > We want to put climate change in its historical context, and examine > why it's taken 30 years to reach public/ political acceptance. > > We're still in the early stages at the moment, but I was hoping to > ask your advice on people you think should be included. We're looking > for pioneers in the field. I've emailed your predecessor, Tom Wigley, > along with people like James Hansen and Steve Schneider. Are there > other people who have been publishing/ talking about the issue since > the 1970s? > > I'd be very grateful for any advice and guidance you can offer. > You can reach me by email, or on 020 7557 1026 > > Thank you very much for your help, > > Jon Stewart > > BBC Science Radio > www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/science_in_action.shtml > 630 SE Bush House, Strand, London. WC2B 4PH > Tel: +44 20 7557 2471 > Fax: +44 20 7557 3008 > > http://www.bbc.co.ukThis e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential > and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC > unless specifically stated.If you have received it in error, please > delete it from your system.Do not use, copy or disclose the > information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender > immediately.Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or > received.Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ---- > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. 4479. 2007-05-26 23:40:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Sat, 26 May 2007 23:40:39 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - section to: "Phil Jones" , Hello Phil, Caspar, Tim: Here is my draft of the text for sections 3.3-3-4. In reality, I left the bit of 3.3 already there more or less as is, and focused on considerations for test protocols and example tests of CFRs for single series and whole-field reconstructions. Let me know what you think. Note that the added text in the main document is entirely highlighted in yellow. Any place you see red font is meant to highlight a textual uncertainty on my part, including the proper numbering for graphics. I utilized Roman numerals for the time being. I hope I have hit a correct balance. Note that I focused primarily on the tests I am aware of since and including von Storch et al. in 2004. I purposefully did not focus on the earlier tests with control runs/shorter runs. In terms of the graphics I obviously highlighted the tests that Caspar and I presented last June , but I did mention a number of other tests by various parties in the text. I thought this was appropriate, to focus graphically on the material that was presented last year (plus new material for the whole-field case). I also put in a good bit of material on RegEM along with work on the Mann et al. and Luterbacher et al. truncated-EOF approaches. Tim, if I have neglicted anything you have done that is relevant, please let me know. I apologise if so, as this would represent pure over-looking of things on my part. I did not make mention of the model-based tests you showed last June, as, according to my memory, these were derived with a <3d model, and thus were not directly applicable to the case of CFR. It was my understanding from the text sent in January that the focus of this section is to be directed to CFR situations. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_jan07_section_3.3-3.4_text.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_jan07_section _3.3-3.4_graphics.doc" 564. 2007-05-28 02:11:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: myles , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Jesse Kenyon , Reto Knutti , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , francis , Hans von Storch , Karl Taylor date: Mon, 28 May 2007 02:11:43 -0500 from: David Karoly subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th to: Gabi Hegerl Hi Gabi, First of all, apologies for the late reply but I wanted to let everyone know that I am now based at the University of Melbourne now, having finished at OU on May 15. My contact details are below. Please update your address book by deleting my ou email address and inserting my Melb Uni email address. Thanks. I have a few comments on the email exchanges but I agree with many comments. Start date: This is likely to be a compromise between length of past run, number of ensemble members and length of run into the future. We need to stress the point that longer runs ie starting in 1950 will be better for attribution and start-up issues. Of course, this may lead to fewer members in the ensembles, but I am not sure which is better. Control runs/ensemble size/estimating internal variability: I agree with Daithi that we need a control to estimate climate drift of the hi-res coupled models and to check whether the lower-res coupled models have similar drift. Given enough ensemble members and long enough runs, we may be able to estimate decadal timescale variability from inter-member differences, but I don't know how many enough is. I would rather have more ensemble members than a 200-500 year hi-res control run, as we can get information about both the forced response and the variability from large ensembles, at least in principle. Variables saved: As Karl has said, many of the monthly variables listed were requested or are available in the CMIP3 archive, listed at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/standard_output.html However, some of the variables below should be requested or increased in importance, as they weren't commonly available in teh CMIP3 database. Monthly mean surface Tmin (tasmin), Tmax (tasmax), specific humidity (huss) Daily mean surface specific humidity (huss) (Tmin and Tmax already available) These will be useful for impacts assessments including for wild fire and heat stress, as well as to make use of a new observed humidity dataset. For another project, I am using 6 hourly full vertical resolution 3-D fields for all variables. It is too much to ask for this from all models but I hope that some models will archive these data for some 10 year time periods, if only to allow nesting of regional climate models and other diagnostic projects. Best wishes, David -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTE: New address from May 16, 2007 Prof David Karoly School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA ph: +61 3 8344 4698 fax: +61 3 8344 7761 email: dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quoting Gabi Hegerl : > Hi all. > > From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the > 5AR run > proposal, but I am not sure > I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and > he said getting > suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point. > My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and > then propose > it at the WGCM meeting. > > I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am > asking you to > add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but > please keep in mind that > we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work > with in the next > years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to > haul the data over > etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few > ensemble members etc > get sent...) > > Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful > > Gabi > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gabriele Hegerl > Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, > Box 90227 > Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 1860. 2007-05-28 04:51:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: mann@psu.edu, Caspar Ammann date: Mon, 28 May 2007 04:51:11 -0400 (EDT) from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Wengen section to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, sorry for the long delay. But here is a first draft of the forcings and models section I was supposed to take the lead on. Hopefully, we can merge that with whatever Caspar has. Thanks Gavin ================ 4 Forcing (GS/CA/EZ) 4-5pp Histories (CA) How models see the forcings, especially wrt aerosols/ozone and increasing model complexities (GS) An important reason for improving climate reconstructions of the past few millenia is that these reconstructions can help us both evaluate climate model responses and sharpen our understanding of important mechanisms and feedbacks. Therefore, a parallel task to improving climate reconstructions is to assess and independently constrain forcings on the climate system over that period. Forcings can generically be described as external effects on a specific system. Responses within that system that also themselves have an impact on its internal state are described as feeebacks. For the atmosphere, sea surface temperature changes could therefore be considered a forcing, but in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model they could be a feedback to another external factor or be intrinsic to the coupled system. Thus the distinction between forcings and feedbacks is not defined a priori, but is a function of the scope of the modelled system. This becomes especially important when dealing with the bio-geo-chemical processes in climate that effect the trace gas concentrations (CO2 and CH4) or aerosols. For example, if a model contains a carbon cycle, than the CO2 variations as a function of climate will be a feedback, but for a simpler physical model, CO2 is often imposed directly as a forcing from observations, regardless of whether in the real world it was a feedback to another change, or a result of human industrial activity. It is useful to consider the pre-industrial period (pre-1850 or so) seperately from the more recent past, since the human influence on many aspects of atmospheric composition has increased dramatically in the 20th Century. In particular, aerosol and land use changes are poorly constrained prior to the late 20th Century and have large uncertainties. Note however, there may conceivably be a role for human activities even prior to the 19th Century due to early argiculatural activity (Ruddiman, 2003; Goosse et al, 2005). In pre-industrial periods, forcings can be usefully separated into purely external changes (variations of solar activity, volcanic eruptions, orbital variation), and those which are intrinsic to the Earth system (greenhouse gases, aerosols, vegetation etc.). Those changes in Earth system elements will occur predominantly as feedbacks to other changes (whether externally forced or simply as a function of internal climate 'noise'). In the more recent past, the human role in affecting atmospheric composition (trace gases and aerosols) and land use have dominated over natural processes and so these changes can, to large extent, be considered external forcings as well. Traditionally, the 'system' that is most usually implied when talking about forcings and feedbacks are the 'fast' components atmosphere-land surface-upper ocean system that, not coincidentally, corresponds to the physics contained within atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs) coupled to a slab ocean. What is not included (and therefore considered as a forcing according to our previous definition) are 'slow' changes in vegetation, ice sheets or the carbon cycle. In the real world these features will change as a function of other climate changes, and in fact may do so on relatively 'fast' (i..e multi-decadal) timescales. Our choice then of the appropriate 'climate system' is thus slightly arbitrary and does not give a complete picture of the long term sensitivity of the real climate. These distinctions become important because the records available for atmospheric composition do not record the distinction between feedback or forcing, they simply give, for instance, the history of CO2 and CH4. Depending on the modelled system, those records will either be a modelling input, or a modelling target. While there are good records for some factors (particularly the well mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4), records for others are either hopelessly incomplete (dust, vegetation) due to poor spatial or temporal resolution or non-existant (e.g. ozone). Thus estimates of the magnitude of these forcings can only be made using a model-based approach. This can be done using GCMs that include more Earth system components (interactive aerosols, chemistry, dynamic vegetation, carbon cycles etc.), but these models are still very much a work in progress and have not been used extensively for paleo-climatic purposes. Some initial attempts have been made for select feedbacks and forcings (Gerber et al, 2003; Goosse et al 2006) but a comprehensive assessment over the millennia prior to the pre-industrial does not yet exist. Even for those forcings for which good records exist, there is a question of they are represented within the models. This is not so much of an issue for the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) since there is a sophisticated literature and history of including them within models (IPCC, 2001) though some aspects, such as minor short-wave absorption effects for CH4 and N2O are still not universally included (Collins et al, 2006). However, solar effects have been treated in quite varied ways. The most straightforward way of including solar irradiance effects on climate is to change the solar 'constant' (preferably described as total solar irradiance - TSI). However, observations show that solar variability is highly dependent on wavelength with UV bands having about 10 times as much amplitude of change than TSI over a solar cycle (Lean, 2000). Thus including this spectral variation for all solar changes allows for a slightly different behaviour (larger solar-induced changes in the stratosphere where the UV is mostly absorbed for instance). Additionally, the changes in UV affect ozone production in both the stratosphere and troposphere, and this mechanism has been shown to affect both the total radiative forcing and dynamical responses (Haigh 1996, Shindell et al 2001; 2006). Within a chemistry climate model this effect would potentially modify the radiative impact of the original solar forcing, but could also be included as an additional (parameterised) forcing in standard GCMs. There is also a potential effect from the indirect effect of solar magnetic variability on the sheilding of cosmic rays, which have been theorised to affect the production of cloud condensation nuclei (Dickinson, 1975). However, there have been no quantitative calculations of the magnitude of this effect (which would require a full study of the relevant aerosol and cloud microphysics), and so its impact on climate is not (yet) been included. Large volcanic eruptions produce significant amounts of sulpher dioxide (SO2). If this is injected into the tropical stratosphere during a particularly explosive eruption, the resulting sulphate can persist in the atmosphere for a number of years (e.g. Pinatubo in 1991). Less explosive, but more persistent eruptions (e.g. Laki in 1789??) can still affect climate though in a more regional way and for a shorter term (Oman et al, 2005). These aerosols have both a shortwave (reflective) and longwave (absorbing) impact on the radiation and their local impact on stratospheric heating can have important dynamical effects. It is therefore better to include the aerosol absorber directly in the radiative transfer code. However, in less sophisticated models, the impact of the aerosols has been parameterised as the equivalent decrease in TSI. For extreme eruptions it has been hypothesised that sulphate production might saturate the oxidative capacity of the stratosphere leaving significant amounts of residual SO2. This gas is a greenhouse gas and would have an opposite effect to the cooling aerosols. This effect however has not yet been quantified. Land cover changes have occured both due to deliberate modification by humans (deforestation, imposed fire regimes, arguculture) as well as a feedback to climate change (the desertification of the Sahara ca. 5500 yrs ago). Changing vegetation in a standard model affects the seasonal cycle of albedo, the surface roughness, the impact of snow, evapotranspiration (through different rooting depths) etc. However, modelling of the yearly cycle of crops, or incorporating the effects of large scale irrigation are still very much a work in progress. Aerosol changes over the last few milllenia are very poorly constrained (if at all). These might have arisen from climatically or human driven changes in dust emissions, ocean biology feedbacks on circulation change, or climate impacts on the emission volatile organics from plants (which also have an impact on ozone chemistry). Some work on modelling a subset of those effects has been done for the last glacial maximum or the 8.2 kyr event (LeGrande et al, 2006), but there have been no quantitative estimates for the late Holocene (prior to the industrial period). Due to the relative expense of doing millennial simulations with state-of-the-art GCMs, exisiting simulations have generally done the minimum required to include relevant solar, GHG and volcanic forcings. Progress can be expected relatively soon on more sophisticated treatments of those forcings and the first quantitative estimates of additional effects. ============= *--------------------------------------------------------------------* | Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies | | 2880 Broadway | | Tel: (212) 678 5627 New York, NY 10025 | | | | gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin | *--------------------------------------------------------------------* 1627. 2007-05-29 12:33:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:33:13 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Major Revision to: anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Apologies for not attaching the reviews. The attached files are: cp-2006-0049-2-0-ert.txt: Editors letter cp-2006-0049-2-0-rqra3795.txt: Anonymous review 1 cp-2006-0049-2-0-rqra4304.txt: Anonymous review 2 cp-2006-0049-2-0-rrf3700.pdf: Review 3 (Gerd Burger) The last file, cp_response.doc, contains all three reviews imported into a word document. Some formatting and punctuation got mangled in the process, so please refer to the originals if anything looks strange. I've put a few of my first reactions in the cp_response.doc file -- some of these might need toning down. cheers, Martin On Tuesday 29 May 2007 08:53, Nanne Weber wrote: > Hi Martin, > could you send the reviews? as non-corresponding authors we cannot > access them on the CPD website. > best, Nanne > > > Martin Juckes wrote: > > Hello, > > > > we have been asked to do a major revision. Partly, I think, because I did not > > document the changes made in the previous revision well enough. Though it is > > classed as a major revision, I think the adjustments asked for are easier > > than the changes we made last time. > > > > The most negative review comes from Gerd Burger. He thinks we are too > > supportive of the Mann et al. methodology, presumably meaning we don't > > have enough explicit criticism of it. He thinks our proxy selection is > > `problemaic' and that `Arguing for a new selection of proxies > > is bound to invalidate the old ones'. He also raises a number of valid points, > > but I think they can be dealt. I'm thinking of moving figure 4 and some of > > the related material into the supplementary information so as to shorten the > > section on the hockey stick controversy -- as suggested by several of you > > previously. > > > > I'll try to get a revision to you next week, with a comprehensive list of > > changes made. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > > > Subject: cp-2006-0049 - Major Revision > > Date: Thursday 24 May 2007 15:02 > > From: publishing@cosis.net > > To: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk > > > > Dear Dr. Martin Juckes > > > > With regard to the manuscript submitted for publication in > > Climate of the Past: > > MS-NR: cp-2006-0049 > > Version: 2 > > Received: 10 April 2007, 15:10 CET > > Title: Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation > > Author(s): M. Juckes, M. Allen, K. Briffa, J. Esper, G. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T. > > Osborn, S. Weber, and E. Zorita > > > > we kindly inform you that it cannot be accepted in its present form and needs > > a major revision according to the editor's/referee(s)' suggestions. > > Acceptance for publication is conditional on your satisfactory disposition of > > these comments. > > > > Please find the reports of the editor and of the involved referee(s) at: > > http://www.cosis.net/link.php?ts=jeao&ms_id=4580&uid=38478 > > > > You are kindly requested to prepare the files of the corrected manuscript > > together with a point-by-point reply to the referee(s)'/editor's suggestions > > according to the journal guidelines and to submit them as soon as possible > > within 6 weeks. > > > > Upon submission of the corrected manuscript please upload here > > http://www.cosis.net/link.php?ts=jear&ms_id=4580&uid=38478 > > all files which were corrected together with your point-by-point reply. > > > > For the registration of your revised manuscript please use the following > > password: 1582 > > > > Your corrected manuscript will be reviewed again and you will be informed > > accordingly. > > > > For this manuscript please use your COSIS-ID: 38478 > > > > Kind regards, > > Natascha Otto > > Copernicus Editorial Office > > http://www.climate-of-the-past.net > > > > PS: If you have any questions/suggestions please contact me directly at > > editorial@copernicus.org. > > > > Please do not directly reply to the sender of this automated message. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-2-0-ert.txt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-2-0-rqra4304.txt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-2-0-rqra3795.txt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-2-0-rrf3700.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp_response.doc" 849. 2007-05-30 11:23:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Richard Thigpen , David Parker , Hans Teunissen , Mohan Abayasekara , David Goodrich , Howard Diamond , Matthew Menne date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:23:24 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: Proposed stations to: Phil Jones Again, good job Dick on lining up new stations where the AOPC saw some voids. There may indeed have to be some digitizing of historical records for some of these locations. But hopefully the PRs you contacted understood that they would send the archive what digital daily data they do have. Regards, Tom Phil Jones said the following on 5/29/2007 6:19 AM: > > Dick, > Thanks for the update. It is likely that there are long > series for many sites in the old fUSSR, like Moldova > and Lithuania. Each country should have been sent > back their data pre-1991 by Obninsk, when fUSSR stopped. > > Also for Entebbe, this likely exists much further back > in UK archives. Similarly Aden goes back to the 1870s > in the UK archives. Latter is in the archive. I can > send you a contact name if you're not getting any luck. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 08:54 28/05/2007, Richard Thigpen wrote: >> Hello All, >> During the WMO Congress we were able to meet with several PR's >> concerning GCOS and we have received a few offers of additional >> stations for the GSN and GUAN. I will prepare and send an assessment >> of the historical data and a map over the next few days. I will do >> them individually to keep the size down. But in the meantime here >> are some to think about. >> >> Yemen offers Aden and Sana'a for the GSN. They have no stations now >> and at AGG we indicated we would like to have some. (Sorry no luck >> with Somalia yet!) They have a lot of historical data at the UKMO >> but I don't know yet what is digital. I am trying to contact someone >> at UKMO who might know. The PR is interested in a pilot data rescue >> project. >> Uganda offers Entebbe for the GSN. They have no stations at >> present. A quick look shows that NCDC has data since 1949. >> >> Moldova offers Kisinev (33815) for GSN and NCDC has data since 1936. >> Moldova says they have data since the mid 1800's. They have no >> stations now. >> >> Switzerland offers Payerne for the GUAN. Matt/Tom, can you tell me >> if you have their historical data. >> >> There are a few other offers still dangling. I will send them to you >> as they get better defined. Lithuania for example suggested a very >> long history station but need to tell me more. Several additional >> countries in Africa will likely offer stations soon. Cheers >> Dick > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 386. 2007-05-30 17:47:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Caesar, John" , "Thorne, Peter" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Keith Haines , Alan@met.reading.ac.uk, "Stott, Peter" , "Folland, Chris" , "Collins, Matthew" date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:47:47 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: Royal Met Soc meeting on the 17th of October "Observing & to: "Tett, Simon" Dear All, This is a rough summary of the sorts of things I could cover although 20 minutes isn't long. Basically it's us what did it but there's still some things we need to understand. I'm not sure how long the abstract is expected to be or what you're all talking about so I thought I'd send this round now in it's present rough form for iteration. Thanks, Peter The widespread changes detected in temperature observations of the surface, free atmosphere, and ocean, together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system, strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. Such evidence led the IPCC AR4 report to conclude that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences extend beyond mean temperature changes to temperature extremes, wind patterns and changes in the hydrological cycle. The moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere has increased as expected with increasing temperatures, and it is likely that there has been a human influence on sea level rise, northern hemisphere Arctic sea ice decline and the observed widespread retreat of glaciers during the last century. Overall the pattern of observed changes paints a consistent picture of a climate system responding to anthropogenic forcing. For some climate variables, including northern hemisphere sea level pressure changes and Atlantic temperature and salinity changes, further work will be needed to better quantify the relative importance of external forcings of the climate system and natural internal variability in contributing to the observed changes. On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 21:10 +0100, Tett, Simon wrote: > All, > Thank you for all accepting Chris and I's invitation to speak at > this Royal Met Soc meeting. I was asked by the Society if I would be > willing to make this the Margary lecture. For an obituary on him written > by Manley (him of CET) see QJ 1976, vol 102. Margary seems to have been > one of the last of the great amateur met/climate observer. He also > pulled together a lot of Phenological information. After some thought I > agreed as I think the theme of our meeting is appropriate. This suggests > a structure as follows: > > 14:00-17:30 > > 14:00-14:05 Introduction -- Chris Folland. > > 14:05-14:25 Simon Tett:Margary lecture -- "Why observe Climate Change?" > -- I will try and include some Phenological ideas in here and make a > case for observing climate change. > > 14:25-14:55 Phil Jones > 14:55-15:20 Keith Haines > 15:20-15:45 John Caesar > 15:45-16:15 Tea/Coffee break > 16:15-16:40 Peter Thorne > 16:40-17:05 Alan O'Neil > 17:05-17:30 Peter Stott > > The idea is that everyone has 20 minutes to talk and 5 minutes for > questions. Chris chairs before Tea; me after. > > Chris and I would like you all to produce a preliminary abstract, in > particular so we can see how thoughts on detection are shaping up. That > way Peter Stott can get you to adjust your talks or you can him to > adjust his! We might also change the running order based on the > abstracts as well. Titles as well! The RMS would like us to settle > things by the 7th of June. I am on leave from Tuesday the 5th till > Monday the 11th June inclusive. So if you could send me (Simon) your > abstract by Monday the 4th of June I'd be grateful.... > > > Simon & Chris > > --------------- > Dr Simon Tett > Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) > Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB > Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 > Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886 > ---------------------------------- > I am leaving the Met Office on the 22nd of June to become, from the 14th > of July, > Chair of Earth System Dynamics at the University of Edinburgh. > My new email address will be simon.tett@ed.ac.uk > and my new postal address is: > Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, > West Mains Road,Edinburgh EH9 3JW, UK > > > 1540. 2007-05-30 20:50:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl , Tom Crowley date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:50:07 -0400 from: thomas.crowley@duke.edu subject: Re: Quick Question to: Phil Jones Quoting Phil Jones : 1 semi-good but overwrought 2 August 9, 0700 Southampton regards, tom > >> Gabi, Tom, > > 1. Are the two Duke people (Scafetta and West) who work on > solar forcing any good? One word answer will do. Been debating > with someone about their take on solar forcing vs IPCCs (well Judith's). > > 2. By the way - when will you be in the UK? > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 4572. 2007-05-31 11:53:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:53:37 +0300 from: "IOANNA NIAOTI" subject: Re: RE: FW: Eleftherotypia (greek national newspaper) interview to: "Phil Jones" Phil hi many many thanks for answering the questions i will work on the piece today and i will you a call tomorrow morning (after 10 UK time) to discuss a little further do email me your office numbers and a convenient time slot for you talk to you soon io ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Phil Jones To: [2]niaoti@enet.gr Cc: [3]a.ogden@uea.ac.uk Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: FW: Eleftherotypia (greek national newspaper) interview request Dear Ioanna, Your email has been forwarded to me by the UEA press office. Below are some brief answers to your questions. You can call me later today or tomorrow morning if you want. Best Regards Phil _______________________________________________________________________________ From: [4]niaoti@enet.gr [ [5]mailto:niaoti@enet.gr ] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:57 AM To: [6]press@uea.ac.uk Subject: Eleftherotypia (greek national newspaper) interview request Importance: High Hi there, this is Ioanna, i work for the foreign news of Eleftherotypia ([7]www.enet.gr) which is the largest selling greek national newspaper on the 5th of June we are going to publish a green issue, devoted completely on the environment, climate change etc i talked to one of your press office colleagues yesterday asking if i could email a couple of questions for one of your experts i do like dr P. Jones, i have interviewed him in the past as well but please ask whoever is available as my deadline is Friday noon (UK time) many many thanks ioanna 1) The earth is getting warmer and scientists predict increasing droughts, floods and extreme weather- can you please discuss the worse scenarion for the next 100 years? a rise in Earth's temperature, sea levels, icemelting, biodiveristy threatened- speciesin danger- areas most affected The worst scenario is that Greenland starts to melt rapidly leading to a much larger sea-level rise than estimated by IPCC. 2) Are human activities to blame? (ie greenhouse gas emissions) or is nature going through an enciromental circle as some other surveys suggest Humans are to blame 3) With humanity demanding more from the Earth than ever before, what are planet's most pressing environmental problems? Global Warming 4) Can climate change be tackled? How? What do you urge the International community to do? Is Britain playing a key role in saving the planet? Britain and Europe are playing the leading roles. It has to be tackled at the govt level, but recent news reports indicate that G8 (with Germany leading) are not having much success persuading the US and Japan to do anything. 5) Is EU leading a Kyoto carbon revolution- what is the role of the US and China The latter two don't seem to do anything. They dispute the science. 6) Can you give us a couple of tips that we could follow in everday life (ie switch off the electrical appliances when not in use) in order to help the environment Encourage alternative energy options (involving renewables) and change lighting to more energy saving bulbs and likewise buy more energy efficient applicances elsewhere in the home. ps- if there is any UEA survey on climate change please email me some info and add anything else you might feel it's important Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2176. 2007-05-31 16:13:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:13:16 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: UPDATE: The Great Global Warming Swindle to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,n.gillett@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk Have you heard is the Met Office and/or NERC are doing anything. I can't see how it can take so long nor what 'substantial' is. They seem to have convinced Ofcom to wait before they consider the program. In the earlier email Durkin comes across as an obnoxious b****** Cheers Phil >Subject: UPDATE: The Great Global Warming Swindle >Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:41:52 +0100 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: UPDATE: The Great Global Warming Swindle >Thread-Index: >AceRXxHRLhxu9wfQSQuJ7vWCZNYzBgAAOQvwAAASV7ACxmF78ACWClmgAABQV3ABL1oo0A== >From: "Bob Ward" >To: "Bob Ward" , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > "Celine Herweijer" , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > >Cc: , > "Alam, Tanzeed" , > "Lyndal Gully" >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2007 14:41:55.0935 (UTC) >FILETIME=[D60166F0:01C7A391] >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Have today received a letter from Andrew Morgan, Programme Executive at >Ofcom, stating the following: > >"Dear Mr Ward > >The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, 8 March 2007, 21.00 > >Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about this programme. We >have received a considerable number of complaints raising similar issues >to those addressed by you. We have also had notice of a substantial >complaint about the programme from a group of scientists. We have been >told not to expect this complaint in full before the end of June. > >I am writing to let you know that, as the issues to be considered by >Ofcom under its Broadcasting Code by this later complaint are likely to >be similar to those you have already raised, we have decided - in order >to avoid any duplication in our work - to consider all complaints about >this programme only once this later complaint has been lodged. > >This will clearly lead to some delay in our final response to you and I >thought it would be helpful if I could make you aware of this at this >stage. I will be in touch with you further when we have completed any >investigations into the programme which we may find necessary to carry >out." > >Does anybody have any information about the "substantial complaint" that >is being prepared by a group of scientists? > >Best wishes, > >Bob > > >Bob Ward >Director, Global Science Networks > >Risk Management Solutions Ltd >Peninsular House >30 Monument Street >London >EC3R 8NB > >Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 >Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 > >www.rms.com > > > > > >This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. >confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient >(or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received >this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly >prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify >the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting >the message from your computer and/or storage system. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3531. 2007-06-01 16:14:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jun 1 16:14:57 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: Philosophical Transactions to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Tom - see below we could do various filters to see which matches the Vlad SSA series for each chron Kith Cc: Edward Cook , Tom Melvin From: Edward Cook Subject: Re: Philosophical Transactions Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:14:26 -0400 To: Keith Briffa X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 129.236.10.30 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi Keith, I understand exactly what Vlad is doing and why now, which makes me wonder even more now why a simple low-pass filter that recovered e.g. 52% of the total variance wasn't used. The results must be effectively the same and the confusing use of SSA here would be mute. That is my take anyway, one that Vlad would probably disagree with. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Tom Melvin wrote: Ed, Vlad's explanation of embedding. Tom Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:43:10 +0800 (KRAST) Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Philosophical Transactions From: [2]shishov@forest.akadem.ru To: "Tom Melvin" <[3]t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 X-Confirm-Reading-To: [4]shishov@forest.akadem.ru X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Tom, In the paper I used embedding dimension equal to 40 years. Totally, 3 first SSA component are explained 52% of initial variance (1 SSA component is explained 35%, 2 SSA - 17%, 3 SSA - 13%. If you see, sum of expl. variances for these components is more than 52%. Reason is: SSA components are not independent). If we increase embedding dimension then we will obtain more accurate estimation for trend and oscillational components. But in this case we should use more SSA components to explain same portion of initial time series variation. For example, if embedding dimension is equal to 60 years then we need to use 5 SSA components which totally explained 52%. So: Embedding dimension Number of SSA comp Expl. variance 100 8 52 120 10 52 300 25 52 900 55 52 etc. But filtering result (ammount of SSA components) are absolutely the same!!! (I mean if you see bold curve (SSA-filtering curve) on fig.5a then I could obtain the same curve by any bigger dimension with bigger number of SSA components). Of course, if we investigate a spectrum of time series we should use much bigger embedding dimension (closely to 1/2 length of time series. In previous message, I was wrong with 2/3). But in this case we will obtain other problem: a grouping of closest SSA components. Probably, this problem is most difficult in SSA analysis. Our paper doesn't relate to any cycles in tree-ring chronologies or spectrum analysis. From this point of view we could use such embedding dimension (I mean 40 years). In our next paper about spectrum characteristics (:-)), we will use bigger dimension. Tom, do you know about Irkutsk dendroclimatic conference which will be carried out in nice place on Baikal lake (September, 10-14, 2007)? Vlad > Vlad, > > May be worth adding a comment to Phil Trans as suggested by Ed. > I will talk to Keith. > > Tom > > PS. June's outgoing EMail not working so reply to probably Nata > failed to arrive. > > > > At 09:38 31/05/2007, you wrote: >>Tom, >> >>I need to check it (embedding dimension) (I try to use different >> embedding >>dimensions and will compare results). >>If we will use pretty big exercise or lenght of caterpillar >>(for example, 2/3 of time series lenght as recommended in some papers ) >>then we obtain just nonlinear trend in first component. If we use shorter >>embedding dimension then 1-st component will contain some long-term >>oscillational (non-harmonic) components as well. So, which oscillations >>could we consider as long-term variations for our 2000-yrs chronologies? >> I >>think 100-200 yrs variations are long-term. From this point of view, we >>could use shorter embedding dimension (than 2/3 of TS length). >> >>Concerning >> "so there appears not to have been a very clear spectral separation and >>also some mixing of frequencies in your components" >> it is a normal situation for SSA decomposition (it's the algorithm >>feature by autocorrelation structure of correlation matrix and linear >>algebra) as we don't use any harmonical functional space for >>decomposition (in comparison with Fourier transformation, for example). >>It's a weakness of this method but a strength in the same time, because >> we >>don't need to make any assumptions concerning a nature of fluctuations in >>time series. >> >>Vlad >> >> >> >> >> > Vlad, >> > >> > Does Ed's comment mean anything to you - "what is embedding >> dimension"? >> > >> > Have not asked Keith yet. >> > >> > Tom >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>Cc: Edward Cook <[5]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>, >> >> Keith Briffa <[6]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> >> >>From: Edward Cook <[7]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> >> >>Subject: Re: Abisko >> >>Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 07:09:05 -0400 >> >>To: Tom Melvin <[8]t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk> >> >>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) >> >>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 129.236.10.30 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> >> >>Hi Tom and Keith, >> >> >> >>Thanks for sending this stuff. I took a very quick look at the paper >> >>you sent. Having done a fair bit of SSA work in the past, I am >> >>curious what embedding dimension you used, something that is usually >> >>provided in the description. It looks very short based on the very >> >>wiggly form of the first component, so there appears not to have >> >>been a very clear spectral separation and also some mixing of >> >>frequencies in your components. That being the case, wouldn't a >> >>simple low-pass filter of some pre-defined cutoff have been >> sufficient? >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >> >>Ed >> >>================================== >> >>Dr. Edward R. Cook >> >>Doherty Senior Scholar and >> >>Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >> >>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory >> >>Palisades, New York 10964 USA >> >>Email: <[9]mailto:drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>[10]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu >> >>Phone: 845-365-8618 >> >>Fax: 845-365-8152 >> >>================================== >> >> >> >> >> >>On May 30, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Tom Melvin wrote: >> >> >> >>>Ed, >> >>> >> >>>Attached is the Abisko temperature series (there also is a daily >> >>>version somewhere). >> >>> >> >>>Keith mentioned that some of the overheads stuff is not yet >> >>>published - so needs treating with care. >> >>> >> >>>Also attached is a draft paper (some minor amendments are in >> >>>process) submitted to Philosophical Transactions. >> >>> >> >>>Tom >> >>> >> >>>Dr. Tom Melvin >> >>> >> >>>Climatic Research Unit >> >>>University of East Anglia >> >>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>> >> >>>Phone: +44-1603-593161 >> >>>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > Dr. Tom Melvin >> > >> > Climatic Research Unit >> > University of East Anglia >> > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> > >> > Phone: +44-1603-593161 >> > Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> > >> > > > Dr. Tom Melvin > > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593161 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [11]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4411. 2007-06-01 19:09:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 19:09:25 +0200 from: "guinard.pasther" subject: reconstruction briffa et al 2001 to: dear Mr Briffa I have a discussion with a contrarian about your reconstruction, Briffa et al 2001. I'm not a specialist of this complex work but I don't understand why your reconstruction stops in 1960. The regional trends you give don't show at all, after this year, any warm trend as the observed temperature. If you read french you can see the debate here:http://forums.infoclimat.fr/index.php?showtopic=20650&pid=489390&st=20&#entry489390 I'm meteor in this debate. If you can help me 913. 2007-06-01 21:04:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Tom Crowley date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:04:40 -0400 from: hegerl@duke.edu subject: Re: Quick Question to: thomas.crowley@duke.edu on 1: I am deeply unimpressed. I think their papers are misleading. But its been a while since I read them in detail. Gabi Quoting thomas.crowley@duke.edu: > Quoting Phil Jones : > > 1 semi-good but overwrought > > 2 August 9, 0700 Southampton > > regards, tom > > > >> >>> Gabi, Tom, >> >> 1. Are the two Duke people (Scafetta and West) who work on >> solar forcing any good? One word answer will do. Been debating >> with someone about their take on solar forcing vs IPCCs (well Judith's). >> >> 2. By the way - when will you be in the UK? >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > > 3843. 2007-06-04 01:12:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:12:00 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: From Phil Jones: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review to: Hi Phil: I have done some reworking of the section 3.4 portions that I drafted (attached), based on work I've done in finalizing the AW 07 text (Caspar and I are now readying it to return to Steve Schneider). I don't feel in position to send this just yet -- sorry -- but will be happy to do so as soon as it is finalized completely. It is accepted now, pending final, small-scale re-revisions. The WA paper that you reviewed (I believe) is the one cited in the IPCC, and is available at the following URL. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html Note that I also have attached the AW07 reference section and the Mann et al. 07 galley proofs, as you requested for references. I think they should have just about everything I cited in my section. Let me know otherwise. Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Fri 6/1/2007 11:07 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: From Phil Jones: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wed 5/30/2007 10:23 AM To: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; Eduardo Zorita; jan.esper@wsl.ch; Janice Lough; Juerg Luterbacher; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Ricardo Villalba; Kim Cobb; Heinz Wanner; Jonathan Overpeck; Michael Schulz; Eystein Jansen; Nick Graham; Francis Zwiers; Caspar Ammann; Michael E. Mann; Gavin Schmidt; Sandy Tudhope; Wahl, Eugene R; Tas van Ommen Cc: Williams, Larry; Thorsten Kiefer Subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder Dear All, There has been some progress. I have contributions from Gene and Gavin. Keith (2.3) and Tim (3) here in CRU tell me they are working on their parts. Francis (5) also tells me he has also started. Tas told me about 6 weeks ago he would finish the ice core part (section 2.3) shortly. So we are getting there. I still need input from Caspar (section 4), Nick (section 2.6), Peck (section 2.5). I have added in the section names of the missing sections to help you all along. Also need people to begin reading through the whole paper, but this is premature yet. I saw Thorsten at the EGU and he emailed recently saying that Larry (EPRI) is keen to see this submitted soon. Remember it was through PAGES and EPRI support that we had such a great few days in Wengen almost a year ago! If we all put some effort in over June we could be there. Can Gene and Gavin send me their references when they have a few minutes. I suspect most will be in Mann et al. (2007), so if I can get that I can add them in. I won't pass this on to any others. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_may30-07_Wahl_revisions.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\JGR_proofs_5-31-07.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AW_References_6-1-07.doc" 1827. 2007-06-04 08:17:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , Ned Guttman , potter4@bellsouth.net, Keith Briffa , "Klein Tank, Albert" , Richard Heim date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:17:25 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: scPDSI program to: Gerard van der Schrier Hi Gerard, Thanks for the email. The choice of the calibration period on the PDSI estimates outside that period is something that probably affects all versions of the PDSI. The SPI ought to be similarly affected if the quantiles are based on a pdf fitted to a sub-period of data. That being the case, unless the calibration period is a truly unbiased expression of longer-term variability, I am not sure what can be done about it. I also agree that one should use the longest calibration period possible, but globally it is not really feasible to start before, say, 1950 over large areas of Asia. So this will make pre-1950 PDSI variability strongly conditional on climate statistics of the calibration period. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: Dear Ned, Ed, Thanks for your emails. I must admit that I haven't had the chance to work with the sc-pdsi program lately (=since 1 year or so......). The plans are to start working on this again in next autumn/winter. About the sensitivity to the length of the calibration period: The self-calibrating aspect makes that ca. 2% of the available months in the calibration period are in the "extemely dry" category (and 2% will be in the "extremely wet" category). The 2% threshold is more-or-less abritrary. The parameters in the PDSI-calculation are set to satisfy this constraint. When the calibration period does not cover the complete period over which the sc-pdsi is calculated, then you can expect PDSI values (hugely) outside the [-4, 4] range. Especially when a dry (or wet) period happens to fall outside the calibration period. I guess this was the reason why Wells et al. in the paper in which they introduce the sc-pdsi, advise to make the calibration period as long as possible. Note that this leaves another problem of the PDSI untouched: the median of a distribution of sc-pdsi values is not guaranteed to be zero. This remains unnoticed when a probability distribution is calculated over many different timeseries, but it can be seen in individual timeseries (e.g. fig. 4 of Wells et al. (2004), J. Clim. vol. 17, pp. 2335-2351). Obviously, I also included a spin-up period of 10 years for the waterbalance model, using climatological data. There are indeed problems with the sc-pdsi which need to be looked at before it is ready for an operational application. Nevertheless, we think it compares favourably to the "traditional" PDSI. Our plans are to calculate sc-pdsi for the updated global temperature and precipitation datasets of the Climatic Research Unit. There are some vague plans to use the index in a more operational way, and apply it to a network of European data which are continuously updated. Obviously, much needs to be done before this works satisfactory. Ned, could I get back to you when I actually start working on this? Many thanks for your thoughts. Best Regards, Gerard ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/CK PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [2]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ----------------------------------------------------- Ed, Gerhard, After looking at the structure of Gerhard's code (module oriented) and Richard's code (hardwired for I/O), I decided that the easiest way to write something that we can use at NCDC would be to incorporate Gerhard's subroutines into Richard's program. The result is attached. I seem to remember that there may have been a sign problem in Gerhard's code, but I am not sure now. I did this a month or two ago, and then started getting ready for retirement (tomorrow is my last day). I did check out Gerhard's code with Palmer's and Nate Wells' papers to make sure the code truly reflects both Palmer's and Wells' logic. I did write a simple subroutine to calculate the regressions rather than use the sophisticated library subroutine that Gerhard used. The regression results from the two methods are close but not identical. Then I ran the attached program on US Climate Division data (1895-2006). The output was not satisfactory - I was getting outrageous PDSI values in some divisions for some periods. The calibration period for calculating the CAFEC values was 1950-2000, the period that is used for the North American Drought Monitor (Mexico does not have long term data). As a test, I reran the program using a calibration period of (I think) 1900-2000 and the results were much better. After thinking about it for a while, but not a long time, it is logical that the PDSI is sensitive to the calibration period, since the components of the water balance at the start of calibration period reflect existing and immediately preceding conditions such as droughts and wet spells. This is likely skewing the output of the sc-pdi in an unsatisfactory manner. I have not pursued this, and would hope to follow through with it somehow with contract work after tomorrow, but it is an issue that needs to be resolved. I also think the sc-pdi needs to be thoroughly tested before it is used in any kind of operational manner. There are too many things in the process that can go wrong when programmed. I also think that the characteristics of the sc-pdi need to be evaluated and affirmed. For example, is the method truly spatially invariant? Let me give you an email address where you can reach me after tomorrow (or maybe today since I don't know when all my computer accounts will be killed): [3]potter4@bellsouth.net Bottom line - I would not use the sc-pdi now. It needs much more review. Cheers, -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/CK PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [4]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 5006. 2007-06-04 10:17:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:17:50 +0200 from: Anders Moberg subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Major Revision to: Martin Juckes Hi Martin and all others, I have now had a look at our paper in relation to the three new reviews. I have one major opinion: Move section 3 to a new appendix! (However, I wasn't sure as to which file contained the revised version on my PC, so I have instead read the CPD version. Hence, there may be some inadequacies in my statements below) If you read the paper without section 3, you will find that what remains is a tightly focused paper which starts with a review of previous reconstructions, followed by an investigation of the influence of varying methods and data, which leads to an alternative reconstruction that turns out to fit well with the instrumental record. This then leads to some relevant conclusions. Section 3 is not really needed for the rest of the paper. It is rather an almost completely independent section, which is only in by-passing referred to twice in section 4. Only one sentence in the conclusions refer to section 3. It is not mentioned in the abstract. So, given the fact that all three reviewers had concerns about section 3, I suggest you move it to an appendix. This would make the paper more simple to read for most readers, while we still make it possible for those who are interested to read our review of the hockey stick debate. This is an easily made change. It would be sufficient with adding a sentence or so in section 2.2, where we motivate an extended discussion in an appendix (e.g. the political impact), and changing the very few references to section 3 with references to an appendix. In addition to this, I have only a few minor comments: 1) Change my affiliation to be "Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, and Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Sweden" 2) sec 2, para 1. Change the mentioning of the scale factor (about Esper) by 1.73, to specifying the time period and target region, which is more informative (but still complete). 3) We could omit the footnote abourt "underestimation" 4) sec 2.8. Rather than saying that "the debate is ongoing (several refs)", we could mention some of the findings in these and other refs (see below). For example, we could mention that results are dependent on detrending/non-detrending, calibration period length, noise level, noise type. Possible additional refs: @Article{sto06, author = {von Storch, H. and Zorita, E. and Jones, J. M. and Gonz\'alez-Rouco, J. F. and Tett, S. F. B }, title = {Response to comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from noisy data"}, journal = {Science}, year = 2006, volume = 312, doi = {10.1126/science.1121571} } @Article{zor07, author = {Zorita, E. and von Storch, H. and Gonz\'alez-Rouco, F.}, title = {Comment on "{T}esting the fidelity of methods used in proxy-based reconstructions of past climate"}, journal = {Journal of Climate}, year = {2007, in print} } @Article{wah06, author = {Wahl, E. R. and Ritson, D. M. and Ammann, C. M.}, title = {Comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from noisy data"}, journal = {Science}, year = 2006, volume = 312, DOI = {10.1126/science.1120866} } @Article{man07, author = {Mann, M. E. and Rutherford, S. and Wahl, E. and Ammann, C.}, title = {Reply to comment by {Z}orita et al on {M}ann, {R}utherford, {W}ahl, and {A}mmann '05}, journal = {Journal of Climate}, year = {2007, in print} } @Article{dmi06, author = {Dmitriev, E. V. and Chavro, A. I.}, title = {Possible causes of the underestimation of paleoclimate low-frequency variability by statistical methods}, journal = {Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics}, year = 2006, volume = {42}, number = {5}, pages = {586-597} } 5) sec 4.2. The conclusion that "...the choice of proxy records is one reason why different reconstructions show different ranges ..." is an important one (even if it is not new). It should be mentioned both in the abstract and the conclusions. 6) Remove the specific reference to the year AD 1091 7) At all relevant places, make it clear when we refer to the TAR and when we refer to AR4 (if we do the latter at all) 8) Appendix A, INVR. Isn't there some mistakes in how the indices i and k are used? As far as I can see, it should be: Suppose $x_{ik}$, $i=1,N_{pr}$, $k=1,L$ is a set of $N_{pr}$ standardised proxy records of length $L$ and that we are trying to obtain an estimate $\hat{y_k}$ of a quantity $y_k$ which is known only in a calibration period ($k\in C$). whereas you had: Suppose $x_{ik}$, $i=1,N_{pr}$, $k=1,L$ is a set of $N_{pr}$ standardised proxy records of length $L$ and that we are trying to obtain an estimate $\hat{y_i}$ of a quantity $y_i$ which is known only in a calibration period ($i\in C$). cheers, Anders PS. please do not use my old email address (anders@misu.su.se) (although it still works). Use the one I am sending from. 1205. 2007-06-04 12:17:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders Moberg , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:17:05 -0400 from: hegerl@duke.edu subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Major Revision to: Martin Juckes Hi all, I'll have a look later this week, I am swamped right now after coming back from vacation. I tend to agree that its ok to appendix it (it is taken care of so I wouldnt worry about funding) and would tend to think its better detailed and appendixed since this controversy is all about detail, but I am happy with Martin's preference also! Gabi Quoting Martin Juckes : > Hello, > > this is a work in progress, but my latest revision is attached. In > addition to > the reviews I sent last week, there is an editors comment posted on the CPD > site which is referring to our CP manuscript. I think this is the source of > Referee 1's comments that we ignored the editor's recommendation: it would be > easy to think that the his comment referred to the CPD manuscript. > > I half agree with Anders about reducing the prominence of section 3. However, > this project was funded because of the controversy surrounding the McIntyre > and McKitrick vs. Mann et al. debate, so I think it should stay in the paper. > Here, I have shortened it to one page and moved it to after the main results > section. I've tried to make the justification clearer, in terms of the need > to address claims that the whole approach is ill-founded. > > The 3 files attached are: a draft revision, a list of changes, and draft > responses -- still incomplete in many cases. > > Other points: > >> >> 2) sec 2, para 1. Change the mentioning of the scale factor (about >> Esper) by 1.73, to specifying the time period and target region, which >> is more informative (but still complete). > > I've added the time period. I think putting the number is helpful and > does not > add much to length. > >> >> 3) We could omit the footnote abourt "underestimation" >> > I've shortened this. > >> 4) sec 2.8. Rather than saying that "the debate is ongoing (several >> refs)", we could mention some of the findings in these and other refs >> (see below). For example, we could mention that results are dependent on >> detrending/non-detrending, calibration period length, noise level, noise >> type. Possible additional refs: >> > I'll think about this. Whatever we say needs to be concise. > >> @Article{sto06, >> author = {von Storch, H. and Zorita, E. and Jones, J. M. and >> Gonz\'alez-Rouco, J. F. and Tett, S. F. B }, >> title = {Response to comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from >> noisy data"}, >> journal = {Science}, >> year = 2006, >> volume = 312, >> doi = {10.1126/science.1121571} >> } >> >> @Article{zor07, >> author = {Zorita, E. and von Storch, H. and Gonz\'alez-Rouco, F.}, >> title = {Comment on "{T}esting the fidelity of methods used in >> proxy-based reconstructions of past climate"}, >> journal = {Journal of Climate}, >> year = {2007, in print} >> } >> >> @Article{wah06, >> author = {Wahl, E. R. and Ritson, D. M. and Ammann, C. M.}, >> title = {Comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from noisy data"}, >> journal = {Science}, >> year = 2006, >> volume = 312, >> DOI = {10.1126/science.1120866} >> } >> >> @Article{man07, >> author = {Mann, M. E. and Rutherford, S. and Wahl, E. and Ammann, C.}, >> title = {Reply to comment by {Z}orita et al on {M}ann, >> {R}utherford, {W}ahl, and {A}mmann '05}, >> journal = {Journal of Climate}, >> year = {2007, in print} >> } >> >> @Article{dmi06, >> author = {Dmitriev, E. V. and Chavro, A. I.}, >> title = {Possible causes of the underestimation of paleoclimate >> low-frequency variability by statistical methods}, >> journal = {Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics}, >> year = 2006, >> volume = {42}, >> number = {5}, >> pages = {586-597} >> } >> >> 5) sec 4.2. The conclusion that "...the choice of proxy records is one >> reason why different reconstructions show different ranges ..." is an >> important one (even if it is not new). It should be mentioned both in >> the abstract and the conclusions. >> >> 6) Remove the specific reference to the year AD 1091 >> > OK, changed to `in the 11th century'. > >> 7) At all relevant places, make it clear when we refer to the TAR and >> when we refer to AR4 (if we do the latter at all) >> > I'll check >> 8) Appendix A, INVR. Isn't there some mistakes in how the indices i and >> k are used? As far as I can see, it should be: >> > corrected > > cheers, > Martin > 5202. 2007-06-05 10:25:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:25:10 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Quick Question to: Phil Jones ps Phil, what I meant - I can understand that their assessment of how much solar explained 20th c warming is very naive. Dont know about the solar only part! Gabi Phil Jones wrote: > >> Gabi, Tom, > > > 1. Are the two Duke people (Scafetta and West) who work on > solar forcing any good? One word answer will do. Been debating > with someone about their take on solar forcing vs IPCCs (well Judith's). > > 2. By the way - when will you be in the UK? > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 4520. 2007-06-06 11:11:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:11:08 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - section to: Hi Phil: Here are two references concerning mechanistic modeling of tree ring growth. Also included is the reference to Ammann-Wahl 07, which of course shows up nowhere else. Also attached is another (!) slightly modified version of my contribution to the Wengen summary paper, including the appropriate citations for the references below. I believe that this should complete my contribution to the draft for full-read-over/submission stage. The changes I needed to make are now all included in the text proper, and anything that needed to be changed/omitted is marked as "deleted" by Track Changes. The few latest changes, since my last message of 6/4, are highlighted in yellow. Thanks for all you work on this text! Fritts H.C., Shashkin A.V., Downes G.M. 1999. A simulation model of conifer ring growth and cell structure. In: Wimmer R., Vetter R.E. (eds) Tree-Ring Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 3-32. Vaganov E.A. 1996. Mechanisms and simulation of tree ring formation in conifer wood. Lesovedenie (Russ. J. For. Sci.) 1:3-15 (in Russian). Ammann, C.M. and Wahl, E.R., 2007, The Importance of the Geophysical Context in Statistical Evaluations of Climate Reconstruction Procedures, in press, Climatic Change. [NOTE: This article was just sent to Stephen Schneider with, presumably, final revisions based on re-review. These changes were relatively few and small-scale, and the article has been accepted pending their approval. So, technically its status is "accepted, in final revision" until Steve gives the final approval for it to have "in press" status. We expect this to happen soon, possibly before the Wengen paper is actually submitted.] Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_may30-07_Wahl_revisions.doc" 1366. 2007-06-06 12:10:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Christoph Kull , bo@gfy.ku.dk, thompson.4@osu.edu, EWWO@bas.ac.uk, Eduardo Zorita , jan.esper@wsl.ch, Janice Lough , Juerg Luterbacher , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Ricardo Villalba , Kim Cobb , Heinz Wanner , Jonathan Overpeck , Michael Schulz , Eystein Jansen , Nick Graham , Francis Zwiers , Caspar Ammann , "Michael E. Mann" , Gavin Schmidt , Sandy Tudhope , "Wahl, Eugene R" , Tas van Ommen , "Williams, Larry" date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:10:19 +0200 from: Thorsten Kiefer subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: Phil Jones Dear all, tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of the PAGES/CLIVAR & EPRI workshop in Wengen, which as we were assured repeatedly from many of you, was very enjoyable and fruitful. As pleasant as it was to get enthusiastic feedback, in the long term it will not suffice to feed the workshop sponsors and to keep their lenders happy. From talking with Larry Williams from EPRI I can tell that he is of the same opinion. The only product from the workshop that has materialised so far is the EOS report (Thanks Mike et al.!), whereas the synthesis and the PR Challenge haven't. Undoubtedly, you all know the rules of the game, so my only point here is to remind you that they do operate. EPRI, PAGES and CLIVAR are also about to engage in the follow-up workshop project on "proxy data uncertainties" that was born out of the Wengen meeting. So many of you might yet again enjoy another workshop. We as sponsors are happy to engage in this, because of the important science questions addressed and excellent scientists involved. But, as said above, to maintain support it is paramount that the ideas result in products. My plea therefore is that you revisit your priorities and check whether you rank "Writing the Wengen synthesis chapter" high enough :-) The aim has to be to get the synthesis paper submitted before the summer break. From what I have seen, the paper could become a milestone contribution to the paleoclimate discussion. In that sense, many thanks to those of you who have already contributed or are about to do so, and to Phil for his heroic work to pull this together!! I look forward to the completed manuscript, Best regards, Thorsten On 30 May 2007, at 16:23, Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, There has been some progress. I have contributions from Gene and Gavin. Keith (2.3) and Tim (3) here in CRU tell me they are working on their parts. Francis (5) also tells me he has also started. Tas told me about 6 weeks ago he would finish the ice core part (section 2.3) shortly. So we are getting there. I still need input from Caspar (section 4), Nick (section 2.6), Peck (section 2.5). I have added in the section names of the missing sections to help you all along. Also need people to begin reading through the whole paper, but this is premature yet. I saw Thorsten at the EGU and he emailed recently saying that Larry (EPRI) is keen to see this submitted soon. Remember it was through PAGES and EPRI support that we had such a great few days in Wengen almost a year ago! If we all put some effort in over June we could be there. Can Gene and Gavin send me their references when they have a few minutes. I suspect most will be in Mann et al. (2007), so if I can get that I can add them in. I won't pass this on to any others. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Thorsten Kiefer PAGES International Project Office Sulgeneckstrasse 38, 3007 Bern, Switzerland tel: +41-(0)31-312 3154 fax: +41-(0)31-312 3168 [2]kiefer@pages.unibe.ch [3]http://www.pages-igbp.org/ 3209. 2007-06-06 17:16:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:16:37 +0100 from: "Michael Meredith" subject: Re: SOI during 20th century to: Thanks Phil One very quick follow-up question, if I may (sorry!).... Ive done as you suggested, and normalized the Darwin monthly MSLP data, and it doesnt show much in 1926/7. Neither does Nino3.4. However, the NOAA CPC SOI index (from http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/ ) shows quite a decent-sized El Nino in 1926 (plot attached). I realise it's probably very difficult for you to comment on what NOAA might or might not have done to their numbers, but do you have a feeling for why there might be a discrepancy? In your paper you mention offsets applied to account for biasses in different periods - is this a factor? Apologies for taking up your time, but very grateful for any advice Best wishes Mike *********************************************** Dr. Mike Meredith Head of Atmosphere and Ocean Group British Antarctic Survey High Cross Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ET United Kingdom http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/staff-profiles/template.php?user=mmm >>> Phil Jones 06/06/2007 10:56 >>> Michael, An SOI estimate from the Quinn et al chronology is unlikely to be that reliable. There are other SOI/ENSO indices such as Nino3.4. Here is a good web site http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html#Sec5 The MSLP data that goes into the SOI should be fine in the 1920s. To be perfectly safe go to our web site and get Darwin MSLP, then calculate an index based on normalized Darwin monthly (and then multiply by -1). The SST indices on the site are alternative ENSO measures. I recall the event in the mid-1920s being quite prominent in some indices some years ago - but in more recently used series it isn't so obvious. Cheers Phil At 16:52 05/06/2007, you wrote: >Hello Phil > >I was wondering if I could ask your advice about SOI during the 20th >century. Ive recently been looking at some oceanographic data from the >Southern Ocean collected during the 1920s and 1930s, and (based on >modern analyses) we know that ocean temperatures here depend on ENSO. So >I was looking at the CRU SOI index >(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/soi.htm) to look for such >relationships in the earlier data also. > >My question is: how reliable are the SOI values for the early part of >the 20th century? Specifically, around 1925/6/7/8? A different analysis >seemed to show a very strong El Nino in 1925/6 >(http://www.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/quinn/index2.html), but >presumably this is subjective and questionable? > >If you know of any other analyses that you consider to be robust for >SOI that covers the 1920s up to present, Id be grateful if you could >point me in their directions. > >Many thanks for advice > >Best wishes >Mike Meredith > > > >*********************************************** >Dr. Mike Meredith >Head of Atmosphere and Ocean Group >British Antarctic Survey >High Cross >Madingley Road >Cambridge CB3 0ET >United Kingdom > >http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/staff-profiles/template.php?user=mmm > > >-- >This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject >to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any >reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under >the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic >records management system. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\noaa_soi.ps" 3348. 2007-06-08 15:02:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:02:02 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Complaint attached to: "Vincent Chris Prof \(ENV\)" , "White Carrie Mrs \(ACAD\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Hiscock Kevin Dr \(ENV\)" Dear All, Here's my thoughts on the complaint. 1. We need to get our stories straight for when Chris meet the students on the 18th. Is a meeting worthwhile next week? 2. The whole issue highlights the needs for someone to be in charge of the course in the future, so I hope the bid to ET is successful this time and someone will be in place from September. We all have lots of other things we're doing and commitments to many projects etc. Also the new person ought to sit in on most of the lectures within 535 and 594 to know what was said in parts they won't be giving. 3. In hindsight, this whole issue should and could have been handled better. We now need to sort things out and try and nip the complaint in the bud. I had hoped this had happened when Keith met a few of the students on April 20. Clearly this wasn't enough. Maybe we all thought that it was, but some of the other issues have kept things simmering in the student's minds. We don't want these complaints to appear on a web site, even though it won't affect the coming year's intake, as many have already accepted. 4. We all knew Dave was leaving by early February, so we should have all been fully aware of might happen. Dave may have said some things to the students and stirred them up a little, but we probably assumed his heart was in this up to when he left and it clearly wasn't. 5. The ET should take some responsibility for the problems, when they denied us a replacement for Dave earlier this year. 6. As many of the students are paying real money for the course, we need to ensure this is handled well from now on, and that it doesn't happen again in subsequent years. Now some specific thoughts on some aspects: Half Day on IPCC/Tyndall This is a good idea, but refers mainly to WG2/3 of IPCC and Tyndall. Something like the session we organized in CRU on Feb 20, which was attended by many within ENV. Through this the MSc group did get the latest information from WG1. This would need to be arranged by Mike Hulme and/or Neil Adger (and others), as this material is partly beyond the expertise we have in CRU. The subject is a lot more than Climate Change Science now. Lecture Programme Anita Wreford delivered two 1-hr lectures (one on Stern), so I've been told. M535 did include material from AR4 (WG1) for some areas. We did give the afternoon talks on Feb 20 as well. We weren't allowed to use any diagrams from WG1 until after the SPM was out on Feb 2. So, it was impossible for Dave to have used material from the SPMs of WG2 and WG3 as their press conferences weren't until Good Friday and early May. Cancellations of Lectures This is news to me. I was away a lot Feb to May though. Students getting marks back I put mine in a place outside my office when I get them. When I'm away this doesn't happen as quickly, so is the present system of sending these back through the advisors the best way of returning work? At present these get put into the pigeonholes in the KC room. Sylvia (our secretary) checks these every morning. Markers often tell students they have been put in pigeonholes, and they expect them immediately. I've occasionally had to go to the KC room to get them, so they can find out marks. I can't do this when away. Coursework Marking I didn't set any, so am unaware of these issues. I would have thought that marking should be standard and should include both a clear demonstration of absorption of the taught material and some assessment of the literature. Sometimes the coursework should be on material that isn't taught. Web Site I didn't realise that we had a page with the student details. Communication This seem to be the main gripe, and we clearly have to do better here. Getting everyone together though is difficult as we all know. Lectures after Easter I was aware that these were to take place. I tried to find out who was giving these, but was unsuccessful. I was not aware Anita Wreford was asked, or when she was due to give them or what the content was. When I left this with you Chris, I thought you would arrange this. We talked about John Turnpenny? I contacted John and found out he'd said no, but had no idea about Anita. Field Trip I only heard afterwards (as I was away) that only Dave went on this. Future 535 did give the students up-to-date climate science. 594 does clearly need to cover more on WG2/3 science. It will with Mike running it next year. The complaint only refers to 594. Finally Although stated at the beginning, only a very small subset of these matters have been addressed to me. I wasn't sent the complaint by Joanna Vincent, for example. I have never talked with Vicky Ingram. I did get the email on Feb 22. The meeting was held when I was away. Cheers Phil At 16:50 07/06/2007, Vincent Chris Prof \(ENV\) wrote: >Hi everyone > >Could you have a look at the attached? I believe I'm being thrown to the >wolves on Monday 18 June so I appreciated your help in this matter. > >Some of the points the MSc students raise here are new to me, are they >new to you? Is what they say correct? - I don't want to nit-pick but I >need to know where the inaccuracies are, and where the exaggerations are >(e.g. they talk about one lecture from Anna Wretford whereas I thought >she gave two?) > >- I'd be most grateful if you could print out the attached and scrawl >your comments on it! > >The MSc students have had a raw deal on M594 so I wonder if we could >organise a couple of days of seminars (timing might be a problem) to >cover some of the aspects of the Unit that were missed? I'd rather try >to ensure they got up-to-date relevant material, and therefore a >complete course, than went away without that information? I'd like to >have a 'solution' to the problem to present to them! > >Many Thanks > >Chris > > >Professor Chris Vincent >Head of School >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >Phone (+44) (0) 1603 592 836 >Fax (+44) (0) 1603 593 792 >http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/coastal/Staff.htm > >-----Original Message----- >From: Vincent Jo Mrs (ACAD) >Sent: 06 June 2007 15:06 >To: White Carrie Mrs (ACAD); Vincent Chris Prof (ENV) >Cc: Bezants Karen Mrs (SCI); Willis Sarah-Jane Mrs (SCI) >Subject: FW: Complaint attached > >Dear Both >Attached is a copy of the complaint from the MSc students on ENV-M594 >Climate Change. >Peter Belton is dealing with it at faculty level as the HoS ENV is named >in the complaint. >A meeting with Peter and the students is being arranged - date tbc >Karen Bezants is collating various items of information about the unit >and course and might need to ask Carrie for help in finding things. >I would expect that Peter will also want to meet with relevant ENV >faculty too. >Thanks >Jo > > >Joanna Vincent >Faculty Manager >Science Faculty Teaching Office >University of East Anglia >Norwich >NR4 7TJ >UK >Tel 01603 592254 >email jo.vincent@uea.ac.uk > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4881. 2007-06-08 16:50:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: ,"'Ulf Buentgen'" , "'David Frank'" , "'Dietmar Wagenbach'" , , "'''Wolfgang Schner' ''" , "'Kurt Nicolussi'" , "'Michael Grabner'" , ,"'Juerg Luterbacher'" < juerg@giub.unibe.ch> date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:50:34 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AW: a draft version of EI-corrected HISTALP temperatures to: "Reinhard Boehm" Reinhard, Thanks for this. I will have a look at this all over the weekend. The final end product looks just like my hope - summers were 0.5 deg C too warm and for winters it is negligible, although it does make it very marginally ccoler. Thanks also for the timetable for June. I will be able to do something in August with the new series for the WP9 paper. I'm sure I will have some questions after the weekend. I have one now. Geneva and Karlsruhe have the same obs times and both face N. Why do their adjustments differ, then. Do you take into account mountains that might obstruct the view early in the morning and in the evening? Have a good weekend. I will enjoy looking at this, on another wet and miserable weekend here. Cheers Phil At 15:18 08/06/2007, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Phil, I have attached a short summary of what we did to produce the new version of EI-corrected temperature series. I hope this makes things clearer and serves time. As to your two questions: 1) I think the series will remain as they are most probably. There are only a few which could be slightly changed if we received more station history information from DWD and MeteoSwiss mainly (e.g. Bern and Stuttgart). But I think the provisional estimates are quite usable already. Inge has used the opportunity of an ECSN-meting two weeks ago to persuade Swiss and German officials from the weather services to send some information about their stations, but I am not too optimistic to receive anything. Therefore we decided that I myself use my stay at an Italian conference next week at Ischia to organise some still missing uptades (until 2006-12 I hope at least) which are still missing from Italy. After that we will not wait any longer and: 2) We will declare the series definite by mid June, merge them into the shorter rest of the (non EI-) series and immediately calculate and send out the new EI-corrected 5 subregional mean series together with the new stationmode series and also the 1deg lat-long-gridded anomaly series immediately (hopefully updated to 2006-12 for Italy and to 2007-03 for the rest of the GAR). So everybody can work with the new series by the end of June 2007 latest. We will then also start to write a draft of the respective paper describing the EI-corrections and we hope to produce a first version of our part and send it out for discussion and for the input from the co-authors pretty soon. Cheers Reinhard P.S. I send this also to the others, maybe it makes life easier also for them ___________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Juni 2007 16:18 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: a draft version of EI-corrected HISTALP temperatures Reinhard, There is a lot to look at. Is it possible that you could select out a few summary diagrams, for me to look at? The file seems so large to look through. As for timing: 1. When do you think you might have a draft of the paper? How long is a piece of string? Will you wait to get more info from across the region? Or maybe how long will you wait? 2. At some point you will be able to send me a series, or better still the GAR and the 5 sub parts of the GAR, so I can resurrect the paper I started which was supposed to result from WP9. If I get the series relatively soon, I can do some work over the summer. August is generally a quiet month! Cheers Phil At 13:05 05/06/2007, you wrote: Friends, It took a while to produce the EI-corrected version of HISTALP-T01 and I missed the deadline of May 31st which Maurizio, Phil and I decided at our meeting at the EGU in Vienna. But at last we succeeded and can present now a new EI-corrected version of the GAR-long series temperature dataset. My excuse for the delay is that I underestimated the amount of not yet really and systematically extracted metadata in our library and that I overestimated the input from the national or regional data providers. We only received very good input about Torino (Luca Mercalli), some infos from Michele and nothing at all from all the rest from Swiss, German and other colleagues. Therefore we had to do the historic enquiry in fact nearly all on ourselves (lots of dust has found its way from the old books in the library into the lungs). But the result was quite useful. We now have the necessary information (on the orientation, height above ground, the measuring times, the calculation algorithms and the screens) for the overwhelming majority of the longterm sites (see EI-metadata-and-models.xls ). And we could apply the three Kremsmnster-Models for EI-biases we developed from the multi-year comparative measurements at the Kremsmnster historic and modern site. The few sites with unsatisfying metadata were provisionally adjusted based on a-posteriori homogeneity tests. At this occasion we also detected some non-EI-inhomogeneities and corrected them as well. My opinion is that the status 2007-06-04 series can be regarded as definite in terms of EI-corrections. I only hope to receive the few still missing updates to present all series updated at least until 2006-12. This will be no problem concerning Switzerland, hopefully also concerning France and I instantly hope that we can also include the Italian temperatures in time (please Michele and Maurizio do what you can, for temperature alone it should not be an unsolvable problem I hope.) Please instrumental colleagues, have a close look at the results in the two files: EI-corr-datasampler.xls provides all single station series in tree modes: only outlier corrected, the old homogenised version of last year and the new EI-corrected version we propose now. To make life easier for you we have also produced some figures for regional and seasonal mean series of the three mentioned datamodes in file EI-corr-regional-means.xls . Please proxy-colleagues, use this mail as first information what the new series are looking like. I think that the problems concerning the misfits with treering and glacier data have become much smaller now and the great advantage: we did not use any proxy information for correcting, we strictly remained within the instrumental realm. As soon as your reviews come in, I will send out a new proposal for our common paper to immediately start the writing process. Simultaneously we will merge the 32 early series into the HISTALP temperature dataset, produce the 1-deg gridded series and thus replace the old ALP-IMP-version. I am looking forward to your replies Best regards Reinhard Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4135. 2007-06-08 17:54:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:54:44 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil. I just read the following quote from Helmut Schmidt, so it is clear he is taking the "we don't know what causes climate change tack -- possibly he's been reading too much Michael Chrichton (sp?). It is amazing how good the "Doubt is Our Product" effort has been in the face of decades of good work now, especially in this case (it seems) regarding the basic understandings of Quaternary Ice Age pacing--notwithstanding exactly how the orbital forcing/climate feedback mechanism works. This is part of a message from Lowell Stott about the Post ESH situation of climate research funding here in the US. Given ESH's involvement/non-involvement with European funding, I imagine it is worth a read from your "side" also. Peace, Gene Dear Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention the report from the Post-ESH workshop held at the AGU in Washington DC, March 29-30, 2007. You can read the report from the MESH website at: http://www.mesh.usc.edu/reports.htm Complimentary efforts are also being organized by our counterparts in Europe, Australia and Asia. In the next few years the research conducted by the paleoclimate community will very likely be at the center of discussions about Global Climate Change. Consider the quote released this week from the former German Chancellor Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt called for an end to the "hysteria" over global warming in the lead-up to the summit. The topic is "hysterical, overheated, and that is especially because of the media," Schmidt told Germany's Bild daily. There has always been climate change on earth, Schmidt said. "We've had warm- and ice-ages for hundreds of thousands of years," he said, and added that the reasons behind the multiple climate changes have been "inadequately researched for the time being." To assume that global climate change can be altered by any plans made at the Heiligendamm summit is "idiotic," he said. --Deutsche Welle, 4 June 2007 I hope you will take the time to read the report and consider how you can help promote the scientific initiative outlined in the report. Sincerely, Lowell Lowell Stott Professor University of Southern California 213-740-5120 ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 6/7/2007 11:05 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - section 3.3-3.4 draft text AND references Gene, It's normal for these sorts of Workshops to have some sort of deliverable - mainly for the funding agencies to show they are spending their money wisely. I reckon it cost of the order 30K$. Seems like more talk at the G8. As we say here they need to Walk the Walk and not just Talk the Talk. G8 made a lot of promises after Gleneagles on Africa and only some of them happened. I will modify your part of the paper at the weekend. Thanks for all the references. It is best to keep these in check as we go along, otherwise it can be a big burden at the end - and I'll forget where they are in the text and who added them. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 15:50 07/06/2007, you wrote: >Hi Phil: > >You are welcome; I'm glad to contribute and only sorry that I simply >couldn't get it done sooner. Thanks for the word to Thorsten; it >doesn't hurt to be in the "good books", I would imagine. > >I actually was a bit surprised by the strength of Thorsten's message >yesterday, and it seemed that it was gently worded at that! But, I >think, for my part, that this comes from the fact I did not know >before the conference that a summary paper was an anticipated >product. That had not been communicated to me, and I had not >participated in such a conference before. However, I did a little >quick math in my head about the likely costs to put the conference >on (I once was a finance economist), and when I came up with a round >figure I thought, "Yes, I would expect a specific product with >significant "heft" to come out of the time together" in such a case. > >Let me say thanks again to you for your dilligence. It has meant a >lot to the whole effort, and to me personally. > >Peace, Gene >________________________________ > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 12:10 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - >section 3.3-3.4 draft text AND references > > Gene, > Thanks. I'll get to these over the weekend. > > You're in Thorsten's good books. I told him > where we are with those who've sent things and those that haven't! > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:11 06/06/2007, you wrote: > >Hi Phil: > > > >Here are two references concerning mechanistic modeling of tree ring > >growth. Also included is the reference to Ammann-Wahl 07, which of > >course shows up nowhere else. > > > >Also attached is another (!) slightly modified version of my > >contribution to the Wengen summary paper, including the appropriate > >citations for the references below. I believe that this should complete > >my contribution to the draft for full-read-over/submission stage. The > >changes I needed to make are now all included in the text proper, and > >anything that needed to be changed/omitted is marked as "deleted" by > >Track Changes. The few latest changes, since my last message of 6/4, > >are highlighted in yellow. > > > >Thanks for all you work on this text! > > > > > >Fritts H.C., Shashkin A.V., Downes G.M. 1999. A simulation model of > >conifer ring growth and cell structure. In: Wimmer R., Vetter R.E. (eds) > >Tree-Ring Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 3-32. > > > >Vaganov E.A. 1996. Mechanisms and simulation of tree ring formation in > >conifer wood. Lesovedenie (Russ. J. For. Sci.) 1:3-15 (in Russian). > > > >Ammann, C.M. and Wahl, E.R., 2007, The Importance of the Geophysical > >Context in Statistical Evaluations of Climate Reconstruction Procedures, > >in press, Climatic Change. > >[NOTE: This article was just sent to Stephen Schneider with, presumably, > >final revisions based on re-review. These changes were relatively few > >and small-scale, and the article has been accepted pending their > >approval. So, technically its status is "accepted, in final revision" > >until Steve gives the final approval for it to have "in press" status. > >We expect this to happen soon, possibly before the Wengen paper is > >actually submitted.] > > > >Peace, Gene > > > > > >******************************* > > > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >1 Saxon Drive > >Alfred NY, 14802 > > > >607.871.2604 > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2682. 2007-06-08 18:25:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jun 8 18:25:19 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: MXD data to: "Scott Rutherford" Hi Scott -- reference got rejected and I've not had the heart to re-submit it (so far), even though most complaints weren't criticising the method we used to construct the data set (which therefore remain valid I think) but more related to the presentation. However you could link here to the data list [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/mxdtrw.htm with the sites used being those listed under the Rutherford et al. (2005) item on that page. From the page there is a link to the ITRDB where the data series themselves can (mostly) be downloaded. Obviously the gridded version that you are actually using, while described on this page, cannot currently be downloaded from it -- thought the series could be got from ITRDB and then the method described on this page could be used to recreate the gridded data. Does that sound good enough? If not and you think the gridded MXD data themselves need to be available then let me know and I'll see what I can do. Hope all's well with you. I'm just finishing a hectic week of undergraduate exam paper marking -- 97 scripts, so far 70 are marked! Cheers Tim At 14:10 04/06/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim, I hope things are going well for you these days. I wanted to check again on the MXD data that we have been using and are using again in the current reconstructions (manuscript in progress). Are the data now public? If so is there a reference? If not how do you want to handle things? Do you want to be a co-author or should we just list you as the contact for the data? Thanks and best wishes, Scott ______________________________________________ Dr. Scott Rutherford Assistant Professor Dept. of Environmental Sciences Roger Williams University e-mail: srutherford@rwu.edu [2]http://fox.rwu.edu/~rutherfo phone: (401) 254-3208 snail mail: One Ferry Road Bristol, RI 02809 200. 2007-06-12 12:37:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:37:39 +0200 from: Michael Schulz subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, First of all I would like to thank for taking the lead in putting the Wengen paper together. Since Eystein Jansen and myself are still on the list of authors, I assume that there is still a chance to include a section on well dated high-resolution marine sedimentary proxies. Do you still expect sth. along these lines for sect. 2.6? Looking forward to hearing from you. Greetings - Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Schulz Universitaet Bremen Fachbereich 5 - Geowissenschaften Postfach 330 440 D-28334 Bremen, Germany Email: mschulz@uni-bremen.de Phone: +49-421-218-7136 Fax: +49-421-218-7040 Homepage: www.palmod.uni-bremen.de/~mschulz DFG Research Center "Ocean Margins" (RCOM): www.rcom.marum.de 4030. 2007-06-12 17:39:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:39:02 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Mitrie revision to: Martin Juckes Hi Martin et al., I have a few comments, that will probably come in two emails since I need to run soon. I am sorry they are a bit late, but I think its only words anyway, so I hope its ok! Gabi Abstract: I think what got to the reviewer was the maximum temperature given by 3 significant digits, I doubt we can know it that well - how about saying 0.25 K (relative..) (and the residual on 2 digits as well)? Also, procedure (1) is, as far as I can tell, inverse regression of regional records on hemispheric mean (if I understand right) - this is nowhere fully spelled out, but should be spelled out I think. If you, for example, were to composite and then inverse regress the composited average record, you would get something identical to your (2) but with more variance (and something much closer to my paper and I think that works pretty well as well, but no need to argue for that here at all, just could we please be specific and say in abstract and once in main text what we regress inversely? It does make a difference?) Introduction, 2nd para: The dominant change... you should cite eitehr the entire IPCC report 2007 for that, or chapter 2 of it - Mitchell et al is the attribution chapter and doesnt really discuss forcing. p. 2, left column, 2nd and 3rd column: I admit I am quite unhappy with how this is phrased, and would really love to have this changed. Reading it naively, I would conclude that we cant yet estimate the anthropgoenic contribution to the late 20th century warmth, while at the same time being the first author of the chapter saying we can and its dominant ... How about replacing the first sentence of 2nd paragraph (However, there remails...) with the following: The following two questions are essential for understanding 20th century climate change and thus credibly predicting future climate changes:... Then, the beginning of the next paragraph: Despite strong results from attribution studies, some uncertainty in the answer to the first question remains.... . I think this sounds less like we question 4AR conclusions... p. 2, right column beginning of section 2: I think the attribution of timeseries to reconstruction regions is not correct everywhere. HCA2007, for example, is definitely NH extratropics (N of 30N), and if you have used "dark ages", its actually calibrated to land (does the series you use go back to the 6th century?). Also, I am nearly certain that JBB is a NH reconstruciton, and to my knowledge is HPS extratropical land as well (thats where the boreholes are). I think this paragraph needs a sentence cautioning somewhere along the line after temperature" : Note that some of the difference in variance of timeseries can be attributed to different areas resolved, the entire NH land and oceans varies weaker than, for example, NH extratropical land only (if all fails you can cite me but there's got tbe be a better citation). p. 3, left column, discussion of JOnes reconstruction: It is also shown that there are strong large scale coherencies in..proxy data... not reproduced in climate model CONTROL simulations. (please add control, I think thats what they did, and internal variability will show less spatial coherence than externally forced runs!) more in the second email Gabi and the borehole reconstruciton For increasing the credibility of answers to both questions, reconstructing and understanding climate change over a longer time horizon, such as the past millennium, is essential (Hegerl et al. 2007b) Martin Juckes wrote: >Hello, > >here is another update. I've incorporated Nanne's rewrite of the start of the >new section 4, which shortens it by a couple of sentences. > >cheers, >Martin > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 1617. 2007-06-13 10:49:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Juckes , anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:49:08 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Mitrie revision to: Gabi Hegerl Hi all,rest of comments (and sorry its a few comments, last time this came around I was solidly buried in IPCC and couldnt look as closely at this as I should have, APOLOGIES! NOte that all changes I suggest are really small fry, so I hope its not too late. The two that are more important to me is to make sure we dont sound like we question 4AR conclusions (at least not with me as author on it), and that it doesnt sound like all inverse regression approaches have problems. The latter can be avoided if its a bit more specific about what particular inverse regression appraoch was used! Gabi > > p. 2, right column beginning of section 2: I think the attribution of > timeseries to reconstruction regions > is not correct everywhere. HCA2007, for example, is definitely NH > extratropics (N of 30N), and if you have > used "dark ages", its actually calibrated to land (does the series you > use go back to the 6th century?). > Also, I am nearly certain that JBB is a NH reconstruciton, and to my > knowledge is HPS extratropical land as > well (thats where the boreholes are). I think this paragraph needs a > sentence cautioning somewhere along the > line after temperature" : Note that some of the difference in variance > of timeseries can be attributed to different > areas resolved, the entire NH land and oceans varies weaker than, for > example, NH extratropical land only (if > all fails you can cite me but there's got tbe be a better citation). Later, some of the errors here are fixed, so just the first sentence needs some revisiting. p. 3, right column, 3rd paragraph where you discuss the IPCC TAR conclusions: I think its essential to add that the IPCC conclusions were not based on Mann et al alone - this is a misunderstanding that is propagated and caused by the SPM showing only Mann's figure, but the chapter in the background show also Briffa and Jones (fig 3.21 or so, although in low-pass resolution) - this could be clarified by changing the sentence: MBH1998 and MBH1999 have been.... since the latter was cited in IPCC2001 though the IPCC conclusions were based on several reconstructions and weaker than those of MBH1999. Footnote 2 same page: I like the footnote about uncertainty, could we add to make it to: "...,which should include expert assessment aof the robuistness of statistical methods employed AND REMAINING UNCERTAINTIES, in addition to results of statistical tests (Manning etc) p. 4, right column, boreholes last sentence - I think there is no question that the stationarity condition at the beginning influences the initial stage or boreholes, so I wonder if "may influence" should change to "will influence" - but up to you guys! (note that based on forcing, we do expect conditions before to have been warmer rather than stationary...) p. 5, end of 2nd paragraphL: Talking about the extended period of large scale warmth - should this also cite Osborn and Briffa, 2006? p. 5, bottom of right column: According to my paper table 1, Esper et al correlates ~0.5 with Mann and 0.3 with Moberg on 20-yr smoothed data - "but has greater centennial variability" doesnt capture that entirely. should we add "but somewhat less on longer timescales? Just a suggestion, no strong feelings! p. 6, bottom left colum: The variance matching thus represents a form of crossvalidation - I dont understand how variance matching could be any calibration? Interannual variablity will be influenced by the trends... unless you take them out prior to calculating the variance? Section 2.7, when discussing that the oerlemanns lies midway between MBH1999 and HPS: Its not really a fair comparison given that OER is global (?) and HPS NH land! So maybe add that information right there, saying "However, HPS represents NH extratropical land, while OER represents global temperatures. I also now think I remember that Mann and Jones discuss that it matters what a reconstruction represents (with land and extratropics leading to higher variability eg)_ p. 7. right column: "The trend component 1000 to 1850 is, however, in all reconstructions larger than the trend implied by the forcings" - I am not sure, is this shown in Nanne's paper? If yes, maybe cite? I dont find this, but then I scale... p. 9, top left: The borehole reconstructions, however, imply that there were colder temperatures experienced in the 16th to 18th centuries - actually, most other recons impy that as well, so should we add this "The borehol reconstructions and many other reconstructions, however, imply..."? p. 10, right column: .. this time using inverse regression: Would this be a good place to specify "inverse regression of regional records against hemispheric mean data? It needs to be clarified because I dont want this to be cited showing that inverse regression (and tls since its more similar to inverse than forward regression) perform poorly - me and other people like Francis Zwiers seem to find other things. \ p. 11, left column 2nd paragraph: while HPC 2000 reconstruction is generally at the lower end (NOTE HOWEVER, THAT IT REPRESENTS MORE VARIABLE EXTRATROPICAL LAND TEMPERATURES). p. 11, right column end of 1rst paragraph: how can we know that MSH, HCA and union overestimates correlations? We dont know the true ones (given the shortness of obs)....so replace with something more qualitative like may over estimate it? Conclusions, end of first paragraph: How about again adding a reference to the diffeerent targets of reconstruction, eg "... others no more than 0.2K. NOte, however, that a direct comparison is difficult given that different reconstructions represent different areas of the globe." Conclusion, 4rth paragraph: we have found that inverse regrssion of regional records on hemispheric mean tends to... MARTIN, up to here and in methods, there is no equation etc for total least squares. So how can Gerd conclude its wrong??? Thanks so much for all the hard work, sorry I didnt get a chance to carefuly read it last round since I was buried in IPCC. I hope its not too late - its all small changes anyway, should t upset any reviewers! Gabi > > Martin Juckes wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> here is another update. I've incorporated Nanne's rewrite of the >> start of the new section 4, which shortens it by a couple of sentences. >> >> cheers, >> Martin >> >> > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 921. 2007-06-14 21:38:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:38:38 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper to: "Phil Jones" , Hi Phil and Juerg: Here is the Ammann-Wahl paper as promised. We received letter of final acceptance and movement to "in press" status yesterday from Stephen Schneider. We would ask that distribution be kept limited until it actually comes out in hard copy (scheduled for the November 2007 issue of Climatic Change) so that its chances of getting to McIntyre (et al.) are reduced, and thus the the probability is decreased that he/they will have chance to attack it before it is fully available to the public--as they almost certainly would if the opportunity arises. Weird to need to consider such things, but that is the state of our science re: this particular paper. However, you should certainly feel free to share it within your research groups. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AW_Final_changes_6-14-07.doc" 326. 2007-06-15 10:57:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:57:42 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Latest revision to: anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hello, here is the latest revision, still without the latest comments from Anders, but including Nanne's suggested changes. There are still a couple of things I need to check, so it would not have been ready for submission today in anycase (I'm leaving for the airport shortly). I'll try to incorporate Anders' comments and any others that come next week. Sorry to loose you Eduardo. If the latest revision is still unacceptable to you I'll leave your name off. Do you want a credit in the acknowledgements, along the lines of: "We thank Eduardo Zorita for extensive discussion and criticism during the preparation of this paper"? Also attached is the latest version of the response to the reviewers. Comments on this are also welcome. I need to work on the list of changes a bit more. cheers, Martin Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp_response1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-rv2.pdf" 1840. 2007-06-17 00:30:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:30:15 +0100 (BST) from: Ed Addis subject: Re: Climate change to: Phil Jones Thanks for your reply Phil It's kind of you to take the time to answer some of these questions, but I notice that you don't attempt to answer the first one - the actual evidence for CO2 fuelled GW. Of course we all know that computer models aren't evidence. I've always understood that there is a fundamental difference between weather and climate, so I'm quite surprised just to hear you say that the same code is used for both types of model. For one thing, the time frames are very different - I wouldn't expect to be able to obtain meaningful predictions of climate from a weather model or vice versa. In any event the predictions are only as good as the underlying scientific understanding, which in my opinion - for all the alleged improvement in weather forecasting - is still no better than rudimentary. You'll recall that I only said that the absorption bands are *near* saturation. I believe that even the outer ones are partly saturated. The relationship between CO2 increase and greenhouse forcing is very slow - logarithmic, I've read recently. Hardly anything to panic about, particularly in the light of the historical evidence that CO2 has never caused warming before - but I haven't had time yet to look at your suggested reference yet on this last point. It's the dogmatic, doom-laden nature of the media coverage of this that really irks, and I feel that scientists like yourself should be injecting a note of moderation into the debate rather than talking up scenarios that are not realistically predicated by the facts. Fiscal and regulatory changes are being brought in as a result of speculatory ideas about carbon emissions, and are not justifiable with the current state of factual evidence. Regards Ed Phil Jones wrote: Ed, I don't think I'm going to convince you, but I'll try briefly with a few points. 1. I'm sure you'll agree that weather forecasts have improved over the last 30 years. For the Hadley Centre model that produces the climate simulations, the code is exactly the same as the weather model. Getting weather forecasts right is down to the dynamics in the model, but the weather forecasters say that some improvement has come from better thermodynamics, which has come from the 'climate part' of the model. 2. It has been very warm in the UK over the past year. Part of this is favourable circulation, but have you wondered why the sea temperatures are so much warmer around our coasts? As for the saturation of absorption bands I suggest you read Ch 2 of the latest WG1 report from the IPCC. Only some bands are saturated. The other chapters are useful reads as well - especially Ch 1, which shows global temperatures since 1990 (the first report) and the projections for global T made then and in subsequent reports. The IPCC Chapters and SPM can be got from here ([1] http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/) but I'm sure you know this. There are also links to answers to your 3rd question on our web site (climate myths) and also on the New Scientist web site. Finally what is going to convince you? More warm years More glacier retreat More sea level rise Less snow area in the NH Less Arctic Sea Ice The modellers can't get these if they don't increase the CO2, and the increase in CO2 is clearly happening. Best Regards Phil At 18:31 14/06/2007, Ed Addis wrote: Just a quick note after hearing you on the BBC R4 Frontiers programme last night. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to answer a couple of questions for me on this topic? Firstly, could you please let me know what is this huge and conclusive accumulated body of evidence, we hear so much about, that CO2 is causing warming? Obviously, we can't include the results from computer models as evidence, as these are just the results of calculations based on the equations used to build the models and, as such, prove nothing. So what actual hard physical evidence is there? Please note that I'm not asking for evidence that warming is happening - only that increases in CO2 are causing it. Secondly, you will of course know very well that the absorption bands of CO2 that power the greenhouse effect are near saturation, so that adding more CO2 can make little difference to greenhouse forcing. So, why do you climate scientists encourage all the hysteria about carbon emissions/footprints etc? Why don't you tell the media and the politicians that CO2 is not really a problem? Thirdly, you will of course also know that in the hundreds of thousands of years for which records exist, the CO2 changes have always lagged the temperature changes, and so cannot have caused them. Same question as above, really - what makes you think that increases in CO2 are going to cause warming now, when they've never done so before? And why, therefore, do you continue to push the idea that mankind's emissions of CO2 are a problem? Hope you can find time to answer these - if so, you'll be the only climate scientists that I've asked who have. Regards Ed Addis Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, [2]sign up for your free account today. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the [3]Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. 995. 2007-06-18 09:45:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:45:41 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Mitrie to: anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hello, I hadn't noticed that Eduardo's email asking to be taken off the author list only came to me . It arrived last Friday just before I left for the airport; here is the relevant quote: ``I have been reading the last version of the mitrie paper yesterday. Unfortunately, I found too many places in the manuscript with wich I cannot agree, in particular in the conclusions and in section 4, but I do not want to hinder the whole group any further. I would like, therefore, not to appear as co-author in this submission. Perhaps the time is too tight now to make such a change but certainly it can be done before the paper finally appears.'' cheers, Martin 2215. 2007-06-18 12:05:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:05:29 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil, and for the shot in the arm about " You'll be glad when the two papers are out, despite what CA says". I think you are quite right. And Steve Schneider handled the entire process very well with extensive review and re-review. And we responded in detail to all comments, of every kind. MM may actually be a bit surprised in the second paper -- I think we are very fair with what we say overall about their critiques, and the seriousness with which we take their critiques, e.g., the verification RE benchmarking issue. However, since scientific balance is apparently not their target, I am sure that the head of steam up will occur. Please note that I will be out of contact June 20-July 9, and then with Caspar at NCAR through August 8. Regular email contact during the NCAR month. Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 6/18/2007 3:46 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper Gene, Don't worry about asking. I fully understand. I will get around to reading the paper in the next week or so. When the two come out (Nov I think you said) expect CA to be a head of steam up. They have at the moment re exposure of US HCN sites and also IPCC's dealing with reviews of the paleo chapter and the author's responses. You'll be glad when the two papers are out, despite what CA says. I have had some threats - mainly directed at one of my co-author's from a paper in 1990 on urbanization effects. The threat is that the person will send a letter to his University (in this case SUNY at Albany) saying the research is flawed. It isn't of course, but it is a sign of the times. The threat is that he should withdraw his contribution to my paper from Nature ! Cheers Phil At 20:55 15/06/2007, you wrote: >You are welcome, Phil. Thanks for the sensitivity, only sorry to >have to ask. We'd be curious to hear your thoughts. > >Peace, Gene >________________________________ > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 6/15/2007 4:50 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R; juerg@giub.unibe.ch >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper > > Gene, > Thanks for the paper. Fully understand the issues, so will > keep within CRU - well just Keith and Tim and then only > if necessary. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 02:38 15/06/2007, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: > >Hi Phil and Juerg: > > > >Here is the Ammann-Wahl paper as promised. We received letter of > >final acceptance and movement to "in press" status yesterday from > >Stephen Schneider. We would ask that distribution be kept limited > >until it actually comes out in hard copy (scheduled for the November > >2007 issue of Climatic Change) so that its chances of getting to > >McIntyre (et al.) are reduced, and thus the the probability is > >decreased that he/they will have chance to attack it before it is > >fully available to the public--as they almost certainly would if the > >opportunity arises. Weird to need to consider such things, but that > >is the state of our science re: this particular paper. > > > >However, you should certainly feel free to share it within your > >research groups. > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >607-871-2604 > >1 Saxon Drive > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 414. 2007-06-18 12:30:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:30:29 +0100 from: "Roger Coe" subject: Solar Irradiance Debate to: "Phil Jones" Phil, Sorry for the delay in replying to yours of 01 June 2007, I have been away. II have also perused as many of the papers you referred to that I am able to access. Particularly useful is the Introduction/Review by Joanna Haigh to the 2005 ISSI workshop on Solar Variability and Planetary Climates. Here she comments that the construction of a TSI composite remains controversial, a view supported by the latest statements of Frohlich and Richard Willson on their respective websites. Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2 for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing. I wonder how Judith Lean would comment on the latest developments. Regards Roger 4616. 2007-06-19 08:46:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:46:17 +0100 from: "Boddington Gillian Mrs \(HRD\)" subject: RE: RE: DoE Contract Details? to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Dear Phil That is good news! I will keep my fingers crossed and hope to hear from you soon. Regards Gill Gill Boddington Human Resources Manager (SCI) ext. 2193, e-mail: g.boddington@uea.ac.uk This e-mail (and any files transmitted with it) may contain privileged information and should not be circulated further. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:44 AM >To: Boddington Gillian Mrs (HRD) >Cc: Darch Janice Dr (SCI); Vincent Chris Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >Subject: Fwd: RE: DoE Contract Details? > > > Gill, > Looks as though there is finally some movement in Chicago. > I've replied to Michael Hill and given him Alicia Meldrum's > email address. > > I'd check with Alicia in a week or so. > > Cheers > Phil > >>X-Server-Uuid: F0E03B37-707C-4DCF-A928-7EECE47830F0 >>Subject: RE: DoE Contract Details? >>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:31:52 -0500 >>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>Thread-Topic: DoE Contract Details? >>Thread-Index: AceWzLLW0gsZ6LcHQFq5z9LsVe1A2gbK3D2A >>From: "Hill, Michael" >>To: "Phil Jones" >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2007 22:31:52.0430 (UTC) >> FILETIME=[77DC98E0:01C7B1F8] >>X-WSS-ID: 6A69D8F82RW227566-01-01 >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >>Dear Dr. Jones, >> >>I am working on the renewal. But can you tell who in your office of >>grants and contracts office will be my contact for any information I may >>need to complete the renewal action? Is it Alicia Meldrum? Can you >>provide her e-mail address? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Michael D. Hill >>Contract Specialist >>U.S. Department of Energy >>Chicago Operations Office (ACQ) >>9800 South Cass Avenue >>Argonne, IL 60439 >>Phone: (630) 252-2338 >>Fax: (630) 252-5045 >>e-mail: michael.hill@ch.doe.gov >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:41 AM >>To: Hill, Michael >>Cc: BAMZAI, ANJULI >>Subject: DoE Contract Details? >> >> >> Dear Michael, >> I'm expecting a contract award (start date was due May 1, 2007), >>see >> details below from the research co-ordinator in Washington. >> I know that you have had delays due to Continuing Resolution, >> but I was wondering when the contract might be in place. My >> University have been asking when it might start? >> I hope you will be able to give me some information. >> >> Best Regards >> Phil >> >> >X-Server-Uuid: A0019757-12A2-40FA-BABE-3C1F772271E1 >> >Subject: FW: Contact in Chicago >> >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:27:12 -0400 >> >X-MS-Has-Attach: >> >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> >Thread-Topic: Contact in Chicago >> >Thread-Index: >AcdtRoHaqUMNF3G2T6Kjq2etoh9JpwABe5iwAABFFxAAlRHxYA== >> >From: "Bamzai, Anjuli" >> >To: "Phil Jones" >> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 12:27:12.0473 (UTC) >> > FILETIME=[149F7C90:01C76FA2] >> >X-WSS-ID: 6A1963AA2RK309537-01-01 >> >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> > >> >Phil, >> > >> >The start date for your award is May 1. Chicago is still working on Jan >> >awards. There's a backlog because of the CR. Wait a couple of weeks. >> > >> >Anjuli >> > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Carlson-Brown, Karen >> >Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:19 AM >> >To: Bamzai, Anjuli >> >Subject: RE: Contact in Chicago >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Anjuli, >> > >> >Here is the info for the contract specialist for Phil Jones' award. >>The >> >award has a start date of 5/1/07 and CH is working on January awards. >> > >> >Hill, Michael D. >> >Phone: 630-252-2338 >> >Fax: 630-252-5045 >> >Route Symbol: SC-CH >> >Building: BLDG 201 >> >Location: ARGONNE IL >> >Routing: SC-CH >> >Organization: Operations Division >> >Title: CONTRACT SPECIALIST >> >Internet Address: michael.hill@ch.doe.gov >> > >> >Karen Carlson-Brown >> >karen.carlson@science.doe.gov >> >301-903-3338 >> >fax: 301-903-8519 >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Bamzai, Anjuli >> >Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:10 AM >> >To: Carlson-Brown, Karen >> >Subject: FW: Contact in Chicago >> > >> >Karen, >> > >> >Has Jones/Univ East Anglia been assigned to someone in Chicago? >> > >> >Anjuli >> > >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>NR4 7TJ >>UK >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- >>---- > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 2143. 2007-06-19 09:02:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:02:34 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: the next controversy to: Phil Jones Why do the Skeptics adopt such a nasty, derogatory tone? I was just reading their UHI attack on Parker. The relevant question for climate change is not whether downtown is warmer than the country but whether the observing sites have an increasing UHI bias. Yet they dismiss sound science as kids twaddle rather than trying to understand why. I was just asked to review a J. Climate paper on Chinese UHI. I declined (I reviewed a GRL pan evap article last week and have a J. Climate radiosonde homogeneity paper to review, hopefully, this week). I'll paste the abstract they sent below just FYI as it relates to your UHI controversy. I recommended Li as a reviewer as Li lead the effort to homogenize Chinese data and if one doesn't adequately address non-UHI homogeneity issues first, all sorts of things may be aliased onto the signal. Regards, Tom Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 8:55 AM: Tom, Meant to say hope the interview goes well. Phil At 13:35 19/06/2007, you wrote: Thanks, Phil. -Tom Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 3:58 AM: Tom, Just looked at the CA web site, and their latest is a real go at the Jones et al. (1990) paper. When Wei-Chyung got the email from Keenan he was going to Norway for a meeting. Maybe he's back now. It seems as though they didn't give him much time to respond. I have a JGR paper to review by a number of Chinese on temp trends there. Warming looks much greater than CA would believe. They refer to a J. Climate paper (which is either in press or resubmitted - depends where it is referred to in the paper !) which reckons that 30-40% of the warming there is urban related. Not keen on it being said this way, but need to read the paper beyond the abstract and the urban section. As for pointers, yes stress this is just USHCN and not global. Maybe also point out that work on assessing homogeneity is best done within the country (even if Russ doesn't agree), so could mention Lucie re Canada. There are apparently some Australian pictures as well on the CA website. I had an email from David Jones of BMRC, saying they will be ignoring anything on CA and anything from Warwick Hughes. The other aspect to point out is that the SSTs are warming around most coasts, and the open ocean as well, so UHIs can only be a small part of the overall warming. There is a sentence or two on this in Ch 3, in the ES if I recall correctly. Could also point out that there are many totally rural sites around the world which show strong warming. Cheers Phil At 01:17 19/06/2007, you wrote: Phil, The guy who is putting the photos of the USHCN on-line will be talking on a radio station in Seattle Tuesday morning. I've been ask to follow him up for a 20 minute interview. I expect everything I say that CA doesn't like will show up there fairly soon. Any advice on points I ought to emphasize (their focus is, apparently, US temps, not global)? Tom Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 Embedded Content: moz-screenshot3.jpg: 00000001,07f6d1a6,00000000,00000000 2058. 2007-06-19 10:04:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk, Stefan Bojinski , rudolf@dwd.de, konogi@naps.kishou.go.jp, "Thigpen, Richard" , David Goodrich date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:04:20 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: potential new GSN stations to: Phil Jones Phil, et al., Pasted below are the count of number of observations from Bouvet Island. Clearly something is reporting from there and has been since 1994. Though there has been some gaps. -Tom January February March April May June July August September October November December R WMO Station Year HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M HLY SYN M 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 1994 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 96 96 - 148 148 - 139 139 - 127 127 - 123 123 - 122 122 - 131 131 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 1995 127 127 - 127 127 - 128 128 - 124 124 - 138 138 - 130 130 - 126 126 - 127 127 - 123 123 - 113 113 - 2 2 - 0 0 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 1996 0 0 - 0 0 - 68 68 - 148 148 - 160 160 - 164 164 - 137 137 - 174 174 - 160 160 - 174 174 - 170 170 - 176 176 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 1997 177 177 - 127 127 - 153 153 - 167 167 - 169 169 - 121 121 - 166 166 - 142 142 - 158 158 - 168 168 - 164 164 - 227 227 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 1998 152 152 - 149 149 - 148 148 - 141 141 - 165 165 - 166 166 - 169 169 - 160 160 - 166 166 - 162 162 - 149 149 - 160 160 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 1999 103 103 - 83 83 - 67 67 - 105 105 - 137 137 - 123 123 - 131 131 - 130 130 - 116 116 - 135 135 - 145 145 - 150 150 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2000 141 141 - 119 119 - 356 356 - 344 344 - 331 331 - 316 316 - 314 314 - 314 314 - 287 287 - 195 195 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2001 0 0 - 0 0 - 242 242 - 403 403 - 397 397 - 388 388 - 400 400 - 397 397 - 387 387 - 386 386 - 378 378 - 390 390 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2002 386 386 - 344 344 - 395 395 - 409 409 - 410 410 - 379 379 - 440 440 - 448 448 - 405 405 - 380 380 - 350 350 - 389 389 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2003 303 303 - 209 209 - 217 217 - 266 266 - 316 316 - 239 239 - 16 16 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2004 293 293 - 382 382 - 376 376 - 377 377 - 400 400 - 419 419 - 354 354 - 426 426 - 378 378 - 403 403 - 375 375 - 408 408 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2005 387 387 - 500 500 - 561 561 - 546 546 - 537 537 - 553 553 - 597 597 - 593 593 - 535 535 - 574 574 - 551 551 - 564 564 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2006 21 21 - 64 64 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 420 420 - 519 519 - 516 516 - 510 510 - 538 538 - 1 689920 BOUVET ISLAN 2007 528 528 - 463 463 - 154 154 - 0 0 - Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 9:25 AM: Tom, There's a few more for Dick to follow up. I guess we should prioritize these in some way. These are just numbered not prioritized! Dick was already looking at - AOPC conclusions. 1. Borneo 2. Yemen 3. Interior of Greenland - the GRIP ice core location (one for BAS) 4. Falklands (Mt Pleasant Apt, so the Met Office in the UK). 5. Diego Garcia (Chagos Archipelago - again Met Office). 6. South Georgia (BAS) 7. Peru (Dick was going to contact Corpac) of the new ones that Tom has suggested: 1. Midway Island 2. Aleutians 3. Micronesia (all these three are US run, so contact Howard?) 4. Belize (there are stations there) 5. Solomon Islands (is the coup over?) Are these additions OK Dick? Bouvet Island is uninhabited (its Norwegian by the way). I think we can ignore the Antarctic as we're working on the AWSs with Wisconsin. We should also ignore Franz Joseph Land and northern Russia. Also ignore the Horn of Africa (too difficult politically). We have one on Cuba? DRC is too difficult and reopens the U/A possibility. I think the Sandwich Islands are now Hawaii? I think Tom may be thinking of South Georgia from the map. Cheers Phil At 16:58 18/06/2007, [1]david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: Tom That was a useful exercise! How about adding Diego Garcia 7°19'S, 72°25'E? ? If the (South) Sandwich Islands in the S Atlantic don't turn out to have many data, an alternative could be South Georgia 37° W, 54.5° S, though the data from there - which show on your map - may be intermittent also. Regards David On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 11:22 -0400, Thomas C Peterson wrote: > Dear AGG, > > At the last AOPC meeting, we were looking at a map of GSN stations > and discussing where else we should seek GSN. As I recalled we decided > to sic (is that the right term?) Dick on Yemen and Indonesia (for > Borneo). I made a note to myself to find out where stations are > transmitting GTS messages that we don't have GSN. Larry Griffin (who > retired last month) creates a list summarizing all the GTS reports NCDC > receives. I went through that list and plotted in red all the stations > that transmitted something in 2006 or 2007 (all that I could find in Pub > 9 Volume A - about 1,000 stations that sent something over the GTS > during that time were not listed in Volume A). I then plotted the GSN > stations in blue. We can look at the attached map and see remote > locations where we don't have a GSN station but evidently there is a > station reporting over the GTS. My assessment is that the GSN has > potential to improve by adding stations from: > > Midway Island > the far end of the Aleutian Islands > Sandwich Islands > Bouvet Island > Solomon Islands > Democratic Republic of Congo > Cuba > Falkland Islands > the Caribbean coast of Belize or Honduras > the Horn of Africa > Franz Josef Land off the north coast of Russia > interior and northern Greenland > Micronesia > (and, of course, Yemen and Borneo) > > I didn't check the details about what reports were sent or for how > long. Some of these may be seasonal research observations. But many > are likely well worth further investigation. Did I miss any holes that > you can see &/or list any that any of you think are too small to be > worth bothering about? (Antarctica? central Algeria?) > > Regards, > Tom -- David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK E-mail: [2]david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 4272. 2007-06-19 12:04:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:04:11 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: personal to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: Sorry to hear this, but as you mention, it is no surprise. I've been purposefully demure in my comments about MM. In complete confidence (please share with no one), I will now mention that they formally petitioned NCAR and its parent organization UCAR to have them force Caspar and me to alter the Wahl-Ammann paper in fall 2005, based on a series of charges related in spirit to those you mention below . They also made complaint at this time about some comments Kevin Trenberth had made. There was an implied threat of legal action to UCAR. NCAR had their legal staff look into this, and they concluded that there was no impropriety of any kind, neither scientifically nor in terms of a media advisory that UCAR published on the "hockey stick" that was released at the time one of the M's was making a public presentation in Washington. In addition to this, the UCAR president mentioned in his response letter that it was highly unusual for such a request to be brought forth, and it was outside the bounds of normal scientific procedure -- to ask the organization to intervene in the relationship between authors and editors (the mss was still our explicit private property at the time because it was still in the review process, and subject to substantial change). If you have interest in seeing the original letter from MM and the response, let me know. So, we are aware of what MM are capable of, at least in the general sense that you mention below -- any kind of misinterpretation and misrepresentation possible will be used, along with threats to us and to our organizations. Any reflection you care to offer on how you are dealing with their claim of "fabrication" in your case would be worth hearing. I wish you strength. Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:16 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper Gene, When you're with Caspar can you remind him about the Wengen paper? Enjoy the two trips. I doubt MM and CA will express any surprise at your fairness. They will misinterpret any which way they can. They are now having a go at my paper from 1990 in Nature. I am now accused of fabrication ! The data analysed were 42 pairs of annual station averages (one rural set and one urban) for 30 years (1954-1983). There is not much that can be done with such short series or so few. I averaged the 42 sites together in each set and looked at trends over the 30 years - end of story. The only thing about China is that rural isn't that rural by western standards. Cheers Phil At 17:05 18/06/2007, you wrote: >Thanks Phil, and for the shot in the arm about " You'll be glad when >the two papers are out, despite what CA says". > >I think you are quite right. And Steve Schneider handled the entire >process very well with extensive review and re-review. And we >responded in detail to all comments, of every kind. MM may actually >be a bit surprised in the second paper -- I think we are very fair >with what we say overall about their critiques, and the seriousness >with which we take their critiques, e.g., the verification RE >benchmarking issue. However, since scientific balance is apparently >not their target, I am sure that the head of steam up will occur. > >Please note that I will be out of contact June 20-July 9, and then >with Caspar at NCAR through August 8. Regular email contact during >the NCAR month. > >Peace, Gene >________________________________ > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Mon 6/18/2007 3:46 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper > > Gene, > Don't worry about asking. I fully understand. I will get around > to reading the paper in the next week or so. When the two come > out (Nov I think you said) expect CA to be a head of steam up. > They have at the moment re exposure of US HCN sites and also > IPCC's dealing with reviews of the paleo chapter and the author's > responses. > > You'll be glad when the two papers are out, despite what CA says. > > I have had some threats - mainly directed at one of my co-author's > from a paper in 1990 on urbanization effects. The threat is that the > person will send a letter to his University (in this case SUNY at Albany) > saying the research is flawed. It isn't of course, but it is a sign of the > times. The threat is that he should withdraw his contribution to my > paper from Nature ! > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 20:55 15/06/2007, you wrote: > >You are welcome, Phil. Thanks for the sensitivity, only sorry to > >have to ask. We'd be curious to hear your thoughts. > > > >Peace, Gene > >________________________________ > > > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 6/15/2007 4:50 AM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R; juerg@giub.unibe.ch > >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper > > > > Gene, > > Thanks for the paper. Fully understand the issues, so will > > keep within CRU - well just Keith and Tim and then only > > if necessary. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > >At 02:38 15/06/2007, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: > > >Hi Phil and Juerg: > > > > > >Here is the Ammann-Wahl paper as promised. We received letter of > > >final acceptance and movement to "in press" status yesterday from > > >Stephen Schneider. We would ask that distribution be kept limited > > >until it actually comes out in hard copy (scheduled for the November > > >2007 issue of Climatic Change) so that its chances of getting to > > >McIntyre (et al.) are reduced, and thus the the probability is > > >decreased that he/they will have chance to attack it before it is > > >fully available to the public--as they almost certainly would if the > > >opportunity arises. Weird to need to consider such things, but that > > >is the state of our science re: this particular paper. > > > > > >However, you should certainly feel free to share it within your > > >research groups. > > > > > >Peace, Gene > > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > > >Alfred University > > > > > >607-871-2604 > > >1 Saxon Drive > > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 3974. 2007-06-19 14:13:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:13:09 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: CII - climate change project to: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk,p.jones@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk For information. Clare DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-E ncoding:Message-ID; b=0+t38RNtgGEviI78LqHVe4TTts7H9B5w2n3jS2hRKC5VcRW+5/3s2weCy9acErTlzh+fUPjalhwKb3O/7kegD1 RcdXXOAV6wcr2M2+hT9ujI+GqeQylLZE5IvG8fZ5Cc2RSfbCoQQ7itez1z6oM7siB6hJnr86G4Penly7+2Nso=; X-YMail-OSG: lD4WEc8VM1meHtXey3mqu4HTO.Kn65oY_2IoW2KDks8wX6Ahel8KfvExLtwqCeQSng-- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:15:59 +0100 (BST) From: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI Subject: CII - climate change project To: "alan.milroy@xlgroup.com" , joanna bean , Ian Coates , andy couchman , "crerarc@willis.com" , david crichton , "david.martin@adjustingsolutions.com" , andrew dlugolecki , nick ford , christina hall , julian harpum , andrew howie , MALCOLM JOHNSON , "kevin.bermingham@britinsurance.com" , "nadin.lambert@web.de" , "nadin.lambert@xlgroup.com" , Allen Perry , "peterbolster@aol.com" , julian richardson , "sajones@veitchpenny.co.uk" , Nick Silver , john walden , "wmb@abelard-uk.com" , susan divall , Clare Goodess X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hello everyone, This is a belated progress report. Apologies for the great delay, as I have been swamped by other work on climate change, and a few parts of the CII project itself. CII Fiona Andrews has moved from CII to another organisation. Susan Divall will now be the project co-ordinator. Susan and I havd already had one useful meeting to plan in detail how we go forward. Andrew Howie at CII is supporting the project, and has already started to send out chapters for review. CII has also confirmed that there will be a printed version of the full report. They need our guidance on numbers and recipients ( see action, below). Apart from the full report, there will be a summary version with key points and recommendations, aimed at the CII faculties. I will draft that on the bass of the full report. Project timetable Clearly we have slipped, and it looks like launch will be early November. The exact format will depend on the messages we have in the report. Individual chapter status 1 Intro Dlugolecki Andrew D to draft 2 Since 2000 Bolster, Couchman, Dlugolecki Andrew D to finalise 3 Science Agnew, Goodess Final drafting.Send to all for info by end June 4 Modelling Bermingham, Crerar Drafting? 5 Insurability Ford Andrew D to edit. CII seeking reviewer 6 Capital markets Harpum Gone to review 7 Personal lines Crichton, Johnson Final drafting on floods. Andrew D seeking claims reviewer. Possibly add subsidence? 8 SME Crichton Ready for review 9 Industrial Lambert, Milroy Andrew D seeking claims author via CII 10 Liability Aslet-Jones, Martin Andrew D to edit, then CII sends for review 11 Construction Walden CII seeking reviewer 12 Energy Coates,Hall Gone to review 13 Agric & Forestry Bean, Martin Andrew D to edit, then CII sends for review 14 Tourism& Leisure Perry CII seeking insurance author to complement 15 Life, Pensions,Savings Couchman Gone to review 16 Investment Silver Gone to review 17 Carbon markets Richardson Gone to review 18 Sustainability Buist Andrew D to edit, then CII sends for review 19 CSR Dlugolecki Andrew D to draft Review process This has already started, and chapters wil be sent away as they are completed. The reviewers' comments will come back to me via the CII, and I will then contact you individually about any necessary changes. Other matters * I will give a resume of the project on July 10th at the CII's underwriting day. * ABI are currently working with Lloyd's on a project called something like principles of climate insurance. They intend a launch on September 13. * UNFCCC is actively looking at how to involve insurance in the climate change negotiations. They are holding a workshop on June 20th in London. I am chairing a session on adaptation, and there is a session on mitigation (energy industries etc). * UN has developed a 3-week elearning course on finance and climate change, with a focus on the energy sector, from the viewpoint of insurers, banks and asset management.I habve just finished being a mentor for 2 weeks. Action 1 Who do you think the CII report should be sent to? Please be specific, in terms of numbers and organisations. 2 Please finish your draft as soon as possible, if you have not done it already! I will be in touch with you individually in the coming days, Best wishes to you all Andrew Dlugolecki Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 2782. 2007-06-19 14:39:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:39:25 +0100 from: "Jay, VL \(Victoria\)" subject: RE: no cost extension to uea grant to: "Phil Jones" , "Lawrence, BN \(Bryan\)" Hi All, This should be ok, Harry did ask me about this last week but the contracts people haven't done the letter yet, Will chase it up now, Cheers, Victoria -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 June 2007 14:34 To: Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Jay, VL (Victoria) Cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant Victoria, Bryan, Can we get a no funds extension to this project to the end of August? Harry has almost finished. This is just so UEA doesn't send you back the money when the account gets closed. UEA wants to close this. So can you send an agreement back to me, so I can forward. Harry is doing something else now - well from July 1, so needs to finish. I've put someone else on one aspect. I'll leave it with Harry to arrange the dates of a visit to set up in the second half of July. August is just some insurance. Cheers Phil At 15:46 23/01/2007, Bryan Lawrence wrote: >Hi Victoria > >Can we formally extend the UEA grant so that they can spend their last >travel money when they come down for the final data delivery (it's >difficult for them otherwise to hang onto the money to spend it)? > >Thanks >Bryan Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 755. 2007-06-19 14:56:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:56:55 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: Lots about USHCN on Climate Audit to: Phil Jones FYI, the radio interview seemed to go well. I must say in fairness that, considering the photographs of how not to observe temperature on Anthony Watts' blog, http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ , Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position. For example, when asked if the stations with poor siting were removed from the analysis would it show less warming, Mr. Watts said we won't know until the analysis is complete. -Tom Phil Jones said the following on 5/29/2007 6:14 AM: > >> Tom, > I can't find the stations Maryville and Lake Spaulding that > have the pictures here in recent Climate Audit threads in the > CRU database. > > CA seem to be working for Roger Pielke now, getting him > loads of pictures ! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 2522. 2007-06-20 09:31:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:31:39 -0600 (MDT) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990 to: "Phil Jones" Phil Hang in there. I went thru this on the hurricane stuff and it was hard to take. But responding to these guys unless they write papers is not the thing to do. Kevin > > Kevin, > My problem is that I don't know the best course of action. > Just sitting tight at the moment taking soundings. > I'd be far happier if they would write some papers and act > in the normal way. I'd know how to respond to that. In > a way this all seems a different form of attack from that on Ben and > Mike in previous IPCCs. > I know I'm on the right side and honest, but I seem to be > telling myself this more often recently! I also know that 99.9% > of my fellow climatologists know the attacks are groundless. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:54 20/06/2007, you wrote: >>Phil >>It is nasty. It is also very inappropriate. Even were some problems to >>emerge over time, those should be addressed in a new paper by these guys. >>Unfortunately all they do is criticise. >>Kevin >> >> >> > >> > Kevin, >> > Have also forwarded these emails to Susan and Martin, just >> > so they are aware of what is going on. The second email >> > is particularly nasty. >> > >> > I'm not worried and stand by the original paper and also >> > Wei-Chyung. I do plan to do some more work on urban-related >> > issues. I also think there is some urban influence in more recent >> > Chinese series from the 1980s onwards. I've seen some Chinese >> > papers on this. They are not that well written though. >> > >> > The CA web site has also had a go at David Parker's paper in >> > J. Climate (2006). David sent them the site locations and where >> > the data came from at NCDC. There are also threads on CA about >> > US HCN (Tom Karl and Peterson aware of these) and also about >> > IPCC and our responses to the various drafts. >> > >> > Apologies for sharing these with you. It is useful to send to a >> > very small group, as it enables me to get on with some real work. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > Wei-Chyung, Tom, >> > I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any >> > of the accusations on the Climate Audit website. >> > >> > I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we >> > should be discussing anything with our legal staff. >> > >> > The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, >> > and somehow split up the original author team. >> > >> > I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA >> > request! >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> >>X-YMail-OSG: >> >>wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw-- >> >>From: "Steve McIntyre" >> >>To: "Phil Jones" >> >>Subject: Jones et al 1990 >> >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:58 -0400 >> >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> >> >>Dear Phil, >> >> >> >>Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly >> >>collected by the US Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of >> >>Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese stations: >> >> >> >>The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose >> >>those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or >> >>observation times. >> >> >> >>This data set was later published as NDP-039 >> >>http://cdiac.o >> rnl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html >> >>, coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei, providing station histories only for >> >>their 65-station network, stating that station histories for their >> >>205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al >> >>1990) were not available: >> >> >> >>(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available >> >>for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, >> >>details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in >> >>station location or observing times, and official data sources are not >> >> known. >> >> >> >>(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be >> >>considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to >> >>minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have >> >>undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization. >> >>Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, >> >>station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper >> >>interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station >> >>histories for the 205-station network are not available. In >> >>addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has >> >>uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 >> >>and 10). Users should therefore exercise caution when using the data. >> >> >> >>Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones >> >>et al 1990 was incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether >> >>this claim was correct at the time and have been unaware of the >> >>incorrectness of this representation. Since the study continues to >> >>be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to >> >>promptly issue an appropriate correction. >> >> >> >>Regards, Steve McIntyre >> >> >> >> >> > From: "D.J. Keenan" >> > To: "Steve McIntyre" >> > Cc: "Phil Jones" >> > Subject: Wang fabrications >> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100 >> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 >> > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> > X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> > >> > Steve, >> > >> > I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang >> case. >> > >> > First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by >> > Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very >> > probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.) >> > >> > Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly >> > blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang. >> > >> > Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked >> > him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to >> > him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, >> > Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd. >> > >> > Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud >> > if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I >> > drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to >> > him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was >> up to >> > me. >> > >> > Fifth, I put a draft on my web site-- >> > http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm >> > --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations >> > for improvement. >> > >> > I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to >> > demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the >> > media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the >> > FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; >> > it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same >> > statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the >> > case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to >> > understand things. >> > >> > I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to >> > publish a retraction of Wang's >> > claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879 >> > There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it >> > would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement >> > of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no"). >> > >> > Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was >> > "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that >> > could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 >> > seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. >> > [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on >> > my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper. >> > >> > Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with >> > Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has >> > continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report >> > from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. >> Phil? >> > >> > Kind wishes, Doug >> > >> > * * * * * * * * * * * * >> > Douglas J. Keenan >> > http://www.informath.org >> > phone + 44 20 7537 4122 >> > The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK >> > >> > >> > Prof. Phil Jones >> > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> > University of East Anglia >> > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> > NR4 7TJ >> > UK >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>___________________ >>Kevin Trenberth >>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>PO Box 3000 >>Boulder CO 80307 >>ph 303 497 1318 >>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 4627. 2007-06-20 09:57:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:57:13 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: third email - Don't pass this one on to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Phil, Thanks for this and the others. I am sorry that you are continuing to be subject to these emails You mention ENV/SCI having a legal team look into matters - I don't think that this is necessary. If and when appropriate, we would deal with this through the "misconduct in research" process I mentioned earlier. The two other emails which you sent through do make accusations but they have not been made formally to the University, so I do not propose that I do anything about them. If you felt it appropriate, I could alert the Head of School to the ongoing issues. Best wishes Michael Michael McGarvie Senior Faculty Manager Faculty of Science Room 0.22C University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ tel: 01603 593229 fax: 01603 593045 m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 June 2007 08:49 To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: third email - Don't pass this one on Michael, This is a bit of an aside. It was sent to me as support. Don't pass this one on. I will request what the original letter relates to. I know it relates to a couple of papers which the journal Climatic Change will publish later this year (authors at Alfred University and NCAR/UCAR). Sending it as it indicates NCAR had their legal staff look at the accusations and found no impropriety whatsoever. Just wondering if we ENV/SCI/UEA should be thinking about doing the same? Sending these emails to you sort of allows me to forget things for a while, so I can get on with some work! Cheers Phil >Subject: personal >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:04:11 -0400 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: personal >thread-index: AceyUnwPLx429CiQT8OsqUtaA/cqpwANZdpQ >From: "Wahl, Eugene R" >To: "Phil Jones" >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Hi Phil: > >Sorry to hear this, but as you mention, it is no surprise. I've been >purposefully demure in my comments about MM. In complete confidence >(please share with no one), I will now mention that they formally >petitioned NCAR and its parent organization UCAR to have them force >Caspar and me to alter the Wahl-Ammann paper in fall 2005, based on a >series of charges related in spirit to those you mention below . They >also made complaint at this time about some comments Kevin Trenberth had >made. There was an implied threat of legal action to UCAR. > >NCAR had their legal staff look into this, and they concluded that there >was no impropriety of any kind, neither scientifically nor in terms of a >media advisory that UCAR published on the "hockey stick" that was >released at the time one of the M's was making a public presentation in >Washington. In addition to this, the UCAR president mentioned in his >response letter that it was highly unusual for such a request to be >brought forth, and it was outside the bounds of normal scientific >procedure -- to ask the organization to intervene in the relationship >between authors and editors (the mss was still our explicit private >property at the time because it was still in the review process, and >subject to substantial change). If you have interest in seeing the >original letter from MM and the response, let me know. > >So, we are aware of what MM are capable of, at least in the general >sense that you mention below -- any kind of misinterpretation and >misrepresentation possible will be used, along with threats to us and to >our organizations. > >Any reflection you care to offer on how you are dealing with their claim >of "fabrication" in your case would be worth hearing. I wish you >strength. > >Peace, Gene > > >******************************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred NY, 14802 > >607.871.2604 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:16 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper > > > Gene, > When you're with Caspar can you remind him about the Wengen paper? > Enjoy the two trips. > > I doubt MM and CA will express any surprise at your fairness. They >will > misinterpret any which way they can. > > They are now having a go at my paper from 1990 in Nature. I am > now accused of fabrication ! The data analysed were 42 pairs of > annual station averages (one rural set and one urban) for 30 years > (1954-1983). There is not much that can be done with such short > series or so few. I averaged the 42 sites together in each set > and looked at trends over the 30 years - end of story. > > The only thing about China is that rural isn't that rural by >western standards. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 17:05 18/06/2007, you wrote: > >Thanks Phil, and for the shot in the arm about " You'll be glad when > >the two papers are out, despite what CA says". > > > >I think you are quite right. And Steve Schneider handled the entire > >process very well with extensive review and re-review. And we > >responded in detail to all comments, of every kind. MM may actually > >be a bit surprised in the second paper -- I think we are very fair > >with what we say overall about their critiques, and the seriousness > >with which we take their critiques, e.g., the verification RE > >benchmarking issue. However, since scientific balance is apparently > >not their target, I am sure that the head of steam up will occur. > > > >Please note that I will be out of contact June 20-July 9, and then > >with Caspar at NCAR through August 8. Regular email contact during > >the NCAR month. > > > >Peace, Gene > >________________________________ > > > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Mon 6/18/2007 3:46 AM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper > > > > Gene, > > Don't worry about asking. I fully understand. I will get around > > to reading the paper in the next week or so. When the two come > > out (Nov I think you said) expect CA to be a head of steam up. > > They have at the moment re exposure of US HCN sites and also > > IPCC's dealing with reviews of the paleo chapter and the author's > > responses. > > > > You'll be glad when the two papers are out, despite what CA says. > > > > I have had some threats - mainly directed at one of my co-author's > > from a paper in 1990 on urbanization effects. The threat is that the > > person will send a letter to his University (in this case SUNY at >Albany) > > saying the research is flawed. It isn't of course, but it is a sign >of the > > times. The threat is that he should withdraw his contribution to my > > paper from Nature ! > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > >At 20:55 15/06/2007, you wrote: > > >You are welcome, Phil. Thanks for the sensitivity, only sorry to > > >have to ask. We'd be curious to hear your thoughts. > > > > > >Peace, Gene > > >________________________________ > > > > > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > > >Sent: Fri 6/15/2007 4:50 AM > > >To: Wahl, Eugene R; juerg@giub.unibe.ch > > >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper > > > > > > Gene, > > > Thanks for the paper. Fully understand the issues, so will > > > keep within CRU - well just Keith and Tim and then only > > > if necessary. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > >At 02:38 15/06/2007, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: > > > >Hi Phil and Juerg: > > > > > > > >Here is the Ammann-Wahl paper as promised. We received letter of > > > >final acceptance and movement to "in press" status yesterday from > > > >Stephen Schneider. We would ask that distribution be kept limited > > > >until it actually comes out in hard copy (scheduled for the >November > > > >2007 issue of Climatic Change) so that its chances of getting to > > > >McIntyre (et al.) are reduced, and thus the the probability is > > > >decreased that he/they will have chance to attack it before it is > > > >fully available to the public--as they almost certainly would if >the > > > >opportunity arises. Weird to need to consider such things, but >that > > > >is the state of our science re: this particular paper. > > > > > > > >However, you should certainly feel free to share it within your > > > >research groups. > > > > > > > >Peace, Gene > > > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > > > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > > > >Alfred University > > > > > > > >607-871-2604 > > > >1 Saxon Drive > > > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > >University of East Anglia > > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > >NR4 7TJ > > >UK > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 1467. 2007-06-20 10:48:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" , 'Wei-Chyung Wang' date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:48:34 -0400 from: wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990 to: Phil Jones Wrapped up the Oslo meeting this noontime and will be flying out tomorrow morning arriving at Albany Thursday night. I have kept both Mike Riches (DOE China agreement Coordinator) and Ken Demerjian (our Center Director) informed of the recent development. I think Climate Audit guys have their mind/goal set, no matter what you told them. I do not understand why Keenan is so mindful of my cc the last response to you folks. Is Keenan workining on thretening me alone, unwilling to let you two know? WCW ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:08 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990 > > > Wei-Chyung, > Let me know what happens. Still not doing anything, except > passing them onto someone here who has started a file. > > I have sent these emails to Susan Solomon at WG1 of IPCC, > just so she's aware. I don't expect her to do anything. She has her > own problems with this CA crowd. Sent this just in case this does > blow up in the media. It would seem to me that it would be stupid > for them to go to the media, before sending anything to SUNY. > > Still think it might be a good idea to tell Anjuli Bamzai, > but I'll > leave that to you. Again just in case it gets to the media. > > Hope all is well besides this. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > > > 2444. 2007-06-20 12:21:16 ______________________________________________________ date: 20 Jun 2007 12:21:16 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: Wengen section to: Phil Jones yeah, I've been noticing... Well, just let me know if I can do anything - even if it's just sending the occasionally nice email! Gavin On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 05:59, Phil Jones wrote: > Gavin, > Thanks. Yours was the nicest email I got overnight. > Cheers > Phil > > > At 20:02 19/06/2007, you wrote: > >Refs for my section - note that the first Goosse reference should be > >Goosse et al 2006, and the second was in error and shouldn't be there > >any way. > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > >References > > > >Collins, W. D., et al., Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse > >gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental > > Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J. > >Geophys. Res, 111, 2006. > > > >Dickinson, R., Solar variability and the lower atmosphere, Bull. Amer. > >Meteor. Soc., pp. 12401248., 1975. > > > >Gerber, S., F. Joos, P. P. Bruegger, T. F. Stocker, M. E. Mann, and S. > >Sitch, Constraining temperature variations over the last > > millennium by comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO2, Clim. > >Dyn., 20, 281299, 2003. > > > >Goosse, H., O. Arzel, J. Luterbacher, M. E. Mann, H. Renssen, N. > >Riedwyl, A. Timmermann, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner, The origin > > of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate of the Past, 2, > >99113, 2006. > > > >Haigh, J. D., The impact of solar variability on climate, Science, 272, > >981984, 1996. > > > >Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Nouger, P. J. van der Linden, > >X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, Climate Change > > 2001: The scientific basis, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001. > > > >Lean, J., Evolution of the sun's spectral irradiance since the Maunder > >Minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 24252428, 2000. > > > >LeGrande, A. N., G. A. Schmidt, D. T. Shindell, C. Field, R. L. Miller, > >D. Koch, G. Faluvegi, and G. Hoffmann, Consistent simulations > > of multiple proxy responses to an abrupt climate change event, Proc. > >Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 837842, 2006. > > > >Oman, L., A. Robock, G. Stenchikov, G. A. Schmidt, and R. Ruedy, > >Climatic response to high-latitude volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys. > > Res., 110, 2005. > > > >Ruddiman, W. F., The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of > >years ago, Clim. Change, 61, 261293, 2003. > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. A. Schmidt, R. L. Miller, and D. Rind, Northern > >hemisphere winter climate response to greenhouse gas, ozone, > > solar and volcanic forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 71937210, 2001. > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. Faluvegi, R. L. Miller, G. A. Schmidt, J. E. Hansen, > >and S. Sun, Solar and anthropogenic forcing of tropical > > hydrology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 2006. > > > > > > > >On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 05:55, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Gavin, > > > Thanks for this. I'll incorporate this into a revised draft > > > later this week > > > and then send around. Gene has sent me something as well. > > > Can you send the refs if you have them? > > > > > > Thorsten will likely send a reminder around as he's being > > > pressurized by Larry from EPRI. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 09:51 28/05/2007, you wrote: > > > > > > >Hi Phil, sorry for the long delay. But here is a first draft of the > > > >forcings and models section I was supposed to take the lead on. > > > >Hopefully, we can merge that with whatever Caspar has. > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > >================ > > > > > > > >4 Forcing (GS/CA/EZ) 4-5pp > > > > > > > >Histories (CA) > > > >How models see the forcings, especially wrt aerosols/ozone and > > > >increasing model complexities (GS) > > > > > > > >An important reason for improving climate reconstructions of the past few > > > >millenia is that these reconstructions can help us both evaluate > > > >climate model responses and sharpen our understanding of important > > > >mechanisms and feedbacks. Therefore, a parallel task to improving > > > >climate reconstructions is to assess and independently constrain > > > >forcings on the climate system over that period. > > > > > > > >Forcings can generically be described as external effects on a > > > >specific system. Responses within that system that also themselves > > > >have an impact on its internal state are described as feeebacks. For > > > >the atmosphere, sea surface temperature changes could > > > >therefore be considered a forcing, but in a coupled ocean-atmosphere > > > >model they could be a feedback to another external factor or be > > > >intrinsic to the coupled system. Thus the distinction between forcings and > > > >feedbacks is not defined a priori, but is a function of the scope of > > > >the modelled system. This becomes especially important when dealing > > > >with the bio-geo-chemical processes in climate that effect the > > > >trace gas concentrations (CO2 and CH4) or > > aerosols. For example, if a model > > > >contains a carbon cycle, than the CO2 variations as a function of > > > >climate will be a feedback, but for a simpler physical model, CO2 is > > > >often imposed directly as a forcing from observations, regardless of > > > >whether in the real world it was a feedback to another change, or a > > > >result of human industrial activity. > > > > > > > >It is useful to consider the pre-industrial period (pre-1850 or so) > > > >seperately from the more recent past, since the human influence on > > > >many aspects of atmospheric composition has increased dramatically in > > > >the 20th Century. In particular, aerosol and land use changes are > > > >poorly constrained prior to the late 20th Century and have large > > > >uncertainties. Note however, there may conceivably be a role for human > > > >activities even prior to the 19th Century due to early argiculatural > > > >activity (Ruddiman, 2003; Goosse et al, 2005). > > > > > > > >In pre-industrial periods, forcings can be usefully separated into > > > >purely external changes (variations of solar activity, volcanic > > > >eruptions, orbital variation), and those which are intrinsic to the > > > >Earth system (greenhouse gases, aerosols, vegetation etc.). Those > > > >changes in Earth system elements will occur predominantly as feedbacks > > > >to other changes (whether externally forced or simply as a function of > > > >internal climate 'noise'). In the more recent past, the human role in > > > >affecting atmospheric composition (trace gases and aerosols) and land > > > >use have dominated over natural processes and so these changes can, to > > > >large extent, be considered external forcings as well. > > > > > > > >Traditionally, the 'system' that is most usually implied when talking > > > >about forcings and feedbacks are the 'fast' components atmosphere-land > > > >surface-upper ocean system that, not coincidentally, corresponds to > > > >the physics contained within atmospheric > > general circulation models (AGCMs) > > > >coupled to a slab ocean. What is not > > included (and therefore considered as a > > > >forcing according to our previous definition) are 'slow' changes in > > > >vegetation, ice sheets or the carbon cycle. In the real world these > > > >features will change as a function of other climate changes, and in > > > >fact may do so on relatively 'fast' (i..e multi-decadal) > > > >timescales. Our choice then of the appropriate 'climate system' is > > > >thus slightly arbitrary and does not give a complete picture of the > > > >long term sensitivity of the real climate. > > > > > > > >These distinctions become important because the records available for > > > >atmospheric composition do not record the distinction between feedback > > > >or forcing, they simply give, for instance, the history of CO2 and > > > >CH4. Depending on the modelled system, those records will either be a > > > >modelling input, or a modelling target. > > > > > > > >While there are good records for some factors (particularly the well > > > >mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4), records for others are > > > >either hopelessly incomplete (dust, vegetation) due to poor spatial or > > > >temporal resolution or non-existant (e.g. ozone). Thus estimates of > > > >the magnitude of these forcings can only be made using a model-based > > > >approach. This can be done using GCMs that include more Earth system > > > >components (interactive aerosols, chemistry, dynamic vegetation, > > > >carbon cycles etc.), but these models are still very much a work in > > > >progress and have not been used extensively for paleo-climatic > > > >purposes. Some initial attempts have been made for select feedbacks > > > >and forcings (Gerber et al, 2003; Goosse et al 2006) but a > > > >comprehensive assessment over the millennia prior to the > > > >pre-industrial does not yet exist. > > > > > > > >Even for those forcings for which good records exist, there is a > > > >question of they are represented within the models. This is not so > > > >much of an issue for the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) > > > >since there is a sophisticated literature and history of including > > > >them within models (IPCC, 2001) though some aspects, such as minor > > > >short-wave absorption effects for CH4 and N2O are still not > > > >universally included > > > >(Collins et al, 2006). However, solar effects have been treated in > > > >quite varied ways. > > > > > > > >The most straightforward way of including solar irradiance effects on > > > >climate is to change the solar 'constant' (preferably described as > > > >total solar irradiance - TSI). However, observations show that solar > > > >variability is highly dependent on wavelength with UV bands having > > > >about 10 times as much amplitude of change than TSI over a solar cycle > > > >(Lean, 2000). Thus including this spectral variation for all solar > > > >changes allows for a slightly different behaviour (larger > > > >solar-induced changes in the stratosphere where the UV is mostly > > > >absorbed for instance). Additionally, the changes in UV affect ozone > > > >production in both the stratosphere and troposphere, and this > > > >mechanism has been shown to affect both the total radiative forcing > > > >and dynamical responses (Haigh 1996, Shindell et al 2001; > > > >2006). Within a chemistry climate model this effect would potentially > > > >modify the radiative impact of the original solar forcing, but could also > > > >be included as an additional (parameterised) forcing in standard GCMs. > > > > > > > >There is also a potential effect from the indirect effect of solar > > > >magnetic variability on the sheilding of cosmic rays, which have been > > > >theorised to affect the production of cloud condensation nuclei > > > >(Dickinson, 1975). However, there have been no quantitative > > > >calculations of the magnitude of this effect (which would require a > > > >full study of the relevant aerosol and cloud microphysics), and so its > > > >impact on climate is not (yet) been included. > > > > > > > >Large volcanic eruptions produce significant amounts of sulpher > > > >dioxide (SO2). If this is injected into the tropical stratosphere > > > >during a particularly explosive eruption, the resulting sulphate can > > > >persist in the atmosphere for a number of years (e.g. Pinatubo in > > > >1991). Less explosive, but more persistent eruptions (e.g. Laki in > > > >1789??) can still affect climate though in a more regional way and for > > > >a shorter term (Oman et al, 2005). These aerosols have both a > > > >shortwave (reflective) and longwave (absorbing) impact on the > > > >radiation and their local impact on stratospheric heating can have > > > >important dynamical effects. It is therefore better to include the > > > >aerosol absorber directly in the radiative transfer code. However, in > > > >less sophisticated models, the impact of the aerosols has been > > > >parameterised as the equivalent decrease in TSI. For extreme eruptions > > > >it has been hypothesised that sulphate production might saturate the > > > >oxidative capacity of the stratosphere leaving significant amounts of > > > >residual SO2. This gas is a greenhouse gas and would have an opposite > > > >effect to the cooling aerosols. This effect however has not yet been > > > >quantified. > > > > > > > >Land cover changes have occured both due to deliberate modification by > > > >humans (deforestation, imposed fire regimes, arguculture) as well as a > > > >feedback to climate change (the desertification of the Sahara ca. 5500 > > > >yrs ago). Changing vegetation in a standard model affects the seasonal > > > >cycle of albedo, the surface roughness, the impact of snow, > > > >evapotranspiration (through different rooting depths) etc. However, > > > >modelling of the yearly cycle of crops, or incorporating the effects > > > >of large scale irrigation are still very much a work in > > > >progress. > > > > > > > >Aerosol changes over the last few milllenia are very poorly > > > >constrained (if at all). These might have arisen from climatically > > > >or human driven changes in dust emissions, ocean biology feedbacks > > > >on circulation change, or climate impacts on the emission volatile > > > >organics from plants (which also have an impact on ozone > > > >chemistry). Some work on modelling a subset of those effects has > > > >been done for the last glacial maximum or the 8.2 kyr event > > > >(LeGrande et al, 2006), but there have been no quantitative > > > >estimates for the late Holocene (prior to the industrial period). > > > > > > > >Due to the relative expense of doing millennial simulations with > > > >state-of-the-art GCMs, exisiting simulations have generally done the > > > >minimum required to include relevant solar, GHG and volcanic > > > >forcings. Progress can be expected relatively soon on more > > > >sophisticated treatments of those forcings and the first > > > >quantitative estimates of additional effects. > > > > > > > >============= > > > > > > > > > > > >*--------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > >| Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies | > > > >| 2880 Broadway | > > > >| Tel: (212) 678 5627 New York, NY 10025 | > > > >| | > > > >| gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin | > > > >*--------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1506. 2007-06-20 13:37:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:37:38 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: personal to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: Glad I can help, even if quite indirectly. I know what you mean about the need for community when under duress. The individual quality of being a scientist works against us in this way. Attached are the original letter and the official UCAR response. I don't know what the lawyers might have written, other than their input to the official response letter. I do know they sought information from Caspar (and myself, but less so). I don't recall if we made available to them our correspondance with Steve Schneider about our responses to the review of WA that McIntyre did, which had a lot of information in it that debunked his claims about withholding contrary results, etc, etc.. In fact, we have never mentioned this to Steve, to make sure that he was in the situation to make editorial decisions as focused soley on the science as possible. I was wondering if there is any way we as the scientific community can seek some kind of "cease and desist" action with these people. They are making all kinds of claims, all over the community, and we act in relatively disempowered ways. Note that UCAR did send the response letter to the presidents of the two academic institutions with which MM are associated, although this seems to have had no impact. Seeking the help of the attorneys you speak about would be useful, I should think. I know that Mike has said he looked into slander action with the attorneys with whom he spoke, but they said it is hard to do since Mike is, in effect, a "public" person -- and to do so would take a LOT of his time (assuming that the legal time could somewhow be supported financially). If I might ask, if you do get legal advice, could you inquire into the possibility of acting proactively in response via the British system? Maybe the "public" person situation does not hold there, or less so. I only ask you to consider this question on my part; obviously, please do what you deem best for your situation. Finally, I have shared the MM letter and UCAR response before only with one other scientist, a now retired emminent person here in the US whom I asked to look over all the materials and give me his frank opinion if he felt we had done anything inappropriate. He came back with a solid "NO", and said that what MM were attempting was "unspeakable". Caspar has mentioned that UCAR said to him they did not want to disseminate these materials publically, and I have kept to that, other than the case mentioned. It seems clear to me that providing them to you is appropriate; I have not contacted Caspar to think about it at this point, and don't feel I need to. Anyway, this is just to give you the context on that side of things. I would imagine that sharing the doc's with legal persons you trust would be OK. Note that I am now out of contact through July 9. I wish you all the best!! Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wed 6/20/2007 4:06 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: Fwd: Jones et al 1990 Gene, Thanks for the email of support! I've taken up the idea of asking someone at UEA about legal advice. I would like to see the original letter if possible. I won't pass this on. Did the NCAR/UCAR legal staff put anything in writing, as this might help me decide if the advice I might get here is reasonable? I'm sure it will be and I know I've nothing to worry about, as I've done nothing wrong and neither has Wei-Chyung. It is good to share these sorts of things with a few people. I know Ben and Mike have been through this, but wasn't aware you and Caspar had. Thanks for your strength ! Cheers Phil Wei-Chyung, Tom, I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any of the accusations on the Climate Audit website. I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we should be discussing anything with our legal staff. The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, and somehow split up the original author team. I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request! Cheers Phil X-YMail-OSG: wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw-- From: "Steve McIntyre" To: "Phil Jones" Subject: Jones et al 1990 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:58 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Phil, Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly collected by the US Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese stations: The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. This data set was later published as NDP-039 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html , coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei, providing station histories only for their 65-station network, stating that station histories for their 205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al 1990) were not available: (s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data sources are not known. (s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization. Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station histories for the 205-station network are not available. In addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 and 10). Users should therefore exercise caution when using the data. Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones et al 1990 was incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether this claim was correct at the time and have been unaware of the incorrectness of this representation. Since the study continues to be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to promptly issue an appropriate correction. Regards, Steve McIntyre From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Steve McIntyre" Cc: "Phil Jones" Subject: Wang fabrications Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Steve, I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case. First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.) Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang. Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd. Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me. Fifth, I put a draft on my web site-- http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement. I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things. I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879 There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no"). Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper. Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil? Kind wishes, Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * Douglas J. Keenan http://www.informath.org phone + 44 20 7537 4122 The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MM_request_to_UCAR.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\UCAR_response_to_MM V6.doc" 2759. 2007-06-21 10:22:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:22:20 +0100 from: "Roger Coe" subject: Global Temperatures and Solar Irradiance to: Professor Haigh, I have been corresponding recently with Phil Jones of UEA regarding the Figure on his website showing the global temperature record to 2006. This and other similar records show a definitive slow down in the temperature rise since about 2001 which is also evident in some of the Figures in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report without comment. Also noticeable in AR4 is the reduction in solar forcing from the TAR apparently due to the preference for a low TSI composite and a low reconstruction from the Maunder Minimum in Section 2.7.1. This position seems to leave the IPCC in some difficulty in explaining the current Global Temperature data with the atmospheric CO2 levels continuing the steady rise. My question to you is whether the indirect effects of solar variability or solar amplification could be contributing to this trend as solar cycle 23 reaches a minimum about now. I have noted your 2006 Space Science Review of this developing subject and wondered if recent developments could suggest a significant impact on the current tropospheric temperature record. Regards Roger Coe, Retired Physicist 1813. 2007-06-21 12:59:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:59:37 +0100 from: Andrew Manning subject: Re: Green league to: Alan Bond , Dear Alan and All, sadly, this is not at all surprising, and I believe that quibbling over methodology, while important to some degree when comparisons are made, serves only to cover up and ignore the main problems. Consider the following two examples, which although trivial in themselves, I consider to be very revealing: 1) UEA recently completed an "Energy Awareness and Conservation Initiative" survey, with a sampling of staff from several Schools asked to complete the survey (it took less than 10 minutes out of my day to complete). Shortly before the survey closed, ENV had the *lowest* response rate from any School, prompting an urgent plea from Chris Vincent that we take action and complete the survey. But even after this direct plea from HoS, ENV had a final response rate less than 50%, and better only than Management. (for those interested, results of the survey can be found at: [1]http://www.adian-survey.co.uk/uea/present/eaci_chart_1.html 2) My sources tell me that, on average, 4 days out of 5 in the week, the LGMAC kitchen recycling bin contains items that cannot be recycled. This despite an email ~2 months ago from a concerned postgraduate student reminding us about this problem, and despite large notices posted in the kitchen. If a supposedly highly educated section of the public, whose lives and careers are dedicated to Environmental Science, are unable to follow simple instructions to separate rubbish from recyclables, what possible hope can there be for the rest of the country?? There are many other examples - how many of us leave our computers, monitors, TVs, etc on standby in our offices and homes? Thus, despite having the excellent CRed Department in our midst, and despite living in the most "eco-friendly" city in the UK (email from Chris Flack, 15Nov2006), ENV's own performance when it comes to being green and showing concern for our environment is extremely poor. I make an analogy of our position with that of the Bush Administration against China - Bush refuses to get involved in greenhouse gas emissions reductions until China is on board. The rest of the world believe (for a host of reasons) that the Bush Administration (and Europe) should take the lead, set the example, and China will follow. How can we reasonably expect large-scale individual action in the UK (or even UEA), when the largest and most famous Environmental Sciences School in the country is unable to set an example? Some will say my analysis is too harsh and unfair, and give a list of contrary examples. I would counter those examples by saying, great, but we need more, a lot more, particularly on the scale of individual action, changes in day-to-day habits, and setting examples to the general public. I highly recommend the book by Dave Reay, "Climate Change Begins at Home: Life on the Two-Way Street of Global Warming". Reay points out that many of us (and I think this includes a lot of scientists) make one or two minor changes to our lives, to assuage our guilty feelings towards our impact on the environment, but in reality these changes are all but insignficant. Andrew At 21/06/2007 10:27, Alan Bond wrote: I was at Essex University yesterday, where staff took some delight in pointing out UEA's position in the University "Green League". As with all league tables - our position is totally dependent on the methodology .. but embarrassing all the same! Hint .. click on the URL below - and scroll down towards the bottom. [2]http://peopleandplanet.org/gogreen/greenleague2007/table Regards, Alan. Dr Alan Bond, InteREAM (Interdisciplinary Research in Environmental Assessment and Management), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel. +44 1603 593402 Fax. +44 1603 591327 Email: alan.bond@uea.ac.uk Skype name: inteream Web: [3]http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/inteream/ 4710. 2007-06-21 16:07:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Lowe_Tom" date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:07:05 +0100 from: "Mike Hulme" subject: RE: is this an over the top article/reporting to: "'Phil Jones'" Oh dear, we're doomed, we're all doomed! 'Whipsaws' now join 'feedbacks', 'flips' and 'tipping points' in the Earth science lexicon. Hansen certainly uses the words 'peril', 'planetary rescue', etc. so it's hard to blame Steve Connor, but what are we to make of all this? Does Jim want us to stop sleeping at night? Mike -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 June 2007 16:49 To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: is this an over the top article/reporting http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece Mike, I think I'd agree with you on this one. Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3990. 2007-06-22 13:21:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mark Hebden" , , date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:21:04 +0100 from: "Marsh, AKP \(Kevin\) - SSTD" subject: RE: RAPID Round 1 & 2 projects update to: "Tim Osborn" Thanks for the information Tim, that's very useful. I'll discuss the issues with my colleagues in the RDC and work out what the best way to proceed is. It may be useful to have a copy of the model data for the first round project to ensure it's long term preservation, Cheers, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 June 2007 12:19 To: Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD Cc: Mark Hebden; K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk; t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Subject: RE: RAPID Round 1 & 2 projects update Hi Kevin, we have two Rapid projects, but still ongoing. The first ("Quantitative applications of high-res late Holocene proxies..., NER/T/S/2002/00440) has produced the drought data sets, but is also using many existing data sets including model simulations done by other groups. At our data meeting near the start of the project we discussed whether it was appropriate or efficient for BADC/BODC to archive copies of these model and other data sets give that they weren't generated by the project and (for the model data) we already spent time under a different project developing a website to provide access. It isn't clear in my mind what conclusion we came to, especially for the model data. If you'd like to take a look at this data and our archive site for it, go here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap/ follow links to "climate model data" and then on to either HadCM3 or ECHO-G data. The actual data access is password protected: For HadCM3 login details are soaphad xe2005 For ECHO-G soapech od2004 The second project ("To what extent was the Little Ice Age..., NE/C509507/1) is making new model runs with HadCM3. Our postdoc Thomas Kleinen has made very many runs now, but many are exploratory runs rather than production runs, and I think it is the latter final experiment runs that should be archived and shared. Most of the production runs are not yet complete. An exception is our multi-century control run, which is complete. But do you want data from another HadCM3 control run (a number already exist)? A guess it will be appropriate once the experiment runs that are associated with this particular control run are ready. I've cc'd this to Thomas and to Keith. We'll need to discuss and select appropriate selection of variables and time resolutions to keep data transfer efficient. Cheers Tim At 11:40 22/06/2007, you wrote: >Hi Tim, >Hope things are well with you. I saw Gerard at the RAPID meeting >earlier this week, and he was telling me about the SST reconstruction >he's been working on. I've just checked the RAPID DMP for your project, >and model runs are also mentioned as one of the outputs for archiving >(in addition to the drought synthesis datasets). Is this still the >case? Many Thanks, Kevin > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 26 April 2007 16:46 >To: Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD >Subject: RE: RAPID Round 1 & 2 projects update > > >And the North American drought data are now there too. > >European drought data now here: >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/drought/ > > >Hi Kevin, > >please find attached a readme text file for the European drought >indices. The data themselves are too big to email, so I'll put them on >the webserver for you to download. Will let you know soon. The North >American drought data will also be placed there in the next day or two. >We'll keep them on our webserver too, so you can either link to that or >download them and provide your copy via BADC. > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 12:42 25/04/2007, you wrote: > >Hi Tim, > >Any updates on these you can report? (I've got a meeting with Meric > >soon & he may ask) Cheers, kevin > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 23 February 2007 12:06 > >To: Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD > >Cc: Keith Briffa; t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk > >Subject: Re: RAPID Round 1 & 2 projects update > > > > > >Hi Kevin, > > > >specifically with regards to data outputs... > > > >For Round1 project I will shortly be sending you information about > >two newly derived data sets that were funded by this project. Both > >are 20th century drought indices, one for the European region, one > >for USA. > > >I guess you'll want the data too, for archiving? > > > >For Round2 project we have made a number of new simulations with > >HadCM3 > > >but none of these represent our final experimental design, so will be > >re-run in final configuration -- only after that will the data be > >worth > > >archiving. > > > >Is that ok? > > > >Cheers > > > >Tim > > > >At 23:50 22/02/2007, you wrote: > > >Hi Tim, > > >I'm just putting together the annual report for the RAPID Data > > >Centre, and was wondering if you could give me a quick update on > > >the current status of your Round 1 and Round 2 RAPID projects, > > >thanks, Kevin > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > >Climatic Research Unit > >School of Environmental Sciences > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > >phone: +44 1603 592089 > >fax: +44 1603 507784 > >web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 2662. 2007-06-22 18:32:42 ______________________________________________________ date: 22 Jun 2007 18:32:42 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: Wengen section to: Phil Jones It would indeed be nice if they would do something constructive like write an actual paper, but it's extremely unlikely that they'll bother. As we've discussed before, this isn't really about the science - it's more of a way to shift the topic of conversation away from physics and on to perfidious scientists, totalitarian bureaucracies and freedom of speech. Those subjects resonate with a lot of people who are looking for reasons not to want to trust the IPCC. Keenan is extremely unpleasant - much more so than McIntyre. Ask Pascal Yiou the next time you see him! There is unfortunately no good way to deal with this micro-parsing - but don't let anything you do allow them to shift the focus onto 'hiding' data etc. regards, gavin On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 03:58, Phil Jones wrote: > Gavin, > So you do look at CA occasionally! Yes nice emails > welcomed all the time. CRU gets a number of emails each > week from interested amateurs (the public). I'm much more > careful how I reply to these. > I won't be replying to CA. McIntyre's email wasn't too bad. > The really awful one with threats came from Douglas Keenan. > The only issue I can see they are complaining about is that > we said we used 84 sites (42 rural and 42 urban) and that > we chose those with the fewest site changes. They have found > site histories for some of them and there are site moves! They > have yet to look at the temperature data that I sent them! So > their claim is nothing about the analysis in the paper! > They don't seem to realise that when you spend ages doing all > the site adjustments they only make differences locally. At > large scales they tend to cancel each other out. In > Brohan et al. (2006) Figure 4 you can see a histogram of > adjustments - the average of which is close to zero! > Adjusting is useful as it improves the continuity of spatial > patterns. > The real issues are the biases like urbanization, buckets > and the exposure issues from pre-Stevenson screen days. > Jim will have realized this ages ago, as I did around the > mid-1980s. > > If only they would write a paper, then I'd know what to deal > with. I reckon they are trying this new tack now (blogs, > personal attacks and maybe complaints to our employers) > as they realize they can't write papers (the MM ones re MBH > were poor), and they see their new approach as being more > productive for them. > > So more nice emails every now and then. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 17:21 20/06/2007, you wrote: > >yeah, I've been noticing... Well, just let me know if I can do anything > >- even if it's just sending the occasionally nice email! > > > >Gavin > > > > > >On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 05:59, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Gavin, > > > Thanks. Yours was the nicest email I got overnight. > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 20:02 19/06/2007, you wrote: > > > >Refs for my section - note that the first Goosse reference should be > > > >Goosse et al 2006, and the second was in error and shouldn't be there > > > >any way. > > > > > > > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >References > > > > > > > >Collins, W. D., et al., Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse > > > >gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental > > > > Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J. > > > >Geophys. Res, 111, 2006. > > > > > > > >Dickinson, R., Solar variability and the lower atmosphere, Bull. Amer. > > > >Meteor. Soc., pp. 12401248., 1975. > > > > > > > >Gerber, S., F. Joos, P. P. Bruegger, T. F. Stocker, M. E. Mann, and S. > > > >Sitch, Constraining temperature variations over the last > > > > millennium by comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO2, Clim. > > > >Dyn., 20, 281299, 2003. > > > > > > > >Goosse, H., O. Arzel, J. Luterbacher, M. E. Mann, H. Renssen, N. > > > >Riedwyl, A. Timmermann, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner, The origin > > > > of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate of the Past, 2, > > > >99113, 2006. > > > > > > > >Haigh, J. D., The impact of solar variability on climate, Science, 272, > > > >981984, 1996. > > > > > > > >Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Nouger, P. J. van der Linden, > > > >X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, Climate Change > > > > 2001: The scientific basis, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001. > > > > > > > >Lean, J., Evolution of the sun's spectral irradiance since the Maunder > > > >Minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 24252428, 2000. > > > > > > > >LeGrande, A. N., G. A. Schmidt, D. T. Shindell, C. Field, R. L. Miller, > > > >D. Koch, G. Faluvegi, and G. Hoffmann, Consistent simulations > > > > of multiple proxy responses to an abrupt climate change event, Proc. > > > >Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 837842, 2006. > > > > > > > >Oman, L., A. Robock, G. Stenchikov, G. A. Schmidt, and R. Ruedy, > > > >Climatic response to high-latitude volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys. > > > > Res., 110, 2005. > > > > > > > >Ruddiman, W. F., The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of > > > >years ago, Clim. Change, 61, 261293, 2003. > > > > > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. A. Schmidt, R. L. Miller, and D. Rind, Northern > > > >hemisphere winter climate response to greenhouse gas, ozone, > > > > solar and volcanic forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 71937210, 2001. > > > > > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. Faluvegi, R. L. Miller, G. A. Schmidt, J. E. Hansen, > > > >and S. Sun, Solar and anthropogenic forcing of tropical > > > > hydrology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 2006. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 05:55, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > Gavin, > > > > > Thanks for this. I'll incorporate this into a revised draft > > > > > later this week > > > > > and then send around. Gene has sent me something as well. > > > > > Can you send the refs if you have them? > > > > > > > > > > Thorsten will likely send a reminder around as he's being > > > > > pressurized by Larry from EPRI. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 09:51 28/05/2007, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Hi Phil, sorry for the long delay. But here is a first draft of the > > > > > >forcings and models section I was supposed to take the lead on. > > > > > >Hopefully, we can merge that with whatever Caspar has. > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > > > > > >================ > > > > > > > > > > > >4 Forcing (GS/CA/EZ) 4-5pp > > > > > > > > > > > >Histories (CA) > > > > > >How models see the forcings, especially wrt aerosols/ozone and > > > > > >increasing model complexities (GS) > > > > > > > > > > > >An important reason for improving > > climate reconstructions of the past few > > > > > >millenia is that these reconstructions can help us both evaluate > > > > > >climate model responses and sharpen our understanding of important > > > > > >mechanisms and feedbacks. Therefore, a parallel task to improving > > > > > >climate reconstructions is to assess and independently constrain > > > > > >forcings on the climate system over that period. > > > > > > > > > > > >Forcings can generically be described as external effects on a > > > > > >specific system. Responses within that system that also themselves > > > > > >have an impact on its internal state are described as feeebacks. For > > > > > >the atmosphere, sea surface temperature changes could > > > > > >therefore be considered a forcing, but in a coupled ocean-atmosphere > > > > > >model they could be a feedback to another external factor or be > > > > > >intrinsic to the coupled system. Thus > > the distinction between forcings and > > > > > >feedbacks is not defined a priori, but is a function of the scope of > > > > > >the modelled system. This becomes especially important when dealing > > > > > >with the bio-geo-chemical processes in climate that effect the > > > > > >trace gas concentrations (CO2 and CH4) or > > > > aerosols. For example, if a model > > > > > >contains a carbon cycle, than the CO2 variations as a function of > > > > > >climate will be a feedback, but for a simpler physical model, CO2 is > > > > > >often imposed directly as a forcing from observations, regardless of > > > > > >whether in the real world it was a feedback to another change, or a > > > > > >result of human industrial activity. > > > > > > > > > > > >It is useful to consider the pre-industrial period (pre-1850 or so) > > > > > >seperately from the more recent past, since the human influence on > > > > > >many aspects of atmospheric composition has increased dramatically in > > > > > >the 20th Century. In particular, aerosol and land use changes are > > > > > >poorly constrained prior to the late 20th Century and have large > > > > > >uncertainties. Note however, there may > > conceivably be a role for human > > > > > >activities even prior to the 19th Century due to early argiculatural > > > > > >activity (Ruddiman, 2003; Goosse et al, 2005). > > > > > > > > > > > >In pre-industrial periods, forcings can be usefully separated into > > > > > >purely external changes (variations of solar activity, volcanic > > > > > >eruptions, orbital variation), and those which are intrinsic to the > > > > > >Earth system (greenhouse gases, aerosols, vegetation etc.). Those > > > > > >changes in Earth system elements will occur predominantly as feedbacks > > > > > >to other changes (whether externally forced or simply as a function of > > > > > >internal climate 'noise'). In the more recent past, the human role in > > > > > >affecting atmospheric composition (trace gases and aerosols) and land > > > > > >use have dominated over natural processes and so these changes can, to > > > > > >large extent, be considered external forcings as well. > > > > > > > > > > > >Traditionally, the 'system' that is most usually implied when talking > > > > > >about forcings and feedbacks are the 'fast' components atmosphere-land > > > > > >surface-upper ocean system that, not coincidentally, corresponds to > > > > > >the physics contained within atmospheric > > > > general circulation models (AGCMs) > > > > > >coupled to a slab ocean. What is not > > > > included (and therefore considered as a > > > > > >forcing according to our previous definition) are 'slow' changes in > > > > > >vegetation, ice sheets or the carbon cycle. In the real world these > > > > > >features will change as a function of other climate changes, and in > > > > > >fact may do so on relatively 'fast' (i..e multi-decadal) > > > > > >timescales. Our choice then of the appropriate 'climate system' is > > > > > >thus slightly arbitrary and does not give a complete picture of the > > > > > >long term sensitivity of the real climate. > > > > > > > > > > > >These distinctions become important because the records available for > > > > > >atmospheric composition do not record the distinction between feedback > > > > > >or forcing, they simply give, for instance, the history of CO2 and > > > > > >CH4. Depending on the modelled system, those records will either be a > > > > > >modelling input, or a modelling target. > > > > > > > > > > > >While there are good records for some factors (particularly the well > > > > > >mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4), records for others are > > > > > >either hopelessly incomplete (dust, vegetation) due to poor spatial or > > > > > >temporal resolution or non-existant (e.g. ozone). Thus estimates of > > > > > >the magnitude of these forcings can only be made using a model-based > > > > > >approach. This can be done using GCMs that include more Earth system > > > > > >components (interactive aerosols, chemistry, dynamic vegetation, > > > > > >carbon cycles etc.), but these models are still very much a work in > > > > > >progress and have not been used extensively for paleo-climatic > > > > > >purposes. Some initial attempts have been made for select feedbacks > > > > > >and forcings (Gerber et al, 2003; Goosse et al 2006) but a > > > > > >comprehensive assessment over the millennia prior to the > > > > > >pre-industrial does not yet exist. > > > > > > > > > > > >Even for those forcings for which good records exist, there is a > > > > > >question of they are represented within the models. This is not so > > > > > >much of an issue for the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) > > > > > >since there is a sophisticated literature and history of including > > > > > >them within models (IPCC, 2001) though some aspects, such as minor > > > > > >short-wave absorption effects for CH4 and N2O are still not > > > > > >universally included > > > > > >(Collins et al, 2006). However, solar effects have been treated in > > > > > >quite varied ways. > > > > > > > > > > > >The most straightforward way of including solar irradiance effects on > > > > > >climate is to change the solar 'constant' (preferably described as > > > > > >total solar irradiance - TSI). However, observations show that solar > > > > > >variability is highly dependent on wavelength with UV bands having > > > > > >about 10 times as much amplitude of change than TSI over a solar cycle > > > > > >(Lean, 2000). Thus including this spectral variation for all solar > > > > > >changes allows for a slightly different behaviour (larger > > > > > >solar-induced changes in the stratosphere where the UV is mostly > > > > > >absorbed for instance). Additionally, the changes in UV affect ozone > > > > > >production in both the stratosphere and troposphere, and this > > > > > >mechanism has been shown to affect both the total radiative forcing > > > > > >and dynamical responses (Haigh 1996, Shindell et al 2001; > > > > > >2006). Within a chemistry climate model this effect would potentially > > > > > >modify the radiative impact of the > > original solar forcing, but could also > > > > > >be included as an additional (parameterised) forcing in standard GCMs. > > > > > > > > > > > >There is also a potential effect from the indirect effect of solar > > > > > >magnetic variability on the sheilding of cosmic rays, which have been > > > > > >theorised to affect the production of cloud condensation nuclei > > > > > >(Dickinson, 1975). However, there have been no quantitative > > > > > >calculations of the magnitude of this effect (which would require a > > > > > >full study of the relevant aerosol and cloud microphysics), and so its > > > > > >impact on climate is not (yet) been included. > > > > > > > > > > > >Large volcanic eruptions produce significant amounts of sulpher > > > > > >dioxide (SO2). If this is injected into the tropical stratosphere > > > > > >during a particularly explosive eruption, the resulting sulphate can > > > > > >persist in the atmosphere for a number of years (e.g. Pinatubo in > > > > > >1991). Less explosive, but more persistent eruptions (e.g. Laki in > > > > > >1789??) can still affect climate though in a more regional way and for > > > > > >a shorter term (Oman et al, 2005). These aerosols have both a > > > > > >shortwave (reflective) and longwave (absorbing) impact on the > > > > > >radiation and their local impact on stratospheric heating can have > > > > > >important dynamical effects. It is therefore better to include the > > > > > >aerosol absorber directly in the radiative transfer code. However, in > > > > > >less sophisticated models, the impact of the aerosols has been > > > > > >parameterised as the equivalent decrease in TSI. For extreme eruptions > > > > > >it has been hypothesised that sulphate production might saturate the > > > > > >oxidative capacity of the stratosphere leaving significant amounts of > > > > > >residual SO2. This gas is a greenhouse gas and would have an opposite > > > > > >effect to the cooling aerosols. This effect however has not yet been > > > > > >quantified. > > > > > > > > > > > >Land cover changes have occured both due to deliberate modification by > > > > > >humans (deforestation, imposed fire regimes, arguculture) as well as a > > > > > >feedback to climate change (the desertification of the Sahara ca. 5500 > > > > > >yrs ago). Changing vegetation in a standard model affects the seasonal > > > > > >cycle of albedo, the surface roughness, the impact of snow, > > > > > >evapotranspiration (through different rooting depths) etc. However, > > > > > >modelling of the yearly cycle of crops, or incorporating the effects > > > > > >of large scale irrigation are still very much a work in > > > > > >progress. > > > > > > > > > > > >Aerosol changes over the last few milllenia are very poorly > > > > > >constrained (if at all). These might have arisen from climatically > > > > > >or human driven changes in dust emissions, ocean biology feedbacks > > > > > >on circulation change, or climate impacts on the emission volatile > > > > > >organics from plants (which also have an impact on ozone > > > > > >chemistry). Some work on modelling a subset of those effects has > > > > > >been done for the last glacial maximum or the 8.2 kyr event > > > > > >(LeGrande et al, 2006), but there have been no quantitative > > > > > >estimates for the late Holocene (prior to the industrial period). > > > > > > > > > > > >Due to the relative expense of doing millennial simulations with > > > > > >state-of-the-art GCMs, exisiting simulations have generally done the > > > > > >minimum required to include relevant solar, GHG and volcanic > > > > > >forcings. Progress can be expected relatively soon on more > > > > > >sophisticated treatments of those forcings and the first > > > > > >quantitative estimates of additional effects. > > > > > > > > > > > >============= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >*--------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > >| Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies | > > > > > >| 2880 Broadway | > > > > > >| Tel: (212) 678 5627 New York, NY 10025 | > > > > > >| | > > > > > >| gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin | > > > > > >*--------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > > > University of East Anglia > > > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > > > NR4 7TJ > > > > > UK > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 5248. 2007-06-24 18:21:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:21:24 -0600 (MDT) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: Forecasting conference - Armstrong paper to: j.renwick@niwa.co.nz Jim Yes, and I offer the attached comments on his paper. I haven't commented on the bet he has made, but there will probably be something on realclimate.com. I have had a lot of exchanges with Gavin. Not sure what to do with this: post it on realclimate.com is one option. Anyway I am in the middle as a keynote speaker at this conference. I do plan to make my ppt available after the mtg via my web site. Kevin > Hi Kevin: > > I se you're speaking at ISF 2007 this week. One of the other invited > speakers, J Scott Armstrong, who is talking about public policy and > forecasting (http://www.forecasters.org/isf/) has written the attached, > ostensible for the ISF meeting. It's a strange document - even I get > quoted in terms of a casual remark I made to an NZ journalist a few > weeks ago (I should know by now there's no such thing as a casual > remark). Just thought you should know this stuff, if you didn't already. > > I got the PDF off the NZ Climate Science Coalition (i.e. Vince Gray and > co) website. By the way, I suppose you heard Augie Auer died suddenly a > couple of weeks ago? > > > Cheers, > Jim > -- > Dr James Renwick, Science Leader, climate variability & change > National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research > Private Bag 14901, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND > J.Renwick@niwa.co.nz Ph: +64-4-3860343 Mob: +64-21-1785550 > http://www.niwa.co.nz Fax: +64-4-3862153 or +64-4-3860574 > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ArmstrongPaper.doc" 1952. 2007-06-25 14:20:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gil Compo , Gil Compo , Henry Beverley , Roger Stone , Adrian Simmons , Brnnimann Stefan , Frank Le Blancq , Phil Jones , Pamela_Heck@swissre.com, Paul.Della-Marta@meteoswiss.ch, Scott D Woodruff , Meinke@metoffice.gov.uk, Holger , Juerg Luterbacher , tlorencak@bluewin.ch date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:20:42 +0100 from: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: hello to: Malcolm.Haylock@partnerre.com On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 14:50 +0200, Malcolm.Haylock@partnerre.com wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > Great to hear about the new project and the support of the Queensland > Government. It sounds like a very worthwhile project from both a > scientific and user's perspective. > > I wrote a summary of your email and your good work with historical SLP > and sent it to my boss, Herv Castella, who is the head of research at > PartnerRe. He is well aware of the value of reanalyses as we use ERA40 > extensively for developing our European storm climatology. > > We would be very interested to attend such a meeting bringing the data > developers and users together. We would also be happy to partly > sponsor such a meeting. However the main concern, as with the case of > ERA40 data, is that the final data can be very expensive for > commercial users so sponsorship would probably require an agreement > about access. > > Regarding venues, if you'd like input from the reinsurance industry > then there is no better location than Zurich. It also has excellent > access to Nth America becuase of the financial connections. > > Malcolm > > rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk wrote on 19/06/2007 11:15:06: > > > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 10:45 +0200, Malcolm.Haylock@partnerre.com > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > How's it going? Paul and I saw Tara yesterday. It's great to have > her > > > in Zurich. She said things are looking brighter for you at the > > > MetOffice. Still, whay not come and join the growing Aussie empire > in > > > Switzerland? > > > > > > Malcolm > > > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail contains information solely intended for > > named recipients and is confidential and proprietary to PartnerRe. > > If you are not one of the intended recipients of this message, you > > must not read, use or disseminate the information in it and should > > notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting it > > afterwards from your mail system. Please be aware that unauthorized > > reproduction or distribution of this communication is prohibited. > > > > > > > > > Malcolm, > > Good to hear from you. > > > > Glad that you guys caught up with Tara, it's great that she > > has fellow Aussies in the > > vicinity to catch up with. > > > > I just spoke to Paul Della-Marta on the phone about matters > > to do with my new role > > here in the Hadley Centre, and I'd like any thoughts you might have > > on a potential meeting > > linked to that new role. > > > > NEW ROLE > > > > Basically, as of next month, I'll be officially the Project > > Manager of an initiative > > called ACRE (Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the > > Earth). Though based in the > > Hadley Centre, this post is being primarily funded by the Queensland > > Climate Change Centre of > > Excellence (QCCCE) in Australia!! It is an 'end-to-end' project > > covering data and reanalyses > > at one end and looking to make the reanalyses products flow > > 'seamlessly' into various climate > > applications models at the other. I came up with the concept, got > > the infrastructure together > > to make it work and sold QCCCE on it without any Met Office or > > Hadley Centre input initially. > > > > Anyway, a major component of my new role is to support and > > facilitate the global daily > > to sub-daily surface pressure data requirements for historical > surface > > observations only reanalyses (the 20th Century Reanalysis Project) > that > > a colleague, Dr Gil Compo at NOAA ESRL/CIRES/CDC in the US, is > leading - > > see this link for an overview of the 20th Century Reanalysis Project > > (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2771.htm). > > > > We aim to build on the expertise developed by the 20th > Century > > Reanalysis Project to provide the basis for surface observations- > based > > reanalyses which have sufficient data coverage to be valid globally > back > > to the mid-19th century and specifically over the North Atlantic- > > European region from the mid-18th century to the present. > > > > MEETING AS PART OF MY NEW ROLE > > > > The background to this is as follows: > > > > Gil Compo and I plus those in the GCOS AOPC/OOPC Surface > > Pressure Working Group (SPWG) have had the hope for a while now > > of being able to fund a meeting of the SPWG in its own right, rather > > than 'piggy backing' on other meetings all the time. The US members > of > > the SPWG had been hoping for a meeting in, or closer to, the US. > With > > all that in mind I suggested Bermuda as a venue, given that the > > Biological Institute of Ocean Sciences there have strong links to > the > > reinsurance industry and a particular focus on European storminess. > > > > The Bermuda idea has waxed and waned a bit, and though there > is > > now the possibility of some potential funding via Howard Diamond > (the US > > GCOS Rep) to support such a meeting, doing the figures shows that it > is > > going to be too expensive to hold it in Bermuda. However, with my > new > > role as the Project Manager of the ACRE initiative developing in > > parallel with the above, I'm now thinking of a somewhat more > effective > > and reshaped meeting probably held in Europe. > > > > My current thoughts revolve around the idea of holding a > smallish > > but manageable meeting. The focus being on bringing together the > GCOS > > AOPC/OOPC Working Groups on pressure (SPWG), SST and sea-ice, > > atmospheric reference observations plus the new one on observational > > datasets for reanalysis, with climate applications and reinsurance > > people, to focus on the various reanalysis data needs and on > potential > > climate applications and impacts usage of such reanalysis products. > > This type of meeting fits the very core of what my ACRE Project > > Manager's role is about. I also think strategically it might provide > a > > very useful focus all round which will promote the need for more > data, > > clarify the current and potential situation with the various > reanalysis > > efforts and their needs, and give the climate applications community > a > > better idea of what the data and reanalysis products can be best > used > > for. > > > > One recent example highlights the sort of problem that exists > > over this way with reanalyses and the climate applications side. The > > European Environment Agency (EEA) have been talking to ECMWF about > using > > their reanalysis products (for wind and energy planning plus > storminess > > trends), but from what I've heard and discussed with Adrian Simmons > (the > > AOPC Chair and ECMWF ERA reanalysis person), the EEA really don't > > understand the strengths and weaknesses of the ERA reanalysis > product > > and how best to use it for their needs. As a result, this potential > > linkage has tended to flounder somewhat. > > > > I also understand that a Spanish colleague is looking to set > up a > > COST (Co-operation on Science and Technology) Action under the EC > COST > > program that would focus on reanalyses and I think applications. > I'm > > going to suggest to him that the sort of meeting I'm looking to > initiate > > could also be linked to his efforts and be an initial meeting for > such a > > COST Action. > > > > I've talked to Roger Stone and Holger Meinke on the climate > > applications side, plus others on the climate and reanalysis side of > > things (Gil Compo, Adrian Simmons, Stefan Bronnimann) about such a > > meeting and have had considerable interest. Roger mentioned his > links > > with the reinsurance industry in Europe in looking to link them > (maybe > > even part fund) into such a meeting, and I'm going to follow up on a > > similar tack. I'm thinking that it could be a milestone for the > first > > year of my contract, and something that could also be duplicated in > > Australia or elsewhere. > > > > Thus, I'd be very keen to hear your thoughts on any of the > above, > > and how we might be able to make it happen for the benefit of all. > Some > > ideas for venues I've had are Jersey or Guernsey in the Channel > Islands > > and Dublin (this might be easiest for US attendees to get to). > > > > Cheers, Rob. > > > > > > Dr Rob Allan Climate Scientist > > Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > E-mail (W): rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > E-mail (H): rallan@onetel.com Malcolm, Thanks for that, much appreciated. I'll forward it on to Gil Compo and others linked to ACRE and the AOPC WGs. I think that Roger Stone from Queensland knows some of your people, so there should be some good links all round. I've also gone back to Howard Diamond, the US GCOS Rep, from whom I'm hoping to get some financial support for such a meeting to gauge his reaction to holding it in Europe. Cheers, Rob. > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail contains information solely intended for named recipients and is confidential and proprietary to PartnerRe. If you are not one of the intended recipients of this message, you must not read, use or disseminate the information in it and should notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting it afterwards from your mail system. Please be aware that unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this communication is prohibited. -- Dr Rob Allan ACRE Project Manager Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail (W): rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk E-mail (H): rallan@onetel.com 143. 2007-06-25 15:27:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: Scott D Woodruff , Phil Jones , Adrian Simmons date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:27:58 +0100 from: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: [Fwd: Re: Enquiry about possible funding for GCOS AOPC/OOPC to: Gil Compo , Gil Compo Gil, What do you think? I'll give you a ring to talk about this today, but my initial thought is to see if we can do something in Europe with reinsurance monies later this year, and if Howard can come up with anything then something in the US next year? Given my Australian funding for the ACRE Project Manager's role I'll have to visit Australia sometime in the first half of next year, and would try to see if we can organise something similar whilst there. Cheers, Rob. -- Dr Rob Allan ACRE Project Manager From: howard diamond Subject: Re: Enquiry about possible funding for GCOS AOPC/OOPC Surface Pressure Working Group meeting In-reply-to: <1182768925.20010.66.camel@eld449.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> To: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk Message-id: <467FCE3F.60501@noaa.gov> Organization: National Climatic Data Center Hello Rob, Thanks for that; yes, that kind of meeting support at $60K is a bit pricey, however, just holding it in Ireland does not significantly lower the costs as it assumes that the travel costs for every participant is fully paid for; many people from agencies in developed nations (myself included) usually factor in some travel into their budgets and self fund themselves. From the list of members; affiliations on the SPWG it looks like all members come from developed nations and consists of people who I know attend other international meetings. I find it a bit hard to believe that these folks could not fund at least a portion of the travel associated with such a meeting. Certainly holding it in Ireland would be fine, but we would have to find some organization I could send the funds to who would be willing to administer it, that might wind up being a place like UCAR in Boulder, although they do charge somewhat of a tax to do that, but it is not too unreasonable. Perhaps the Irish Marine Data Center, Proudman Oceanographic Lab, Hadley Centre, or even ECMWF might agree to aid with the administration of such a meeting. Anyway, I had originally estimated my support to be in the $10-15K range to take care of a meeting venue, etc. As I indicated earlier, I do not believe the travel costs to Ireland would be much less except for perhaps the folks from the UK, but perhaps that would take $60K down to $40K, but I am not sure. It seems that if this activity is important enough that people should first be asked whether they can budget for some travel for a meeting, and then see where we go from there. I would consider making that contribution higher only after people had indicated whether they could self-fund any portion of their travel first. At this time it does not look like I will have any end-of-fiscal year money; our current fiscal year ends on 30/9/2007. As for what my budget holds for my next fiscal year, I am not sure, and there is much uncertainty with that. Just to give you an example of how problematic our budget process is, while our current fiscal year (2007) began on 1-October-2006, I did not receive any fiscal year 2007 funding until the middle of April (and this was universal not only across NOAA, but was the case for most domestic agencies). Should things change this year (and things are so contentious in our political system, that I am not sure it will change much) I still do not anticipate having much access to any funds until at least February 2008 (and that is somewhat optimistic). So that does not make your planning any easier, and for that I apologize. The bottom line is that I first believe that SPWG members should be polled on their ability to self-fund attendance at such a meeting, and then after that, I might consider going up as high as $25K or so, but again, I am not the only funding person around and my resources, like most others, are always stressed. So if we can stay flexible, I will help where I can, but think that we should approach this from both ends so that we come to a good middle ground that matches resources I can provide with resources from individuals' organizations. Hope those thoughts help a bit. Regards. Howard [1]rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:59 -0400, Howard Diamond wrote: Hello Rob, Well that is always possible; at this point I have no funds as I have just finished executing the limited GCOS budget that I received this fiscal year. However, that said, there is a possibility for end of fiscal year funding (in Aug or Sep of this year) that is always a possibility, and there are at times other funds that I am able to get my hands on via my home office at NCDC. So while I am not making any firm promises, I am open to it and just have a couple of questions. First, do you have a cost estimate for the SPWG meeting you have in mind in Bermuda; second, what is the timeframe you are looking at; third, who would be administering the funds, in other words who would I work with to send funds to (e.g.., BIOS) and who specifically would be involved as I would have to coordinate the mechanical transfer; and last, could I attend such a meeting if possible. Hope that helps a bit; again, most importantly if I had a feel for the scale of funding involved, that would help me in seeing where I might be able to find these in from either an extra-GCOS budgetary source for this year, or in planning for my GCOS budget next year. Regards. Howard [2]rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: Dear Howard, Along with Gil Compo from NOAA ESRL/CIRES CDC, I co-convene the GCOS AOPC/OOPC Surface Pressure Working Group (SPWG) ([3]http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Pressure/). As you may know, and is documented on our SPWG WWW site above, despite having basically no funding and a brief to generally communicate with our members via e-mail, we have successfully had international SPWG meetings linked to other conferences such as CLIMAR and MARCDAT. However, we have recently been looking at ways to hold more independent meetings. Thus, at the last SPWG meeting at the Met Office in 2005 ([4]http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Pressure/Minutes/index.html), we aimed to try and obtain sufficient funds to hold an SPWG meeting in its own right. I made some tentative enquiries with the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS) ([5]http://www.bbsr.edu/) about holding a meeting at that institution towards the end of this year, with a focus on North Atlantic-European storminess from historical surface pressure data sets. We chose BIOS, because of their close links to the reinsurance industry and their interest in storminess. The Director of BIOS, Tony Knap, was happy for us to meet at BIOS if we could find funds to support such a meeting. I have since tried to see if any reinsurance companies might be interested in funding such a meeting, but have had no success. Most recently my own situation has changed, in that I've secured the bulk of funding from the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence (QCCCE) in Australia for a new 3 year position here at the Hadley Centre as the Project Manager of an initiative called ACRE (Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth). I've been able to do this by bringing together various international projects and linking infrastructure through my SPWG co-convening role (see the attached ppt file). So as of July 1st, I'll officially be the ACRE Project Manager (see attached document for an overview) with a prime role of supporting and facilitating the global daily to sub-daily surface pressure data requirements for historical surface observations only reanalyses (the 20th Century Reanalysis Project) that Gil Compo is leading. Over the next few years, we aim to build on the expertise developed by the 20th Century Reanalysis Project to provide the basis for historical surface observations-based reanalyses which have sufficient data coverage to be valid globally back to the mid-19th century and specifically over the North Atlantic-European region from the late to mid-18th century to the present. Given these new circumstances with ACRE, Gil and I were wondering if there would be a possibility of any funding coming from your offices/GCOS to hold a SPWG meeting on the ACRE initiative and the historical reanalyses that it will support, including the vast data requirements? Gil and I have discussed this amongst ourselves, and with Adrian Simmons at ECMWF, especially given the formation of the new Working Group on Observational Datasets for Reanalysis that Russ Vose will be leading. Any thoughts or suggestions on funding an SPWG meeting as described would be much appreciated. Regards, Rob Allan. Howard, Further to my earlier enquiry, I've attached below this e-mail an evaluation that Scott Woodruff did of an SPWG meeting in Bermuda. As you'll see, it is all rather expensive. So I've reassessed things and had some further thoughts, given Scott's calculations, and am looking at a different possibility. I've spoken to Adrian Simmons as AOPC Chair about this and he is very supportive of the concept. My current thoughts revolve around the idea of bringing together the GCOS AOPC/OOPC Working Groups on pressure (SPWG), SST and sea-ice, and atmospheric reference observations, with climate applications and reinsurance people, to focus on both various reanalysis data needs and on potential climate applications and impacts usage of a variety of reanalyses (ERA, NCEP, Gil's 20th Century Reanalysis Project etc) and reanalysis products. I think strategically it might provide a very useful focus all round which will promote the need for more data, clarify the current and potential situation with the various reanalysis efforts and their needs, and give the climate applications community a better idea of what the data and reanalysis products can be best used for. One issue that I wondered about, was would it be a problem with the possible monies we'd be looking for if the meeting was held in Europe? I'm actually thinking of Ireland, which may help US people flying this way. I'd be most interested in any thoughts you might have. Cheers, Rob. Gil and Rob, Sorry about the delay in responding on this. Following are some numbers that might help with estimating more precisely total costs: a) Using for example 16-23 September, airfare from Denver to Bermuda priced out today at about $600 on Orbitz. Whereas, unrestricted government fare for the same dates: $1209. b) Current US Government per diem for Bermuda during that period (April-November is high season): $373 (lodging) + $170 (meals and incidental expenses) = $543/day total (for comparison, total per diem during the balance of the calendar year drops to $454/day). c) A travel contractor (e.g., Carlson Wagonlit for US Feds., or CIRES, or UK?) could probably do a person-by-person airfare calculation (based on where each participant needs to travel from). But for simplicity here is a gross estimate for each person attending (since clearly airfares may vary considerably): $1200 airfare (which US Feds. anyway are strongly encouraged to use). + $543 * 6.5 days = $3529 (too many days?). + miscellaneous expenses & surface travel costs (cabs, buses, etc.) = $300. Total: ~$5K/person. d) How many people would you plan to support? Let's say a dozen (according to the SPWG website, there are presently 9 members). 12 x $5K = $60K. e) Plus there might be local organizational costs (rental of a meeting space, if applicable; coffee/tea; workshop dinner; etc.): $5K? Bermuda looks fairly pricey! Hope this fairly crude information is helpful for the discussion. Of course, these gross numbers could be cut down some by assuming non-refundable airfares and a shorter meeting. Cheers, -Scott PS: For your information, I'm unavailable (on vacation) 1-19 October, if a meeting ends up being considered around then. -- EFFECTIVE APRIL 2, 2007; PLEASE NOTE NEW CONTACT DETAILS Howard J. Diamond, U.S. Global Climate Observing System Program Manager [[6]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/usgcos/index.ht m] Director, World Data Center for Meteorology, Asheville [[7]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/wdcamet.h tml] NOAA/National Climatic Data Center 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12734 Silver Spring MD 20910-3283 Phone: +1-301-734-1229 Fax: +1-301-713-0517 Cell: +1-301-801-4855 e-mail: [8]howard.diamond@noaa.gov 2660. 2007-06-25 15:51:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 25 15:51:07 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: SRES / mitigation drought results to: Rita Yu Hi Rita -- Tuesday PM would be good -- name your time. -- Tim At 15:24 25/06/2007, you wrote: Dear Tim, I have got some interesting and unexpected results - the B1/B2 scenarios often produce more droughts than those simulated using A1/A2 scenarios, and the mitigation scenarios produce more severe droughts than the SRES scenarios. Please may I discuss this with you? I am available any time this week except tomorrow (Tuesday) morning and Friday 11-1 pm. Many thanks, Rita 488. 2007-06-26 12:42:52 ______________________________________________________ date: 26 Jun 2007 12:42:52 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: Armstrong to: Phil Jones I'll try and go to the presentation on thursday if I can sneak into their conference... I suspect a mere publicity stunt for an upcoming book. With respect to Keenan, he is clearly a man on a mission. So engaging him and trying to appeal to his more rational side is a waste of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what to recommend... gavin On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 09:04, Phil Jones wrote: > Gavin, > Just quickly read an awful paper by Armstrong. Have got a quick > response from Kevin Trenberth. Kevin says you may run with this > on RC? Might be worthwhile. He seems to have got some > bad advice somewhere, or he's a republican. Kevin's response > is on the button. > > By the way - on Keenan - I have spoken to Pascal. According to > Pascal, though, he's gone further than he went with him (grapes) on this > Chinese urbanization issue. > > Cheers > Phil > > Gavin, > I see CA has some threads about GISS ModelE. The discussion > just shows how little they know. Models are verified against obs > data and parameterizations changed/improved. Do they not realize > that any parameterization will likely affect most grid boxes and > not just ones they are looking at! > Nice to know that the GISS ModelE has some 91K lines of code! > Also they on the ball with Kenneth Trenberth! > > I see that CA is taking adverts. I have seen a few times, one for > the MSc Climate Change course at the University of Exeter. Maybe > if you deign to reply (I wouldn't but on RC some time) you should > suggest some of them take the course! > > On teaching, we are experiencing a massive upsurge in applications > to do our MSc on Climate Change. We have made offers to over 80 > people. Based on a conversion rate from past years of 50%, we may > likely have about twice as many people doing course cf previous > years. It doubled to about 20 only 3 years ago from 10 during 1998-2004. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 23:32 22/06/2007, you wrote: > >It would indeed be nice if they would do something constructive like > >write an actual paper, but it's extremely unlikely that they'll bother. > >As we've discussed before, this isn't really about the science - it's > >more of a way to shift the topic of conversation away from physics and > >on to perfidious scientists, totalitarian bureaucracies and freedom of > >speech. Those subjects resonate with a lot of people who are looking for > >reasons not to want to trust the IPCC. > > > >Keenan is extremely unpleasant - much more so than McIntyre. Ask Pascal > >Yiou the next time you see him! > > > >There is unfortunately no good way to deal with this micro-parsing - but > >don't let anything you do allow them to shift the focus onto 'hiding' > >data etc. > > > >regards, > > > >gavin > > > >On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 03:58, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Gavin, > > > So you do look at CA occasionally! Yes nice emails > > > welcomed all the time. CRU gets a number of emails each > > > week from interested amateurs (the public). I'm much more > > > careful how I reply to these. > > > I won't be replying to CA. McIntyre's email wasn't too bad. > > > The really awful one with threats came from Douglas Keenan. > > > The only issue I can see they are complaining about is that > > > we said we used 84 sites (42 rural and 42 urban) and that > > > we chose those with the fewest site changes. They have found > > > site histories for some of them and there are site moves! They > > > have yet to look at the temperature data that I sent them! So > > > their claim is nothing about the analysis in the paper! > > > They don't seem to realise that when you spend ages doing all > > > the site adjustments they only make differences locally. At > > > large scales they tend to cancel each other out. In > > > Brohan et al. (2006) Figure 4 you can see a histogram of > > > adjustments - the average of which is close to zero! > > > Adjusting is useful as it improves the continuity of spatial > > > patterns. > > > The real issues are the biases like urbanization, buckets > > > and the exposure issues from pre-Stevenson screen days. > > > Jim will have realized this ages ago, as I did around the > > > mid-1980s. > > > > > > If only they would write a paper, then I'd know what to deal > > > with. I reckon they are trying this new tack now (blogs, > > > personal attacks and maybe complaints to our employers) > > > as they realize they can't write papers (the MM ones re MBH > > > were poor), and they see their new approach as being more > > > productive for them. > > > > > > So more nice emails every now and then. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 17:21 20/06/2007, you wrote: > > > >yeah, I've been noticing... Well, just let me know if I can do anything > > > >- even if it's just sending the occasionally nice email! > > > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 05:59, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > Gavin, > > > > > Thanks. Yours was the nicest email I got overnight. > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 20:02 19/06/2007, you wrote: > > > > > >Refs for my section - note that the first Goosse reference should be > > > > > >Goosse et al 2006, and the second was in error and shouldn't be there > > > > > >any way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >References > > > > > > > > > > > >Collins, W. D., et al., Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse > > > > > >gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental > > > > > > Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J. > > > > > >Geophys. Res, 111, 2006. > > > > > > > > > > > >Dickinson, R., Solar variability and the lower atmosphere, Bull. Amer. > > > > > >Meteor. Soc., pp. 12401248., 1975. > > > > > > > > > > > >Gerber, S., F. Joos, P. P. Bruegger, T. F. Stocker, M. E. Mann, and S. > > > > > >Sitch, Constraining temperature variations over the last > > > > > > millennium by comparing simulated and > > observed atmospheric CO2, Clim. > > > > > >Dyn., 20, 281299, 2003. > > > > > > > > > > > >Goosse, H., O. Arzel, J. Luterbacher, M. E. Mann, H. Renssen, N. > > > > > >Riedwyl, A. Timmermann, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner, The origin > > > > > > of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate of the Past, 2, > > > > > >99113, 2006. > > > > > > > > > > > >Haigh, J. D., The impact of solar > > variability on climate, Science, 272, > > > > > >981984, 1996. > > > > > > > > > > > >Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, > > M. Nouger, P. J. van der Linden, > > > > > >X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, Climate Change > > > > > > 2001: The scientific basis, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001. > > > > > > > > > > > >Lean, J., Evolution of the sun's spectral irradiance since the Maunder > > > > > >Minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 24252428, 2000. > > > > > > > > > > > >LeGrande, A. N., G. A. Schmidt, D. T. > > Shindell, C. Field, R. L. Miller, > > > > > >D. Koch, G. Faluvegi, and G. Hoffmann, Consistent simulations > > > > > > of multiple proxy responses to an > > abrupt climate change event, Proc. > > > > > >Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 837842, 2006. > > > > > > > > > > > >Oman, L., A. Robock, G. Stenchikov, G. A. Schmidt, and R. Ruedy, > > > > > >Climatic response to high-latitude volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys. > > > > > > Res., 110, 2005. > > > > > > > > > > > >Ruddiman, W. F., The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of > > > > > >years ago, Clim. Change, 61, 261293, 2003. > > > > > > > > > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. A. Schmidt, R. L. Miller, and D. Rind, Northern > > > > > >hemisphere winter climate response to greenhouse gas, ozone, > > > > > > solar and volcanic forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 71937210, 2001. > > > > > > > > > > > >Shindell, D. T., G. Faluvegi, R. L. > > Miller, G. A. Schmidt, J. E. Hansen, > > > > > >and S. Sun, Solar and anthropogenic forcing of tropical > > > > > > hydrology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 2006. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 05:55, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > > Gavin, > > > > > > > Thanks for this. I'll incorporate this into a revised draft > > > > > > > later this week > > > > > > > and then send around. Gene has sent me something as well. > > > > > > > Can you send the refs if you have them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thorsten will likely send a reminder around as he's being > > > > > > > pressurized by Larry from EPRI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 09:51 28/05/2007, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi Phil, sorry for the long delay. > > But here is a first draft of the > > > > > > > >forcings and models section I was supposed to take the lead on. > > > > > > > >Hopefully, we can merge that with whatever Caspar has. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Gavin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >4 Forcing (GS/CA/EZ) 4-5pp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Histories (CA) > > > > > > > >How models see the forcings, especially wrt aerosols/ozone and > > > > > > > >increasing model complexities (GS) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >An important reason for improving > > > > climate reconstructions of the past few > > > > > > > >millenia is that these reconstructions can help us both evaluate > > > > > > > >climate model responses and sharpen our understanding of important > > > > > > > >mechanisms and feedbacks. Therefore, a parallel task to improving > > > > > > > >climate reconstructions is to assess and independently constrain > > > > > > > >forcings on the climate system over that period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Forcings can generically be described as external effects on a > > > > > > > >specific system. Responses within that system that also themselves > > > > > > > >have an impact on its internal state > > are described as feeebacks. For > > > > > > > >the atmosphere, sea surface temperature changes could > > > > > > > >therefore be considered a forcing, > > but in a coupled ocean-atmosphere > > > > > > > >model they could be a feedback to another external factor or be > > > > > > > >intrinsic to the coupled system. Thus > > > > the distinction between forcings and > > > > > > > >feedbacks is not defined a priori, > > but is a function of the scope of > > > > > > > >the modelled system. This becomes > > especially important when dealing > > > > > > > >with the bio-geo-chemical processes in climate that effect the > > > > > > > >trace gas concentrations (CO2 and CH4) or > > > > > > aerosols. For example, if a model > > > > > > > >contains a carbon cycle, than the CO2 variations as a function of > > > > > > > >climate will be a feedback, but for > > a simpler physical model, CO2 is > > > > > > > >often imposed directly as a forcing > > from observations, regardless of > > > > > > > >whether in the real world it was a > > feedback to another change, or a > > > > > > > >result of human industrial activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It is useful to consider the > > pre-industrial period (pre-1850 or so) > > > > > > > >seperately from the more recent past, since the human influence on > > > > > > > >many aspects of atmospheric > > composition has increased dramatically in > > > > > > > >the 20th Century. In particular, aerosol and land use changes are > > > > > > > >poorly constrained prior to the late 20th Century and have large > > > > > > > >uncertainties. Note however, there may > > > > conceivably be a role for human > > > > > > > >activities even prior to the 19th > > Century due to early argiculatural > > > > > > > >activity (Ruddiman, 2003; Goosse et al, 2005). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In pre-industrial periods, forcings can be usefully separated into > > > > > > > >purely external changes (variations of solar activity, volcanic > > > > > > > >eruptions, orbital variation), and > > those which are intrinsic to the > > > > > > > >Earth system (greenhouse gases, aerosols, vegetation etc.). Those > > > > > > > >changes in Earth system elements > > will occur predominantly as feedbacks > > > > > > > >to other changes (whether externally > > forced or simply as a function of > > > > > > > >internal climate 'noise'). In the > > more recent past, the human role in > > > > > > > >affecting atmospheric composition > > (trace gases and aerosols) and land > > > > > > > >use have dominated over natural > > processes and so these changes can, to > > > > > > > >large extent, be considered external forcings as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Traditionally, the 'system' that is > > most usually implied when talking > > > > > > > >about forcings and feedbacks are the > > 'fast' components atmosphere-land > > > > > > > >surface-upper ocean system that, not > > coincidentally, corresponds to > > > > > > > >the physics contained within atmospheric > > > > > > general circulation models (AGCMs) > > > > > > > >coupled to a slab ocean. What is not > > > > > > included (and therefore considered as a > > > > > > > >forcing according to our previous > > definition) are 'slow' changes in > > > > > > > >vegetation, ice sheets or the carbon > > cycle. In the real world these > > > > > > > >features will change as a function > > of other climate changes, and in > > > > > > > >fact may do so on relatively 'fast' (i..e multi-decadal) > > > > > > > >timescales. Our choice then of the appropriate 'climate system' is > > > > > > > >thus slightly arbitrary and does not > > give a complete picture of the > > > > > > > >long term sensitivity of the real climate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >These distinctions become important > > because the records available for > > > > > > > >atmospheric composition do not > > record the distinction between feedback > > > > > > > >or forcing, they simply give, for instance, the history of CO2 and > > > > > > > >CH4. Depending on the modelled > > system, those records will either be a > > > > > > > >modelling input, or a modelling target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >While there are good records for > > some factors (particularly the well > > > > > > > >mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 > > and CH4), records for others are > > > > > > > >either hopelessly incomplete (dust, > > vegetation) due to poor spatial or > > > > > > > >temporal resolution or non-existant > > (e.g. ozone). Thus estimates of > > > > > > > >the magnitude of these forcings can > > only be made using a model-based > > > > > > > >approach. This can be done using > > GCMs that include more Earth system > > > > > > > >components (interactive aerosols, chemistry, dynamic vegetation, > > > > > > > >carbon cycles etc.), but these > > models are still very much a work in > > > > > > > >progress and have not been used extensively for paleo-climatic > > > > > > > >purposes. Some initial attempts have > > been made for select feedbacks > > > > > > > >and forcings (Gerber et al, 2003; Goosse et al 2006) but a > > > > > > > >comprehensive assessment over the millennia prior to the > > > > > > > >pre-industrial does not yet exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Even for those forcings for which good records exist, there is a > > > > > > > >question of they are represented within the models. This is not so > > > > > > > >much of an issue for the well-mixed > > greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) > > > > > > > >since there is a sophisticated literature and history of including > > > > > > > >them within models (IPCC, 2001) though some aspects, such as minor > > > > > > > >short-wave absorption effects for CH4 and N2O are still not > > > > > > > >universally included > > > > > > > >(Collins et al, 2006). However, solar effects have been treated in > > > > > > > >quite varied ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The most straightforward way of > > including solar irradiance effects on > > > > > > > >climate is to change the solar 'constant' (preferably described as > > > > > > > >total solar irradiance - TSI). > > However, observations show that solar > > > > > > > >variability is highly dependent on wavelength with UV bands having > > > > > > > >about 10 times as much amplitude of > > change than TSI over a solar cycle > > > > > > > >(Lean, 2000). Thus including this spectral variation for all solar > > > > > > > >changes allows for a slightly different behaviour (larger > > > > > > > >solar-induced changes in the stratosphere where the UV is mostly > > > > > > > >absorbed for instance). > > Additionally, the changes in UV affect ozone > > > > > > > >production in both the stratosphere and troposphere, and this > > > > > > > >mechanism has been shown to affect > > both the total radiative forcing > > > > > > > >and dynamical responses (Haigh 1996, Shindell et al 2001; > > > > > > > >2006). Within a chemistry climate > > model this effect would potentially > > > > > > > >modify the radiative impact of the > > > > original solar forcing, but could also > > > > > > > >be included as an additional > > (parameterised) forcing in standard GCMs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >There is also a potential effect from the indirect effect of solar > > > > > > > >magnetic variability on the > > sheilding of cosmic rays, which have been > > > > > > > >theorised to affect the production of cloud condensation nuclei > > > > > > > >(Dickinson, 1975). However, there have been no quantitative > > > > > > > >calculations of the magnitude of > > this effect (which would require a > > > > > > > >full study of the relevant aerosol > > and cloud microphysics), and so its > > > > > > > >impact on climate is not (yet) been included. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Large volcanic eruptions produce significant amounts of sulpher > > > > > > > >dioxide (SO2). If this is injected into the tropical stratosphere > > > > > > > >during a particularly explosive > > eruption, the resulting sulphate can > > > > > > > >persist in the atmosphere for a number of years (e.g. Pinatubo in > > > > > > > >1991). Less explosive, but more persistent eruptions (e.g. Laki in > > > > > > > >1789??) can still affect climate > > though in a more regional way and for > > > > > > > >a shorter term (Oman et al, 2005). These aerosols have both a > > > > > > > >shortwave (reflective) and longwave (absorbing) impact on the > > > > > > > >radiation and their local impact on stratospheric heating can have > > > > > > > >important dynamical effects. It is therefore better to include the > > > > > > > >aerosol absorber directly in the > > radiative transfer code. However, in > > > > > > > >less sophisticated models, the impact of the aerosols has been > > > > > > > >parameterised as the equivalent > > decrease in TSI. For extreme eruptions > > > > > > > >it has been hypothesised that > > sulphate production might saturate the > > > > > > > >oxidative capacity of the > > stratosphere leaving significant amounts of > > > > > > > >residual SO2. This gas is a > > greenhouse gas and would have an opposite > > > > > > > >effect to the cooling aerosols. This > > effect however has not yet been > > > > > > > >quantified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Land cover changes have occured both > > due to deliberate modification by > > > > > > > >humans (deforestation, imposed fire > > regimes, arguculture) as well as a > > > > > > > >feedback to climate change (the > > desertification of the Sahara ca. 5500 > > > > > > > >yrs ago). Changing vegetation in a > > standard model affects the seasonal > > > > > > > >cycle of albedo, the surface roughness, the impact of snow, > > > > > > > >evapotranspiration (through > > different rooting depths) etc. However, > > > > > > > >modelling of the yearly cycle of > > crops, or incorporating the effects > > > > > > > >of large scale irrigation are still very much a work in > > > > > > > >progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Aerosol changes over the last few milllenia are very poorly > > > > > > > >constrained (if at all). These might have arisen from climatically > > > > > > > >or human driven changes in dust emissions, ocean biology feedbacks > > > > > > > >on circulation change, or climate impacts on the emission volatile > > > > > > > >organics from plants (which also have an impact on ozone > > > > > > > >chemistry). Some work on modelling a subset of those effects has > > > > > > > >been done for the last glacial maximum or the 8.2 kyr event > > > > > > > >(LeGrande et al, 2006), but there have been no quantitative > > > > > > > >estimates for the late Holocene (prior to the industrial period). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Due to the relative expense of doing millennial simulations with > > > > > > > >state-of-the-art GCMs, exisiting > > simulations have generally done the > > > > > > > >minimum required to include relevant solar, GHG and volcanic > > > > > > > >forcings. Progress can be expected relatively soon on more > > > > > > > >sophisticated treatments of those forcings and the first > > > > > > > >quantitative estimates of additional effects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >============= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >*------------------------------------ > > --------------------------------* > > > > > > > >| Gavin > > Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies | > > > > > > > >| 2880 > > Broadway | > > > > > > > >| Tel: (212) 678 5627 New > > York, NY 10025 | > > > > > > > >| > > | > > > > > > > >| > > gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin | > > > > > > > >*------------------------------------ > > --------------------------------* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > > > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > > > > > University of East Anglia > > > > > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > > > > > NR4 7TJ > > > > > > > UK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > > > University of East Anglia > > > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > > > NR4 7TJ > > > > > UK > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 5236. 2007-06-27 12:14:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David Randall" date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:14:30 +0100 from: "Wood, Richard" subject: RE: In case you've not seen this awful paper to: "Phil Jones" , "Folland, Chris" Thanks for the warning Phil. From a quick look this one seems to plumb new depths of garbage, though no doubt they have a few reasonable points somewhere. Since Chapter 8 is the focus of their bile, I'll give the paper a read through. I'm sure the authors, as economic/political forecasters, have a huge track record of successful forecastng so thay can teach us a thing or two. I particularly love the bit that says that nonlinear models produce inaccurate forecasts. I'll pass that on to my weather forecasting colleagues so they can cross a few terms out of their equations! Cheers, Richard -------------- Richard Wood Met Office Fellow and Head (Climate, Cryosphere and Oceans) Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK Phone +44 (0)1392 886641 Fax +44 (0)1392 885681 Email richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 25 June 2007 09:06 > To: Wood, Richard; Folland, Chris > Subject: In case you've not seen this awful paper > > > Richard, Chris, > You may have seen this, so apologies if you have. Kevin's brief > response is to the point. There might be some media coverage > this week, as I think ISF is on now. > > We didn't respond to their email a few months back as it was > too vague. I did get one though from Kestin Green. > > It would seem that both authors could do with reading some > relevant literature - at least understand the difference > between forecasts, > predictions and projections. > > Cheers > Phil > > > >X-Authentication-Warning: moffatt.cgd.ucar.edu: apache set sender to > >trenbert@ucar.edu using -f > >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:21:24 -0600 (MDT) > >Subject: Re: Forecasting conference - Armstrong paper > >From: "Kevin Trenberth" > >To: j.renwick@niwa.co.nz > >Cc: "Phil Jones" > >Reply-To: trenbert@ucar.edu > >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-2.el4.centos4 > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > >Jim > >Yes, and I offer the attached comments on his paper. I > haven't commented > >on the bet he has made, but there will probably be something on > >realclimate.com. > >I have had a lot of exchanges with Gavin. > >Not sure what to do with this: post it on realclimate.com is > one option. > >Anyway I am in the middle as a keynote speaker at this > conference. I do > >plan to make my ppt available after the mtg via my web site. > > > >Kevin > > > > > Hi Kevin: > > > > > > I se you're speaking at ISF 2007 this week. One of the > other invited > > > speakers, J Scott Armstrong, who is talking about public > policy and > > > forecasting (http://www.forecasters.org/isf/) has written > the attached, > > > ostensible for the ISF meeting. It's a strange document - > even I get > > > quoted in terms of a casual remark I made to an NZ > journalist a few > > > weeks ago (I should know by now there's no such thing as a casual > > > remark). Just thought you should know this stuff, if you > didn't already. > > > > > > I got the PDF off the NZ Climate Science Coalition (i.e. > Vince Gray and > > > co) website. By the way, I suppose you heard Augie Auer > died suddenly a > > > couple of weeks ago? > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jim > > > -- > > > Dr James Renwick, Science Leader, climate variability & change > > > National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research > > > Private Bag 14901, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND > > > J.Renwick@niwa.co.nz Ph: +64-4-3860343 Mob: +64-21-1785550 > > > http://www.niwa.co.nz Fax: +64-4-3862153 or +64-4-3860574 > > > > > > > > >___________________ > >Kevin Trenberth > >Climate Analysis Section, NCAR > >PO Box 3000 > >Boulder CO 80307 > >ph 303 497 1318 > >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > 2247. 2007-06-27 12:53:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Davey, Mike" , "Parker, David" date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:53:11 +0100 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: RE: In case you've not seen this awful paper to: "Phil Jones" , "Wood, Richard" Phil 1. I have glanced through this - reads like the Pilkey book which I have read and which they refer to. Neither seems to have heard of NWP and the extensive and improving skill verification statistics that exist. This destroys the Pilkey book's central thesis about the uselessness of all non linear mathematical models for all predictive purposes at a stroke. 2. A paper has recently appeared in Science comparing early IPCC expectations of changes in various climate parameters with what has actually happened since. Looks good. David Parker is an author and can provide a copy if need be. Seems to be a fairly well matched answer to this article. 3. Next month we expect another criticism to start to fall - publication in Science of the first and quite extensive set of validated decadal hindcasts using a coupled model where the model is indeed initialised - and a demonstration of the skill got from doing initialisation, compared to not initialising. And a decadal forecast for the future which they can get their teeth into which can already be partially verified. Wait till this appears c 3 Aug. 4. There is quite a lot of skill up to a year ahead in probabilistic real time numerical forecasts of El Nino SSTs using coupled models. Don't think they know much about that. Mike Davey maybe can point to the best paper on this. 5. In certain regions we can demonstrate real seasonal forecast skill beyond chance using numerical models. I presented an example in my Prof. lecture at CRU a year or two ago for the Upper Volta Soudan region of West Africa. Think its not written up - Mike Davey can comment. There is a discussion of N E Brazil seasonal rainfall skill using GCMs forced with observed SST in Folland et al (2001) J. Climate. Mostly very long set of seasonal hindcasts from 1912 in ensemble mode, but a few real forecasts. Not a perfect example of what they are on about but relevant. Don't think they know about that. 6. We regularly do moderately skilful forecasts of global surface temperature one year ahead. Partly coupled model based only. But not yet written up. Chris Prof. Chris Folland Head of Climate Variability and Forecasting Research Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 June 2007 09:06 To: Wood, Richard; Folland, Chris Subject: In case you've not seen this awful paper Richard, Chris, You may have seen this, so apologies if you have. Kevin's brief response is to the point. There might be some media coverage this week, as I think ISF is on now. We didn't respond to their email a few months back as it was too vague. I did get one though from Kestin Green. It would seem that both authors could do with reading some relevant literature - at least understand the difference between forecasts, predictions and projections. Cheers Phil >X-Authentication-Warning: moffatt.cgd.ucar.edu: apache set sender to >trenbert@ucar.edu using -f >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:21:24 -0600 (MDT) >Subject: Re: Forecasting conference - Armstrong paper >From: "Kevin Trenberth" >To: j.renwick@niwa.co.nz >Cc: "Phil Jones" >Reply-To: trenbert@ucar.edu >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-2.el4.centos4 >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Jim >Yes, and I offer the attached comments on his paper. I haven't >commented on the bet he has made, but there will probably be something >on realclimate.com. >I have had a lot of exchanges with Gavin. >Not sure what to do with this: post it on realclimate.com is one option. >Anyway I am in the middle as a keynote speaker at this conference. I >do plan to make my ppt available after the mtg via my web site. > >Kevin > > > Hi Kevin: > > > > I se you're speaking at ISF 2007 this week. One of the other invited > > speakers, J Scott Armstrong, who is talking about public policy and > > forecasting (http://www.forecasters.org/isf/) has written the > > attached, ostensible for the ISF meeting. It's a strange document - > > even I get quoted in terms of a casual remark I made to an NZ > > journalist a few weeks ago (I should know by now there's no such > > thing as a casual remark). Just thought you should know this stuff, if you didn't already. > > > > I got the PDF off the NZ Climate Science Coalition (i.e. Vince Gray > > and > > co) website. By the way, I suppose you heard Augie Auer died > > suddenly a couple of weeks ago? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Jim > > -- > > Dr James Renwick, Science Leader, climate variability & change > > National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Private Bag > > 14901, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND > > J.Renwick@niwa.co.nz Ph: +64-4-3860343 Mob: +64-21-1785550 > > http://www.niwa.co.nz Fax: +64-4-3862153 or +64-4-3860574 > > > > >___________________ >Kevin Trenberth >Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >PO Box 3000 >Boulder CO 80307 >ph 303 497 1318 >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 5007. 2007-06-28 11:19:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:19:31 -0600 from: Kathreen Ruckstuhl subject: Re: Philosophical transactions to: Tom Melvin , Keith Briffa Dear Keith and Tom, Please find below the last reviewer's comments on your paper. Please also make sure that you deal with them and send me a list of the changes you made. This also applies to the minor changes suggested by the first reviewer. Best wishes and thanks again for this excellent contribution! Kathreen Review of `Trends in recent Temperature and Radial Tree Growth spanning 2000 years across Northwest Eurasia`, by Keith R. Briffa et al. General Comments Overall, I liked the paper. I value the findind that the strenght of climate-tree growth relationships has not declined during the 20th century, as this has been the cause of debate in the last years since a paper published ironically by the same author in 1998 (Briffa et al. 1998). This gives tree-ring-based temperature reconstructions in the area credibility and enables the authors to state that the 20th century has been unprecedented in terms of high temperatures in the last 2 millenia in NW Eurasia. The analyses are easy to understand, practical and useful in getting to the point of the paper. I have no major comments in a general sense. Sometimes the text might be a bit confusing, the sentences too long and grammatically complex, with some commas missing that make things difficult to understand, and the structure of the paper not pertfectly fluid, but I would not say it represents a problem overall. My only comments are punctual and come here: Particular comments *1.* Page 3. Lines 10-12. This sentences refer to the Arctic Amplification: the Arctic amplification has caused a great debate in the last decade which does not appear in here. Whereas many authors claim that temperatures in Northern latitudes will increase more than in the temperate areas due to the ice-albedo feedback (e.g. Serreze and Francis 2006), some others claim that this is not the case in observed values (e.g. Polyakov et al. 2002). A reference to this debate could be useful. *2.* Page 5. Line 2. Erase the word that or else the sentence is not comprehensible. *3.* Page 6. Lines 1-8. The RCS method was termed this way by Briffa et al. 1992, but the same method had been applied by other authors way before (Erlandsson 1936; Fritts 1976). I would appreciate the earlier references in the text. *4.* Page 7. Line 33. Id add a comma between millenia and two. *5.* Page 7. Line 35 and lines 8-10. After stating that regional chronologies have practically nothing to do with each other, the authors built a NW-Eurasian chronology, which they will only use once and in a minor analysis which unnecessary for the papers main conclusion. I do not see the point in using that chronology, as it represents the average of three chronologies that have very little in common. *6.* Page 9. Line 17. lower than instead of lower that. *References* * Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Bartholin, T.S., Eckstein, D., Schweingruber, F.H., Karlen, W., Zetterberg, P., & Eronen, M. (1992) Fennoscandian summers from AD-500 - Temperature-changes on short and long timescales. Climate Dynamics, 7, 111-119. * Briffa, K.R., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J., Shiyatov, S.G., & Vaganov, E.A. (1998) Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature, 391, 678-682. Erlandsson, S. (1936) Dendrochronological studies. Report 23. Uppsala, Sweden. Stockholms Hgskolas Geokronological Institute. Fritts, H. (1976) Tree rings and climate. London: Academic Press 567 pp. Polyakov, I. Et al. (2002) Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global waring. Geophysical Research Letters 29(18): 1878. doi 10.1029/2001GL011111 Serreze, M. And J.A. Francis. (2006) The Arctic Amplification Debate. Climatic Change 76: 241-264. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\kruckstu6.vcf" 4906. 2007-06-28 16:50:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:50:09 +0100 from: "John Davies" subject: GLOBAL TEMPERATURE COMMENTS. to: Dear Dr Phil Jones, A few points on the comments you made. 1 The warming that will cause effective global action to be taken on Global Warming is warming which people perceive to affect themselves. I have expressed this in numerical terms as the Berkeley Line. This temperature has been expressed as a deviation from the average temperature as measured by the Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit. You mention that the warming of the ocean surface in the area which was ice covered ocean in 1976 and is not ice covered now is ignored in this data is as I see it not relevant to the level when people will seriously perceive global warming as a threat because nobody experiences the temperature in this small part of the world. 2 The warming of the ocean downwards does to some extent explains the slow warming of the earth. 3 Measuring SST's from buoys may well diminish the measured rise in SST's but is it not true that buoys have been used in this role since the 1950's so the effect of changing from ships to buoys is quite small in current measurements? My feeling is that the measures used by the Climatic Research Unit and Hadley Centre to measures global temperature give results which are very close to the correct figure for global temperature and warming. If anything the warming is probably very slightly greater than the measured figure but I would guess by less than 0.05 degrees Celsius. My reason is that the change one sees in the global climate and weather since 1976 does not seem large, In fact 1998 seems the warmest year on record despite what is aid about 2005, certainly there was much more disruption in 1998. If it were possible to measure these temperatures with 100% accuracy I would be astounded if present global temperature was as much as 0.6 degrees Celsius above the level until 1976. I shall send you a modified version of what I wrote previously. Ideally there should be huge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale immediately but I think this is very unlikely. Global temperatures have not risen enough to alarm people sufficiently and Chinese emissions have risen enormously and the US still emits more per capita than any large nation. As the US and China are very reluctant to agree cuts in their projected emissions it is difficult to envisage other nations agreeing to make large cuts in emissions. The US and China would agree to cut emissions if global temperature had risen more than has occurred. It still seems enormously likely that there will be a large rise in global temperature before 2016, more than 0.2 degrees Celsius, with huge consequences for human society. All the Best, John B Davies. -- [1]Support Friends of the Earth These personal opinions do not necessarily reflect the policy of Friends of the Earth. 1628. 2007-06-29 16:01:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: Scott.D.Woodruff@noaa.gov, Gilbert.P.Compo@noaa.gov, compo@colorado.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:01:44 +0100 from: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: EIC and WW1 log book digitisation possibility to: C.W.Wilkinson@uea.ac.uk, denniswheeler@beeb.net, dennis.wheeler@sunderland.ac.uk Clive/Dennis, There is a chance that we might be able to revive the EIC and also do a WWW1 push on ship log book digitisation. This comes about from monies that have suddenly seemed to have materialised in the MO for projects that have considerable pull through to customers and users. I'm not sure what figure we are looking at, though the CEO at a recent general question and answer session with MO staff (including yours truly) was talking about 19 million that needed to be spent across the Office or it would end up back with the MoD!!! The way it can be done is under my ACRE initiative, which has the customer and user element as an integral part of it via Gil Compo's reanalyses that ACRE is facilitating on the data side. In addition, one also gets more SSTs for all the usual work here. So I think it is worth a real push. Phil Brohan and I are going to put together the business case for it, and we need to get it in by next Friday - usual story!! So we'll need to check with you that if something like this could get monies from here would the BL infrastructure and your time be able to be fitted together for an EIC and a WW1 proposal? I think it could be for the last half of this year and the first half of next year - I'll find out more and let you know. All and any thoughts most appreciated. Plus fingers crossed tighter this time round. Cheers, Rob. -- Dr Rob Allan ACRE Project Manager Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail (W): rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk E-mail (H): rallan@onetel.com 551. 2007-07-02 09:47:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 2 09:47:40 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: crowley forcing to: Tim Osborn , t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Tim/Thomas I agree that this is he only logical way to justify the periods - the very issueof the period definition itself , is a source for useful discussion on the concept/definition of a Little Ice Age (in the context of previous papers that all address this from the observational/proxy side in isolation. In other words the specificaton of the periods and the sensitivity to specific forcings should constitute a fair slice of such a paper on its own. Keith At 17:04 29/06/2007, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Thomas, thanks for the figs. I'd already made a plot too, using the forcings used in the ECHO-G simulation which came from Crowley (2000) -- please see attached. Very similar to yours except I've used a 30-yr Gaussian weighted filter. The zero level is arbitrary. The red line at -2.5 W/m**2 helps highlight the minima in the last 500 years (1450 AD is lower, but less good proxies back then!). Late 1600s and 1810s are similar with this filter. I've put vertical markers around 1670-1700 and 1810-1820... they are slightly delayed from the peak negative forcing, but given the lag expected in the climate response to these forcings, they seem like reasonable periods to use to search for strong LIA conditions. 1670-1700 is indeed not very much out of the ordinary compared with the preceding century, but in the context of the whole 500 yr it is unusual. Keith -- the background to this is that Thomas and I were briefly discussing the proxy results that Thomas showed earlier (for 1690s and 1810s) and I said that if they can be made into a paper there needs to be a justification for choosing the periods. A good justification would be that in the last 500 years they are periods with lowest forcing and therefore an expectation of coldest forced climate change. This will of course depend on whose forcing you use (principally ratio of solar to volcanic magnitudes) and filter etc. But the point isn't to try to prove that these periods definitely had the strongest negative forcing of the last 500 yr, but instead to use the analysis of Crowley (2000) forcings to say that this may be true and therefore these periods are worth looking at in terms of proxy evidence. So, 1810s still, but change 1690s to 1670-1700??? Can we talk about this next Friday? Cheers Tim At 15:18 29/06/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim. Since I am preparing figures anyway, I thought I'd have a quick look at your forcing timeseries suggestion. The blue line are the annual values, red is a 10 (well, 11, actually) year running mean, black is a 25 year running mean. In the 25yr mean, the early 19th century is somewhat remarkable, since it's a noticeable dip in the otherwise increasing trend. The late 17th century forcing is certainly a local minimum, but appears rather unremarkable (I guess mainly since the early 17th century also has rather low forcing). In the decadal mean, the 1810s (or thereabouts) certainly look rather interesting, but in the 17th century one should possibly go to some other period, e.g. the 1670s, or the 1640s. The idea for using the 1690s came from the CET timeseries, where it is the coldest period (see HadCET figure). The natural forcings run agrees nicely in that respect (see gm_temp.jpg). Natural forcings is black, our control run is blue, the thick lines are 10yr running means. There, quite obviously the 1690s is the coldest decade as well, with possibly similarly low temperatures at the beginning of the run. Cheers, Thomas Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3003. 2007-07-02 09:48:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:48:06 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: WWR Volumes for the 1990s to: Phil Jones Hi, Phil, A weekend in Greece sounds lovely. I just double checked and no, there is no hard copy version of WWR planned. There is a CD version available with software to bring up the data for one station at a time, but no book. Dick just told me that one of my concerns about ERSST verified while I was in Aspen: the climatology used can make a big difference, not globally, but in at least one particular location. So we're still working at improving the product. When I talked to the NWS, they said that the CIO of NOAA decided it would violate privacy laws if they allowed the name and address of observers be made public & the same is true of photos of the station if it showed any of the observer's house or a well-known landmark. 'Tis rough when we're attacked for following the law. One Congressman has requested information about USHCN that sounds straight out of CA. He requested copies of paper metadata. Our calculation is that this would be a total of 65,000 pages of information (all of which requires us to black out the observer's personal information prior to providing it). Regards, Tom Phil Jones said the following on 7/2/2007 5:43 AM: > >> Tom, > > Our librarian (who only works Thursday pm) wonders if there will > ever be hard copy versions printed by NOAA. He is great at looking > after our library, but I think he wants to fill in a foot of space with > these books if they are to appear. > > I'm often getting my knuckles wrapped for putting books back > in the wrong place ! > > I see CA is getting a head of steam up with people emailing NOAA > about IPCC and also about US HCN. There was on comment that was > amusing and stupid. If a US HCN observer denies permission for CA > to take pictures of the site, then the data should be withdrawn !! > I see they are trying to get NOAA to say who withdrew the access > to certain files with locations and observer names on them. > > By the way, I have got the paper - review will be friendly though! > > Got back from a weekend in Greece, talking to some politicians about > climate change. Armed guards at Norwich airport on my return ! The times > we live in...... > > Cheers > Phil > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 1475. 2007-07-02 10:54:36 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:54:36 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Scientific Highlight for Our Changing Planet 09 to: "Phil Jones" Yes good idea, I'm sure CCSPO is already thinking of mentioning this. Any highlight will be referred to as CCSP contributions, agency affiliation stripped. Still nice to see our program stuff get in there, good for the program. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:26 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: Scientific Highlight for Our Changing Planet 09 Anjuli, I'll give this some thought. As your example from the web kept on referring to the IPCC and the various CCSP reports, it might be an idea to say how many within your program were involved within IPCC and CCSP. Cheers Phil At 14:15 02/07/2007, you wrote: >All, > >I'd like to enlist your help in putting together a few "highlights" for >the upcoming edition of Our Changing Planet 2009, a document that is >prepared by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and distributed to >Congress to accompany the President's FY 09 budget. > >This is an opportunity for you to highlight any results in the past >year or so. You are not being asked to provide volumes of material, >just a a few sentences that describe your highlights. Further, if you >would like to include a high-impact figure of your work, please do so. >The highlight must be accompanied by relevant peer reviewed >reference(s). > >I need input for this request is needed by ~ August 10, 2007. A copy >of the 2007 Our Changing Planet-Climate variability and change research >element, may be found at >http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2007/ocp2007-hi-clivar.htm >This will give an idea of the required style and language for the >highlight. > >Thank you very much for your attention on this matter. > >Best regards, > >Anjuli Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 4812. 2007-07-02 13:47:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 2 13:47:37 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Polar bear population boundaries to: A.Oliver@uea.ac.uk Hi Amy, the program ran over the weekend and I have some results. However there's a few problems to discuss and overcome, perhaps easier in person than via email. Are you at UEA this afternoon or sometime tomorrow? Please drop by if you are. Cheers Tim At 14:32 29/06/2007, you wrote: Dear Tim, Here is my list of boundaries for the Canadian populations. The top 5 (Western Hudson, Southern Hudson, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait and Foxe Basin) are the priority for me. I have also attached a GIS map of the actual boundaries with my rectangular boundaries on top. Thanks a lot. Amy > Hi Amy -- it's not too late to make changes to the W Hudson region, > as I have made most of the necessary changes to the program but not > yet actually run it. Although the programming changes are relatively > minor, the programs actually take many hours to process all model > simulations, so I won't have results to send you today, but will at > least have set them running so they'll be ready next week. The > regional averaging is done afterwards, so I can add extra regions > later without needing to re-run the main program. > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 12:49 29/06/2007, you wrote: >>Dear Tim, >> >>I have been sent a shapefile with the population boundaries of the >>Canadian polar bear populations which I can use to work out the best >>"square" boundaries to use for the modelling. If I had been given this >>previously then I might have chosen slightly different coordinates for >> the >>Western Hudson Bay population. Have you already started running the >> model >>for this population? If so, then I will obviously leave the boundary >>where it is. If not, then I will change it slightly. Can you let me >>know, because the boundary I chose for that population also affects a >>couple of other populations? I should be able to let you know the >>boundaries for the other populations by the end of the day if you get >> back >>to me. >> >>Many thanks, >> >>Amy > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > 4911. 2007-07-03 04:21:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:39 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Fwd: IUGG XXIV, 2007 - Perugia, Italy to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, was just about to log out and got your message. I think we will be spending most of our time exploring Umbria, but hopefully we'll catch up w/ Caspar when he's in town, and also Drew Shindell who is here w/ his family... The UK FOIA seems like a real pain. What McIntyre and his ilk are trying to do is to make doing science as unpleasant as possible for us. I suppose they think that discouraging the scientists is the best way to prevent the science from moving forward. Its really disgusting, and hopefully folks from higher up realize what is going on. What about the legal folks at CRU, are they providing any help?? mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I think many people at IAMAS will be a long way from the conference centre. I'd just go along to the session and enjoy Umbria the rest of the time. You might find wireless there, so maybe add an extra hour or two to get some decent connection time. For the UK FOIA, anybody can make a request. The UK Act isn't limited to UK citizens. It seems this isn't generally realized even within the UK. This was the first thing I tried in order not to comply back in Feb. Our Act also applies to all data - regardless of where it comes from, so is not restricted to UK data. The Canadian Act is also this wideranging. So if I'd written a paper about some Martian data, then a person from Venus could ask me for it !!!! The Act in the UK clearly wasn't designed that well! Ciao Phil At 18:36 02/07/2007, you wrote: thanks Phil, well, just arrived in Perugia, unfortunately only have modem internet capability, so will be a challenge to keep up this week. Our hotel is far from the conference center, so probably I'll just go in for the day of our session, and we'll to daytrips the rest of the week. Thanks for the tips on Spoleto and Gubbio. We're looking into this... by the way, how can McIntyre issue an FOIA request to you. He's a Canadian!! talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Hope you are enjoying the break in Italy. Il Ciocco was a great meeting - back in 1995. I produced a book from it with Ray and Jean. Not yet the Science comments - but will when I get some time. Saw that CA come down on Burger's side. Loads of off the wall comments about site numbers around the world. There are about 20 (maybe less) well-dated high-res series for the whole of the millennium. McIntyre claims there are hundreds available to Keith! If only there were ..... Just got another FOIA request from McIntyre about some of the statistics we've used in Table 3.2 and 3.3 of Ch 3 of AR4. Forwarded to David Parker to see how we might respond, if we do. Relates to our use of Durbin-Watson D-Statistics. We had them in an early draft, but for space we withdrew them as all the trends passed. Nothing really RC can do. You might like to check with NCDC when you get back about all the FOIA requests they are getting re IPCC and also the HCN network. NOAA have sent an email to all observers (co-ops) saying it is up to them to allow CA people (or not) to take pictures of their sites. NOAA have withdrawn the site details and observer names from their web site. Places to visit in Umbria are Spoleto and Gubbio. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 12:27 29/06/2007, you wrote: thanks Phil, yeah, will just ignore this. We're in Viareggio right now. A couple days in Siena afterwards, and then onto Perugia for the meeting. Lorraine's meeting in Il Ciocco was very nice. As I recall, there was a paleoclimate meeting there some years ago (before I was in the field).... saw the exchange between Burger and Keith/Tim in the latest Science. I think they were clear winners in the exchange. I am unimpressed by Burger, especially in terms of attitude. I hope things are ok back in UK. What's the latest w/ McIntyres pestering of you? Anything we can do (e.g. RealClimate) to help? talk later, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, You can probably delete this. I would. Just passing on. Cheers Phil Subject: IUGG XXIV, 2007 - Perugia, Italy Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:14:58 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IUGG XXIV, 2007 - Perugia, Italy Thread-Index: Ace4xYrnpxyDQMT1T3ikPZln0YPYAg== From: "Smit, Tonny (ELS-AMS)" [1] Sender: "Nguyen, Samga (ELS-AMS)" [2] To: [3] Cc: "Smit, Tonny (ELS-AMS)" [4] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2007 14:14:59.0228 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B86BDC0:01C7B8C5] X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Jones, RE: JMS017 The Holocene-Anthropocene Transition: >From Natural to Human-Dominance of the Earth System Please allow me to introduce ourselves as the Publisher and Publishing Editor responsible for part of the Earth Science programme at Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. A small selection of the journals we are handling are: * Quaternary International * Quaternary Science Reviews * Quaternary Geochronology Upon studying the programme for the forthcoming Meeting, we came across the session that you are (co)convening and feel that this session might be of interest to the audience and we feel that papers, or part of the papers from your meeting may well be suitable for a special issue of one or more of our journals. But we are of course open to any other suggestions you might have. Should you as the conveners in principle also be interested in putting together a special issue of the meeting's papers, then we would like to herewith invite you to feel free forward us your special issue proposal consisting of an approx. one page summary and list of authors and abstracts, if available, for further evaluation and discussion. By publishing selected papers presented in your session in the form of a special issue you will reach a worldwide readership as these issues are distributed to all subscribers (both in paper and electronic form). You might be interested to know that we do not levy page charges, fold outs are free, senior contributors get a free copy of the issue and our charges for colour reproduction are very reasonable. If you are in principle interested in this proposal then we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in more detail, either by email or, as we are attending the meeting, it would be possible to discuss in person on location. We look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes, Femke Wallien (Publisher) and Patricia Massar (Publishing Editor) ---------------------------------------------------- Geology I P.O. Box 1930, 1000 BX Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 485 2702 (FW)/ 3340 (PM) -------------------------------------------------------- With best wishes Patricia Massar Publishing Editor Elsevier B.V. GEO I Radarweg 29, Room 17.135 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel. +31.20.4853340 Fax. +31.20.4852623 E-mail: [5]p.massar@elsevier.com Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [6]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [7]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [8] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [9]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [10]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [11] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [12]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [13]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [14]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 473. 2007-07-03 17:02:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 3 17:02:56 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Mitrie to: Martin Juckes , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl KEITH IMPORTANT -- please take a look at the bit highlighted by Martin below because I don't think it is quite right (though perhaps not greatly wrong). e.g. rather than "different" group of trees, perhaps one is a "subset" of the other? Plus some used combination of density+ring-width, others just ring-width? Cheers Tim At 16:41 03/07/2007, Martin Juckes wrote: Hello, another version of our paper is attached. I've added the following paragraph to the discussion of Table 1, and I'd be grateful if Jan and Keith could check that it is accurate: "Evaluation of past work is further compicated by confusion between closely related proxy series. In Tab.~1 there are two series referred to as Tornetraesk: that used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method. The Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the Tornetraesk area, but from a different group of trees. The Polar Urals series used by ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the data used to create the Northern Urals series used by JBB1998, MBH1999. The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a smoothed version of that used in ECS2002, MSH2005. The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data analysed by \citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the composite is not described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}." I've also moved a few things around and tried to follow most of the suggestions from Anders and Nanne. I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws" in the conclusion, despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker wording, because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious flaws which are there. One reviewer has implied that we should not discuss flawed work at length because in oding so we give it credibility it does not deserve. I believe that since this stuff is published and influential in some quarters we should discuss it and draw attention to the fact that it is seriously flawed. cheers, Martin 1946. 2007-07-03 23:15:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:15:26 +0200 from: Jan Esper subject: Re: Mitrie to: Martin Juckes , anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Martin This is quite a task, as I do not really remember which version of a dataset was used in which paper. For ECS2002, I detrended all data via two RCS runs applied to the "linear" and "non-linear" sub-groups as identified in that paper. All data except for Boreal and Upper Wrigth (both from Lisa Graumlich) and Mongolia (from Gordon Jacoby) were measured at WSL. I wouldn't necessarily claim that the regional chronologies from the ECS approach are highly useful records, i.e. for a regional analysis I would use data that are detrended region-by-region. (that used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method.) Not fully sure what MSH2005 did, but this is very likely correct, i.e. they likely used a "regional" version from Briffa and/or Grudd. (The Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the Tornetraesk area, but from a different group of trees.) Hm..., I don't believe that these studies used different trees. Up to the recent update by Hakan Grudd, that is currently in review with Climate Dynamics, there was effectively only one dataset from Tornetrask. Keith or Tim might know this better. (The Polar Urals series used by ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the data used to create the Northern Urals series used by JBB1998, MBH1999.) I wouldn't necessarily call this a reanalysis. Perhaps better say 'differently detrended'. Anyway, I doubt that there is a long dataset from the Northern Ural as there is little wood preserved in that area. This is likely the same data, i.e. both are Polar Ural. (The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a smoothed version of that used in ECS2002, MSH2005.) This I really don't know but it would be better to use a regionally detrended version of the data... (The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data analysed by \citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the composite is not described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}.") Agreed. Just read the paper again, and it is indeed difficult to say which data was combined. (I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws" in the conclusion, despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker wording, because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious flaws which are there.) I also think that a less aggressive wording would be more effective. -- Jan At 16:41 Uhr +0100 3.7.2007, Martin Juckes wrote: Hello, another version of our paper is attached. I've added the following paragraph to the discussion of Table 1, and I'd be grateful if Jan and Keith could check that it is accurate: "Evaluation of past work is further compicated by confusion between closely related proxy series. In Tab.~1 there are two series referred to as Tornetraesk: that used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method. The Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the Tornetraesk area, but from a different group of trees. The Polar Urals series used by ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the data used to create the Northern Urals series used by JBB1998, MBH1999. The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a smoothed version of that used in ECS2002, MSH2005. The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data analysed by \citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the composite is not described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}." I've also moved a few things around and tried to follow most of the suggestions from Anders and Nanne. I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws" in the conclusion, despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker wording, because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious flaws which are there. One reviewer has implied that we should not discuss flawed work at length because in oding so we give it credibility it does not deserve. I believe that since this stuff is published and influential in some quarters we should discuss it and draw attention to the fact that it is seriously flawed. cheers, Martin Attachment converted: Hennes:cp-2006-0049-rv 3.pdf (PDF /IC) (001588D6) -- Jan Esper Head Dendro Sciences Unit Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland Voice: +41-44-739 2510 or +41-44-739 2579 Fax: +41-44-739 2515 http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper 5344. 2007-07-04 14:52:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Christoph Schar , Rahel Buri date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 14:52:13 +0200 from: Christoph Schaer subject: Invitation to NCCR Climate Summer School 2008 to: Phil Jones Dear Phil Attached is an invitation for you to attend and give a presentation at an NCCR Summer School to be held in the Italian part of Switzerland in September 2008. Huw Davies and I recognize that the likelihood of you being free and able to attend is smaller than 100%, but if there is a chance you should not miss to spend a few days in a very attractive part of the world! We would much hope to have you as a speaker and would appreciate to receive your reply as soon as feasible. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, Christoph ------------------------------------------------------------ Prof. Christoph Schr Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science ETH Zurich Universitaetsstr. 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland E-Mail: schaer@env.ethz.ch Tel: 044 632 8199 (international: +41 44 632 8199) Fax: 044 632 1311 (international: +41 44 632 1311) Office: CHN L12.1 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/schaer/ ------------------------------------------------------------ -- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\LetterInvitation_Jones.pdf" 2713. 2007-07-04 16:21:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:21:48 +0100 from: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IPCC Table 3.2 to: "Jones, Phil" Phil Thanks for both. Steve McIntyre has ashed for the software I used for calculating the DW statistic so I will send him just the relevant lines. I use a printout of the Chapter 3 pdf! Regards David On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 14:03 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > David, > Thanks. Tim thinks he could get the procedures to work, > but won't bother as your explanation is fine. I'll paraphrase it > and send off. I doubt though that he will be happy. He will > probably say we didn't give enough explanation. I'll > be cc'ing to the same list as earlier. > > Thanks again. > > It would be nice to get the CUP book. I keep opening the pdf > version of the chapter! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 12:06 04/07/2007, you wrote: > >Phil > > > >The DW statistic was done on the residuals after removing the AR1 > >persistence as modelled by the restricted maximum likelihood software. > >That is why the values were close to 2. This procedure is correct > >because the restricted maximum likelihood software widens the error-bars > >to take account of AR1; the DW is a test to see whether any further > >widening is needed, and the results show that it isn't. Steve McIntyre > >probably used the residuals unadjusted for AR1. > > > >I attach our software and 2 sample series. I don't think "R" is used > >widely here. The DW coding is at lines 78-91 of the plot routine > >(p_plot_glm_out_annual.pro). > > > >I hope this helps > > > >Regards > > > >David > > > > > >On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 09:08 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > David, > > > Any idea what McIntyre is doing wrong? Maybe check the pv-wave > > > code and if possible send to me. It is a bit like IDL so I can > > > probably follow. Maybe there is a routine in PV-Wave for DW. > > > I've calculated DW on numerous occasions over the past 30 years > > > for the following: > > > > > > 1. In the riverflow reconstruction work. Here I was reconstructing > > > monthly > > > flows from rainfall. In the southeastern parts of Britain where there > > > is > > > a high groundwater component, rainfall errors propagate for up to a > > > year. > > > Here I got some low DWs with values between 0.5 and 1.5. > > > > > > 2. In reconstruction from paleo data we calculated DW and > > > occasionally > > > got values down to the range 1.2 to 1.5. > > > > > > 90% of the time the values were between 1.8 and 2.4 which is where > > > ours > > > are in the Tables. > > > > > > I've never been able to get values down to the 0.27 and 0.49 that > > > McIntyre > > > is talking about. > > > > > > Tim Osborn thinks he would be able to run your pv-wave script here, > > > so > > > if you can send this with one or two of the series - need the > > > residuals, > > > we can check things out. > > > > > > Also looking at his R script, I don't think DW can have a p-value as > > > such, > > > as it has the two critical levels I was talking about in my response. > > > > > > What I think you have calculated DW based upon is the residuals, > > > so the difference between the original series and the fitted line. > > > > > > If anyone at MOHC is adept at R, it would be very nice to point out > > > what is > > > wrong with his script !!! > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > X-YMail-OSG: > > > > Lbmzx_0VM1nx78zXgGstXLvBNj_1bKKWu3u3EfY0YVl7XZyftROTuk6Cnr.ZURgyAw-- > > > > From: "Steve McIntyre" > > > > To: "'Phil Jones'" > > > > Subject: RE: IPCC Table 3.2 > > > > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:03:18 -0400 > > > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 > > > > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.1 > > > > X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > > > > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > > > > > > Dear Phil, thanks for the prompt reply, but there are a number of > > > > points that remain very unclear. I am extremely familiar with the > > > > Durbin-Watson statistic as it is familiar to all econometricians. I > > > > use the R language which has a convenient Durbin-Watson test in the > > > > lmtest package (the dwtest function.) When I ran a Durbin-Watson > > > > test on residuals from fitting a trend, I obtained a Durbin-Watson > > > > statistic of 0.49 for an OLS-fitted trend to the HadSST2 series > > > > presently online (over 1850-2005).When I re-fitted a trend line > > > > using the reported slope of 0.038 deg C/decade, I obtained an even > > > > lower Durbin-Watson statistic of 0.27. For this same situation, > > > > you reported a DW statistic of 2.2. I've attached a script in R. > > > > You say that"We used the lag-1 autocorrelations to calculate the > > > > reduced number of degrees of freedom of the residuals." In order > > > > to get a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.2, you must have done > > > > something to the data that is not a typical procedure and which is > > > > not explained in Diggle. The best guess that I could come up with > > > > as to what you did was that you might have fitted an AR1 arima model > > > > to the trend residuals and then calculated a DW statistic for the > > > > residuals for the arima-fit. However, this is just speculation and > > > > there is no clue in AR4 as to what was done. > > > > > > > > BTW the usual interpretation of the DW test in econometrics is as a > > > > test for first-order autocorrelation, so the exact meaning of using > > > > a DW test "after allowing for first-order serial correlation" is by > > > > no means obvious. Again, if you can direct me to an article > > > > describing the exact procedure that you used together with its > > > > statistical properties, I'd appreciate it. > > > > > > > > Regards, Steve McIntyre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:59 AM > > > > To: Steve McIntyre > > > > Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk; > > > > Kevin Trenberth; Susan Solomon; Martin Manning > > > > Subject: Re: IPCC Table 3.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > The Durbin-Watson statistics were in an earlier draft of > > > > the chapter. They were > > > > removed simply for space reasons, as none were significant. > > > > As you can see, > > > > we also removed the lag-1 autcorrelations as well. > > > > > > > > REML comes from Diggle et al 1999 (section 4.5 pp > > > > 64-68). This reference is > > > > given at the end of the chapter. The page numbers refer to > > > > the 1999 edition of the book. > > > > There is a later one available on Amazon, so the page > > > > numbers may differ in that > > > > edition. David Parker programmed the calculations of all > > > > the trends. As far as I > > > > know he didn't do this with any specific statistical > > > > packages. He likely used PV-WAVE > > > > which the Hadley Centre used for almost all their analysis > > > > work. The use of REML > > > > is discussed in Appendix 3.A. > > > > > > > > DW is very simple to calculate. We used the lag-1 > > > > autocorrelations to calculate the > > > > reduced number of degrees of freedom of the residuals. This > > > > number was used with > > > > the DW statistic to estimate the significance. Basically, > > > > any DW value above > > > > about 1.8 is not significant. DW Tables are in some > > > > statistics books. There should > > > > be two significance values (for any DW value and N, here > > > > the effective number > > > > of degrees of freedom). For the lower of these, values > > > > below would be significant. > > > > Values above the upper are not significant. For values in > > > > between nothing can > > > > be said. We were always above the upper value. For random > > > > numbers, the > > > > DW statistic should return a value about 2. There are > > > > different sets of Tables for > > > > different significance levels (1%, 5% etc). We used 5%, > > > > which is generally > > > > the one given in text books. > > > > > > > > Any statistical package would likely not use the reduced > > > > number of degrees > > > > of freedom (reduced based on the lag-1 autocorrelation) > > > > when giving the > > > > significance of DW. Using the reduction to the degrees of > > > > freedom makes the > > > > test harder to pass. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > At 17:36 29/06/2007, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > Dear Phil, > > > > In Table 3.2 of IPCC AR4, you refer to Durbin-Watson > > > > statistics for various trend calculations, but do not show > > > > them. Could you please provide me with these statistics. > > > > > > > > I am unfamiliar with any prior use of the Durbin-Watson > > > > statistic after allowing for first-order serial > > > > correlation. Could you please provide me your statistical > > > > reference showing how one calculates a Durbin-Watson > > > > statistic after allowing for first-order serial > > > > correlation and giving significance levels for the > > > > statistic after allowing for first-order serial > > > > correlation. > > > > > > > > Could you please identify the statistical packages used in > > > > your calculation of REML trends and Durbin-Watson > > > > statistics? > > > > > > > > Would it be correct to say that (1) fitted a trend to the > > > > various series; (2) fitted an AR1 arima model to the > > > > residuals from (1)? (3) carried out a Durbin-Watson test on > > > > the residuals from (2)? > > > > > > > > Where applicable, these requests are made under FOI > > > > provisions. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your attention, Steve McIntyre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >-- > >David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK > >E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk > >Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk 149. 2007-07-04 17:50:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:50:22 +0100 from: "John Davies" subject: GLOBAL CLIMATE COMMENTS to: Dear Dr Phil Jones, You may find the enclosure easier to agree. I have changed it in such a way that it will gain wider agreement but still says most of what I wish to say. Though the first paragraph is unchanged you will probably agree with the explanation later on the article. All the Best, John B Davies personal. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES IN THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS. This is a brief summary of the climate situation facing the world in the medium term. Most climate scientists will agree in general terms with what follows. The long term future for global climate looks fairly bleak whatever happens to greenhouse gas emissions from now on. The world will almost certainly warm significantly according to the IPCC, and their forecast for the next half century is almost certainly realistic. However if humanity drastically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions then the warming can probably be contained at a level which will allow humanity to survive. The next fifteen years are very uncertain. The IPCC summary for policymakers published in early 2007 forecast that global temperatures will rise over the next two decades by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Between 1976 and 1997 global temperatures rose by about half a degree Celsius and have only risen slightly since. Most of the current media stories on climate concentrate on the effects the world is feeling from the warmer climate which began in 1997. Emissions of greenhouse gases and their concentration in the air have continued to increase over the last decade. The relative stability of global temperatures over the last decade has enormous ramifications for climate and humanity over the next fifteen years. There may be a negative feedback which will prevent global temperatures rising above the present level for the foreseeable future as the climate sceptics argue. The science from climatic research units, which is the best available science, and the IPCC, suggests that this is only an extremely remote possibility. The second more likely scenario is that global temperatures will start rising significantly again in the next year or two and reach a level where they would be expected to be by about 2016, with a two in three chance that global temperature will increase by more 0.2 degrees Celsius above the present global temperature to a level greater than say 0.63 degrees Celsius above the world average temperature for the 1961 - 90 period but only a one in three chance that they will exceed 0.73 degrees Celsius above the 1961 - 90 level in 2016. This implies a rise in global temperature of greater than 0.20 degrees Celsius between 2007 and 2016, an enormous rate of increase. This second scenario is probably what most climatologists think is likely. The most likely global temperature in 2016 is centred on 0.67 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1961 - 90 global average or 0.76 degrees Celsius above the global temperature until 1976. In a nutshell there is a one in three chance that global temperatures will be held below 0.63 degrees Celsius above the 1961 - 90 global average until 2016 which would be a reasonably good short term prospect, a one in three chance they will be between 0.63 and 0.73 degrees Celsius above the 1961 - 90 level by 2016, implying a bleak difficult medium term future and a one in three chance global temperatures will be above 0.73 degrees Celsius by 2016 which will be extremely unpleasant and difficult to adapt too with very severe implications for the future. The above paragraph is very important. Almost everybody, excepting only the most unintelligent, can get an approximate idea of the climate probabilities facing the world until 2016 if they sit down and think hard about this paragraph. Hence almost everybody can know, if they were to read this paragraph and want to know, the climate future until 2016. It needs emphasising at this point that a very large volcano which puts dust into the Stratosphere will cool the earth for 2 or 3 years. This could occur shortly prior to 2016 and if this did happen would delay this rise in global temperature by two or three years. It is possible, though not likely, that the rise in temperature by 2016 could be large enough to cause catastrophic climatic changes which could lead into a runaway greenhouse event. The sort of thing which might happen is that this could cause the arctic sea ice to melt and the South West of the Amazonian rainforest to burn down. Either of these two events would be catastrophic for the global climate. In the event that the thin arctic sea ice melted in late summer then the water will absorb the sun's rays whilst at present the ice reflects them thus the Arctic Ocean will warm very significantly almost immediately. This will warm the land around the ocean, in Northern Russia and Alaska, the frozen peat bogs will defrost releasing vast amounts of methane and carbon dioxide thus leading to further warming especially of the oceans and the methane hydrates at the bottom of some of the oceans will be released leading to further warming. These events would cause the Amazonian rainforest to dry out and burn down with further positive feedbacks. Alternatively the South West of the Amazonian rainforest could burn down first adding huge amounts of carbon dioxide to the air and lead to further positive feedbacks in the north, and later the burning down of the remainder of the Amazonian rainforest. These latter two events are dependant on the size of the jump in global temperature and will probably not occur until the earth has become significantly warmer than it becomes after the initial jump in temperature. Should global temperature be about 0.67 degrees Celsius above the 1961 - 90 global average but almost no warmer than this, which is the most likely possibility, then human life and the global ecology will be facing great strain and changes by this time. Some areas of the world will become drier; the Greenland ice sheet will be melting much faster, and the arctic sea ice retreating very rapidly. The negative changes will hugely outweigh the positive. There will be large negative economic consequences and almost certainly a global recession. However civilisation will not collapse and there will not be a large wipe out of humanity at this level of temperature increase. The main point to be borne in mind is that the world faces a high chance of very large climate changes in a very short space of time which we know about but of which we are nevertheless largely unaware. This is creeping up on us unawares because of the relative climate stability of the last ten years. Should this period of climate stability continue then the sceptics will publicise it and insist that global warming is a myth and many politicians and much of the public will believe them. Success for the sceptics will mean that no action will be taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This possibility can be minimised if the defenders of the global climate inform the world of the climate stability before the sceptics jump in and if climate campaigners accurately explain the dangerous future facing humanity and the world. It will be extremely difficult to make people aware of the danger we face if this climate stability goes on much longer. In military terms this situation represents a classic ambush. IT MUST SURELY BE OUR ABSOLUTE DUTY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AND POLITICIANS OF THE GRAVE DANGER THAT CHANGES ARE PROBABLY ABOUT TO OCCUR WHICH WILL MAKE OUR LIFE ON THIS PLANET MUCH LESS PLEASANT AND MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT HAS BEEN UP UNTIL THE PRESENT. One important reason for this is that if we know the dangers we can adjust to these changes more quickly when they do happen and anyway we can still modify them slightly. There are other much more remote possibilities for the medium term future. There is about a ten per cent chance that global temperatures will increase slowly over the next twenty years, by less than 0.3 degrees Celsius between 2007 and 2027, even if humanity only cuts it's emissions slightly, and even a chance that temperatures will be rise by less than 0.3 degrees Celsius over the next 20 years if emissions of greenhouse gases rise rapidly. Best of all there is a very slight chance, a miniscule one, that if humanity reduced emissions immediately so as to stabilise the greenhouse gas concentration of the air at it's present level then global temperatures will stabilise at their present level. This is worth doing because at present we have a vibrant beautiful earth which gives many species as well as humanity the possibility of a very enjoyable life on this planet. However small the possibility is of retaining this situation we should surely do all in our power, whatever the hardships this involves, to maintain this idyllic situation. The purpose of this piece is in a very general way to illustrate what the future possibilities are for us over the next fifteen years or so. Should climate scientists agree that it is realistic then it will have a large political impact. The climatic and ecological impacts of these levels of temperature increase can be fleshed out by the climatic research units. The main point to note is that most of the effects of Global Warming will be very unpleasant and that is why greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced very substantially and almost immediately. Global Warming is going to make it progressively more difficult to feed everybody and Britain already has one of the highest densities of population on earth. Unless drastic action is taken on the climate problem mass starvation is probably going to occur in Britain. John B Davies. -- [1]Support Friends of the Earth These personal opinions do not necessarily reflect the policy of Friends of the Earth. 3076. 2007-07-06 16:23:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jan Esper , anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:23:18 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Mitrie to: Tim Osborn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by oin.rl.ac.uk id l66FNNrC019808 Thanks to Tim and Keith for that correction. I've inserted that, and also reworded the paragraph in the conclusions which talked about "serious flaws" along the lines suggested by Tim. It now reads: "The IPCC2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported by subsequent research and by the results obtained here. We have also reviewed and, in some cases, tested with new analysis, papers which claim to refute that IPCC2001 conclusion and found that their claims are not well supported." This version attached with the revised supplementary material. I need to go over the `changes' document again, and the response, but I hope to send it in on Monday. cheers, Martin On Wednesday 04 July 2007 16:54, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Martin & Jan (and others) > > Keith and I have put together the attached text as an alternative, > hopefully more accurate, version to the current paragraph about > differences between tree series. We did this before/while Jan's > email arrived, so some overlap but hopefully what we say is > compatible with Jan's comment. Note we haven't discussed the ice > core data from Fisher, just the tree-ring series. > > How does the attached sound? > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 22:15 03/07/2007, Jan Esper wrote: > >Martin > >This is quite a task, as I do not really remember which version of a > >dataset was used in which paper. > > > >For ECS2002, I detrended all data via two RCS runs applied to the > >"linear" and "non-linear" sub-groups as identified in that paper. > >All data except for Boreal and Upper Wrigth (both from Lisa > >Graumlich) and Mongolia (from Gordon Jacoby) were measured at WSL. > > > >I wouldn't necessarily claim that the regional chronologies from the > >ECS approach are highly useful records, i.e. for a regional analysis > >I would use data that are detrended region-by-region. > > > >(Šthat used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that > >used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method.) > >Not fully sure what MSH2005 did, but this is very likely correct, > >i.e. they likely used a "regional" version from Briffa and/or Grudd. > > > >(The Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the > >Tornetraesk area, but from a different group of trees.) > >Hm..., I don't believe that these studies used different trees. Up > >to the recent update by Hakan Grudd, that is currently in review > >with Climate Dynamics, there was effectively only one dataset from > >Tornetrask. Keith or Tim might know this better. > > > >(The Polar Urals series used by ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the > >data used to create the Northern Urals series used by JBB1998, MBH1999.) > >I wouldn't necessarily call this a reanalysis. Perhaps better say > >'differently detrended'. Anyway, I doubt that there is a long > >dataset from the Northern Ural as there is little wood preserved in > >that area. This is likely the same data, i.e. both are Polar Ural. > > > >(The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a smoothed version of that used > >in ECS2002, MSH2005.) > >This I really don't knowŠ but it would be better to use a regionally > >detrended version of the data... > > > >(The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data > >analysed by \citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the > >composite is not described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}.") > >Agreed. Just read the paper again, and it is indeed difficult to say > >which data was combined. > > > >(I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws" in the conclusion, > >despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker wording, > >because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious > >flaws which are there.) > >I also think that a less aggressive wording would be more effective. > > > >-- Jan > > > > > > > > > >At 16:41 Uhr +0100 3.7.2007, Martin Juckes wrote: > >>Hello, > >> > >>another version of our paper is attached. > >> > >>I've added the following paragraph to the discussion of Table 1, and I'd be > >>grateful if Jan and Keith could check that it is accurate: > >>"Evaluation of past work is further compicated by confusion between closely > >>related proxy series. In Tab.~1 there are two series referred to as > >>Tornetraesk: that used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that > >>used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method. The > >>Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the Tornetraesk > >>area, but from a different group of trees. The Polar Urals series used by > >>ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the data used to create the Northern Urals > >>series used by JBB1998, MBH1999. The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a > >>smoothed version of that used in ECS2002, MSH2005. > >>The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data analysed by > >>\citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the composite is not > >>described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}." > >> > >>I've also moved a few things around and tried to follow most of the > >>suggestions from Anders and Nanne. I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws" > >>in the conclusion, despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker > >>wording, because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious > >>flaws which are there. One reviewer has implied that we should not discuss > >>flawed work at length because in oding so we give it credibility it does not > >>deserve. I believe that since this stuff is published and influential in some > >>quarters we should discuss it and draw attention to the fact that it is > >>seriously flawed. > >> > >>cheers, > >>Martin > >> > >>Attachment converted: Hennes:cp-2006-0049-rv 3.pdf (PDF /«IC») (001588D6) > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Jan Esper > >Head Dendro Sciences Unit > >Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL > >Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland > >Voice: +41-44-739 2510 or +41-44-739 2579 > >Fax: +41-44-739 2515http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-rv4.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-sp1.pdf" 2999. 2007-07-10 13:32:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:32:44 +0100 from: "Rob Wilson" subject: Re: Re: Fwd: RE: FW: divergence problem] to: Hi Keith, thanks for forwarding your message. I tried to ignore Marcel's initial e-mails but he phoned me at home so I said I would write back. He was really fishing for me to criticise your truncation. Hopefully my answer was diplomatic enough. It looks like I will be co-chairing a session on Divergence at the AGU with Mike Evans (Rosanne probably will not be there) and it would be great if you (or Tom?) could make it over to give a presentation on your recent work in this regard. I will contact you when we know for sure that the session will go ahead regards Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk To: [2]mcrok@natutech.nl Cc: [3]rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: FW: divergence problem] ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: FW: divergence problem From: [4]f023@uea.ac.uk Date: Tue, July 10, 2007 1:18 pm To: "Keith Briffa" <[5]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcell I am putting a few thoughts down on paper - they are in noe particular order . We can talk later also as for the "innapropriate" response to the suggestion to show the Briffa reconstruction "after 1960" - there is no reconstruction from these data after 1960 to show. The authors did not include this as their exploration of the tree-ring density data used clearly showed a low-frequency divergence between the chronologies being used and the regional summer temperature against which they were being compared. There were sufficient overlaps between the available pre-1960 data to demonstrate strong associations at high (inter-annual) and medium (decadal scale) timescales to provide support for the value of presenting the reconstruction based on these data. The Figure in Chapter 6 of the AR4 report , was seeking to provide a basis for comparing pre-20th century temperatures with those known to have occured (on the basis of instrumental measurements) in the last century or two. The data shown were all as provided by published articles (in the peer-reviewed literature) . At no time was the issue of the apparent divergence ever "hidden" or its implications - these were discussed elsewhere in the Chapter. The specific reconstruction (of summer temperatures based on Tree-ring density data ) is explicitly representative of restricted land regions in the northern high latitudes and some high-elevation regions further south (- in the western US and the Alps). It is only the "northern" series that show the divergence. The secondary scaling of the regional series to represent the best estimate of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) as a whole clearly depends on the association between the average of of tree growth with this restricted distribution and the "true" hemisphere temperatures remaining stable through time. Other reconstructions use wider spaced , and different , often more varied types, of proxy records . Some use actual temperature series (or other climate series e.g. precipitation) among their predictors. It is not surprising that these do not show the same "divergence". The data used in this Briffa et al reconstruction sought to provide independent evidence of past temperures from those. The year-to -year match with temperatures is seen to be strong , even post 1960, and the strong warming seen in the northern instrumental records between 1920 and 1940 is generally well matched even in the density data. It is for this reason that we suspect the divergence might be a problem only associated with recent decades. In such a situation it would be wrong to ignore this and calibrate using all the modern data - risking serious biasing of the calibration relationship used to infer past temperatures. Subsequentlty other researchers have reported "divergence" phenomena , but again associated with high latitudes only. There is as yet, no definitive answer or even concensus that these studies represent the same phenomenon. Most suggested "solutions" (see Rob's comments)to the cause are problematic and it is important to study the nature and possible causes further. At present such studies are hampered by a lack of recent tree-ring and tree-density data (especially post 1980) . The answer may lie in a mixture of methodological and biological factors. However, it is very important to recognise that a number of the reconstruction studies use tree-ring series that are not affected by this problem (crucial among these are tree-ring records in Scandinavia, west and central Siberia). Many of the predictors in the published reconstructions included in the IPCC Figure were not affected. Tree-ring based and virtually all proxy reconstructions (including of the NH) are subject to large statistical uncertainty, arising out of diminishing quality and coverage of predictors back in time. The methods used to translate these data into quantitative estimates of past temperatures also assume uniformitarianism in the relationships between predictors and predictand. This is hard if not impossible to prove. There is a myriad of environmental changes occuring as a result of the activities of human kind that might compromise this assumption : increasing carbon dioxide, increasing acidification of terrestrial environments; changing atmospheric clarity; changing ozone and hence uV levels, to name only some. The ecology of all biological proxies must be futrther explored in this context. However, NONE OF THIS IS HIDDEN in the work of researchers or in the IPCC AR4 report. On the contrary, palaeoclimatologists actively seek to research and understand the implications of these factors. They also seek to understand the implications , biases and limitations of the statistical techniques they use. What is not acceptable though , is to throw up ones hands and declare that " nothing can be done because of these problems". We strive to overcome the problems and in the meantime , make the best interpretation of the available data that can be achieved , taking into account the uncertainties. The latest AR4 report tries to do just this - express the best concensus in the clear understanding that there are these problems. The issues and uncertainties are made explicit. Look at the text and the "key Uncertainties" section . I am not in the office at present - if you need to discuss this further, please ring me at +44 1953 851013 before 4 pm my time cheers Keith > >>Subject: RE: FW: divergence problem >>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:22:14 +0200 >>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>Thread-Topic: FW: divergence problem >>Thread-Index: AcfCKYGvRnfJs4ccThupPhzG/WBjQQAAmP5A >>From: "Crok, Marcel" <[6]mcrok@natutech.nl> >>To: "Keith Briffa" <[7]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2007 13:22:15.0116 (UTC) >>FILETIME=[2A8690C0:01C7C22C] >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >>Thanks for your reply. Tomorrow afternoon would be fine. I will call >>you, let's say at 2 pm your time? Is your number 1603593909? >>Marcel >> >>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >>Van: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>Verzonden: maandag 9 juli 2007 15:02 >>Aan: Crok, Marcel >>Onderwerp: Re: FW: divergence problem >> >>Marcel >>have been away - today busy all day - can read Rob's comments and >>comment myself and perhaps ring you - but not til tuesday >>Hope this ok >>Keith >> >>At 09:56 09/07/2007, you wrote: >> >Dear Keith, >> >I sent you an email last Friday about the truncation of your >> >reconstruction after 1960 in AR4. Meanwhile I discussed the topic >> >with your colleague Rob Wilson (see his answers below). For my >> >article I would really like to have a reaction from you as well. Rob >> >explained that things are very sensitive. I understand that, but I >> >think that makes it even more important for you to give a reaction >> >to the press yourself. >> >For me as a journalist the comment that it is "inappropriate" to >> >show the reconstruction after 1960 makes no sense. The >> >reconstruction is real and therefore should have been shown. You >> >then can try to explain why things happen. Could you comment on that >> >by email or could I phone you today? I would also appreciate your >> >comments on the questions that I sent to Rob. >> > >> >My article will be written in Dutch and will be published in the >> >September issue of Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. I have no plans >> >right now to make a translation, but if I do, I will sent you a >> >draft so you can check your own quotes. >> > >> >Many thanks in advance, >> >Marcel Crok >> > >> > >> >---------- >> >Van: Rob Wilson [mailto:rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk] >> >Verzonden: zaterdag 7 juli 2007 10:25 >> >Aan: Crok, Marcel >> >Onderwerp: Re: divergence problem >> > >> >Dear Marcel, >> >some brief answers to your questions are below (in red). >> >I hope they will be of use for your article. >> > >> >recently the review comments of the AR4 were released. McIntyre >> >asked to show the Briffa reconstruction after 1960. This comment was >> >rejected saying it was "inappropriate" to show. Do you agree with >> >that or would you have included the section? >> >1) >> >2) Briffa et al. have presented limited evidence in their work >> >to show that the divergence noted in their regional and large scale >> >reconstructions may be anthropogenic related and therefore >> >restricted to the recent few decades. If true, then the post 1960 >> >truncation is valid. >> >3) >> >How do you explain that Briffa's reconstruction which is based on >> >hundreds of series is going down after 1960 while most (if not all) >> >of the other constructions go up? >> >4) >> >5) We need to be careful on which reconstructions you are >> >talking about. Briffa (2000) presented a ring-width (RW) based >> >extra-tropical reconstruction that shows divergence only after the >> >mid 1980s. This is similar to other RW based reconstructions >> >developed since (e.g. Esper et al. (2002), D' Arrigo et al. (2006) >> >with further discussion in Wilson et al. 2007). In 2001, Briffa >> >published a set of regional (and hemispheric) scale reconstructions >> >that were based on maximum density (MXD) data.It is the NH >> >temperature reconstruction from this study that Macintyre has been >> >critical about with the post 1960s truncation. The divergence >> >phenomenon in MXD data seems much worse than for RW. BUT, the signal >> >in MXD is generally much stronger. Catch 22. >> >6) The divergence phenomenon, whether for RW or MXD is complex. >> >To date, no one cause has been implicated and it is likely that the >> >divergence issue is a phenomenon which is related to multiple >> >factors over different regions and species. I could quote you as >> >many studies that show no divergence as those that do. >> >7) Some possible hypothesised causes are: (1) non linear >> >effects - e.g. there is a thermal threshold (i.e. it is getting to >> >warm and some other parameter (e.g. precipitation) becomes limiting >> >to growth; (2) anthropogenic affects (e.g. effects of pollution >> >etc); (3) increasing CO2 may not result in fertilisation but the >> >opposite effect as it may reduce the water use capacity of the tree >> >and result in moisture stress; (4) issues related to the >> >statistically processing of the tree-ring data - i.e. end effect >> >issues when the TR data are detrended to remove biological age >> >biases in the series; (5) Urban Heat Effects. If there is a positive >> >bias in the instrumental data, then this could affect the >> >calibration with tree-ring data; (6) wrong target season - some >> >studies at large scales target annual temperature when in reality >> >tree-ring data portray a summer temperature signal. Reconstructions >> >also calibrate against mean temperatures although the bulk of >> >cambial activity is in the day time. Day time maximum temperatures >> >might therefore be a more realistic parameter to target. Increasing >> >temperatures are observed more at night than the daytime. >> >8) I could go on......... >> >9) >> >In the SPM of AR4 they concluded: "Studies since the TAR draw >> >increased confidence from additional data showing coherent behaviour >> >across multiple indicators in different parts of the world. However, >> >uncertainties generally increase with time into the past due to >> >increasingly limited spatial coverage." Do you support this >> >conclusion or do you think the divergence problem is so serious that >> >this conclusion is premature? >> >10) >> >11) Yes, I would agree with this statement in general. >> >Unfortunately, none of the millennial long NH temperature >> >reconstructions are entirely independent so this observation is not >> >completely valid, but many new independent regional reconstructions >> >(e.g. from NW N. America, the Alps, China etc) clearly show late >> >20th century conditions to be warmer than the last 1000 years. >> >Confidence does decrease markedly back in time and I personally >> >believe that prior to ~1400 we do not have enough proxy data to make >> >robust comparisons between present conditions and the Medieval Warm >> >Period (for example). More long data-sets are being generated all >> >the time and it will not be long before we can further improve on >> >the present swath of reconstructions. Current evidence, however, >> >does suggest that the late 20th/early 21st century temperatures are >> >higher than any time for the last 1200 years. >> >12) I believe the divergence issue is extremely serious and more >> >work is needed to explore reasons why it is occurring. I am chairing >> >a session at the Fall AGU this December on this issue and we are >> >trying to get all groups studying this phenomenon involved. However, >> >as I said above, divergence is not noted at all locations in the >> >Northern Hemisphere and with the inclusion of other proxy types >> >(e.g. documents, corals, speleothems etc etc), it should be possible >> >to minimise the limitations of each of the proxy types while >> >improving the final reconstruction. >> >13) >> >14) What are the main causes of the divergence problem and how >> >certain are you about these causes? >> >15) >> >16) see my response above. >> >17) >> >If the divergence problem is real, how serious a problem is this for >> >millennial temperature reconstructions? >> >18) >> >19) Again - I think the above reponses covers this question. The >> >issue is serious but I not think it represents an impossible hurdle >> >that we cannot get around. If nothing else, it provides >> >dendrochronologists with an exciting research challenge. >> >20) >> > >> >21) I hope these answers will help >> >22) best regards >> >23) Rob >> >24) >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >Dr. Rob Wilson >> >School of GeoSciences, >> >Grant Institute, >> >Edinburgh University, >> >West Mains Road, >> >Edinburgh EH9 3JW, >> >Scotland, U.K. >> >Tel: +44 131 650 8524 >> >25) >> >26) Home Page: >> ><[8]http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=930>http://www.geos.e >>d.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=930 >> >27) >> >28) ".....I have wondered about trees. >> >29) They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. >> >Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree >> >for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty >> >might prove useful. " >> >30) >> >31) "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance >> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>-- >>Professor Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > 1334. 2007-07-11 09:10:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: ,,, ,,"'Phil Jones'" , , "'Thorsten Kiefer'" , date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:10:29 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection to: ,, "'Eystein Jansen'" Hi Heinz I am in agreement with your outline - I would like to stress my own bias that PAGES (and the rest of us) need to be pursuing the issue of model validation (or specific process validation if you prefer) . There is much to be done on the area of exploring how models simulate the climate variability (and the nature of the association with forcings) that we reconstruct from the palaeodata. Many people, scientists among them, believe that the issue of global warming has nothing to gain from palaeolcimate studies and they are wrong. Issues such as the climate sensitivity of models versus the real world and the roles of specific forcings and their influence on the future, represent important foci for continued study. I would like to see this area of work and collaboration between palaeoclimatologists and climate (and ecological) modelers as an explicit priority of future work. At 14:41 09/07/2007, Heinz Wanner wrote: >Dear Gavin, dear Eystein, > >PAGES has actually to formulate its new >implementation plan. This gave us the >opportunity also to discuss our engagement >within the PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection part. >Beside the publication of a basic methodological >paper (coordinated by Phil) the decision of the >Wengen meeting was (as far as I know): >a) to organize a methodological workshop in >Trieste (June 2008, mainly organized by Kim Cobb and Sandy Tudhope); >b) to start the so-called PAGES/CLIVAR >Reconstruction Challenge with three working >groups: Modelling, pseudoproxies and reconstructions. > >In addition, Focus 2 of the new PAGES >implementation plan intends to continue (or to >start) to reconstruct the climate of the last 2 >ka with a very high resolution (continental, >seasonal). If possible, the three important >state parameters temperature, precipitation and >air pressure should be reconstructed. Some >groups already started with this work: Europe, >North and South America. New initiatives will >likely be taken by teams from Asia/China, Australia and the Arctic. > >The question is now how we can coordinate these >activities. Our suggestion is to organize two >well coordinated meetings in 2008 and 2009: > >2008 >- Workshops by the three working groups of the >PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge, followed >by the methodological PAGES/CLIVAR workshop in Trieste (June 2008). > >2009 >PAGES Open Science Meeting in the U.S.: Special >session on the actual results of PAGES, Focus 2: >Regional reconstructions. The different modules >of this workshop should be organized by the >leaders of the different regional teams, such as >Luterbacher, Briffa and Esper for Europe, Ammann >and Wahl for North America, or Villalba and Grosjean for South America. > >1. Can I ask Kim and Sandy to answer whether >they have already made plans for Trieste. The >PAGES office offers to help to organize this meeting. >2. Caspar, can you send out the official text of >the PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge >immediately. This text could form the basis for >the definitive formation of the three working >groups (and for the nomination of the group >leaders normally a difficult task!). >3. I will personally help to plan the session of >the U.S. Open Science session on regional reconstructions in 2009. > >The PAGES SSC meets soon in Australia. I will >not attend this meeting, but Thorsten Kiefer >will present the above mentioned ideas there. We >ask all recipients of this mail to comment this >concept and to send us our ideas or propositions. > >With very bets regards, Heinz > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Heinz Wanner >Prof., Director NCCR Climate >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Office Institute of Geography: >Hallerstrasse 12, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) >Phone +41 (0)31 631 88 85 / Secr.: 88 59 >Mail: wanner@giub.unibe.ch >www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet > >Office NCCR Climate: >Erlachstrasse 9a, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) >Phone +41 (0)31 631 31 60 / Secr.: 31 45 >Mail: wanner@giub.unibe.ch >www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch >------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3193. 2007-07-11 13:19:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: ,,, ,,, "'Thorsten Kiefer'" , date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:19:42 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection to: Keith Briffa ,, ,"'Eystein Jansen'" Heinz, Thanks for the update on future plans for the PAGES/CLIVAR intersection. Work on the paper is coming along slowly. I just need contributions from Keith and Tim here and Caspar at NCAR. I'm away July 16-28, so I hope that the final contributions will arrive whilst I'm away, just like Swiss trains - always on time! I've reminded Keith and Tim, so remember Swiss timing Caspar! Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 09:10 11/07/2007, Keith Briffa wrote: >Hi Heinz >I am in agreement with your outline - I would >like to stress my own bias that PAGES (and the >rest of us) need to be pursuing the issue of >model validation (or specific process validation >if you prefer) . There is much to be done on the >area of exploring how models simulate the >climate variability (and the nature of the >association with forcings) that we reconstruct >from the palaeodata. Many people, scientists >among them, believe that the issue of global >warming has nothing to gain from palaeolcimate >studies and they are wrong. Issues such as the >climate sensitivity of models versus the real >world and the roles of specific forcings and >their influence on the future, represent >important foci for continued study. I would like >to see this area of work and collaboration >between palaeoclimatologists and climate (and >ecological) modelers as an explicit priority of future work. > > > > At 14:41 09/07/2007, Heinz Wanner wrote: >>Dear Gavin, dear Eystein, >> >>PAGES has actually to formulate its new >>implementation plan. This gave us the >>opportunity also to discuss our engagement >>within the PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection part. >>Beside the publication of a basic >>methodological paper (coordinated by Phil) the >>decision of the Wengen meeting was (as far as I know): >>a) to organize a methodological workshop in >>Trieste (June 2008, mainly organized by Kim Cobb and Sandy Tudhope); >>b) to start the so-called PAGES/CLIVAR >>Reconstruction Challenge with three working >>groups: Modelling, pseudoproxies and reconstructions. >> >>In addition, Focus 2 of the new PAGES >>implementation plan intends to continue (or to >>start) to reconstruct the climate of the last 2 >>ka with a very high resolution (continental, >>seasonal). If possible, the three important >>state parameters temperature, precipitation and >>air pressure should be reconstructed. Some >>groups already started with this work: Europe, >>North and South America. New initiatives will >>likely be taken by teams from Asia/China, Australia and the Arctic. >> >>The question is now how we can coordinate these >>activities. Our suggestion is to organize two >>well coordinated meetings in 2008 and 2009: >> >>2008 >>- Workshops by the three working groups of the >>PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge, followed >>by the methodological PAGES/CLIVAR workshop in Trieste (June 2008). >> >>2009 >>PAGES Open Science Meeting in the U.S.: Special >>session on the actual results of PAGES, Focus >>2: Regional reconstructions. The different >>modules of this workshop should be organized by >>the leaders of the different regional teams, >>such as Luterbacher, Briffa and Esper for >>Europe, Ammann and Wahl for North America, or >>Villalba and Grosjean for South America. >> >>1. Can I ask Kim and Sandy to answer whether >>they have already made plans for Trieste. The >>PAGES office offers to help to organize this meeting. >>2. Caspar, can you send out the official text >>of the PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge >>immediately. This text could form the basis for >>the definitive formation of the three working >>groups (and for the nomination of the group >>leaders normally a difficult task!). >>3. I will personally help to plan the session >>of the U.S. Open Science session on regional reconstructions in 2009. >> >>The PAGES SSC meets soon in Australia. I will >>not attend this meeting, but Thorsten Kiefer >>will present the above mentioned ideas there. >>We ask all recipients of this mail to comment >>this concept and to send us our ideas or propositions. >> >>With very bets regards, Heinz >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Dr. Heinz Wanner >>Prof., Director NCCR Climate >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Office Institute of Geography: >>Hallerstrasse 12, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) >>Phone +41 (0)31 631 88 85 / Secr.: 88 59 >>Mail: wanner@giub.unibe.ch >>www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet >> >>Office NCCR Climate: >>Erlachstrasse 9a, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) >>Phone +41 (0)31 631 31 60 / Secr.: 31 45 >>Mail: wanner@giub.unibe.ch >>www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch >>------------------------------------------------------------------ > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3996. 2007-07-12 11:08:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, kim.cobb@eas.gatech.edu, sandy.tudhope@ed.ac.uk, jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, juliebg@geo.umass.edu, thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, louise.kromer@pages.unibe.ch date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:08:05 +0200 from: wanner@giub.unibe.ch subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, thanks for your comment. I am in full agreement with your propositions. In my mail I did possibly not clearly explain that PAGES will publish the written form of the implementation plan (IP) soon. Everybody is asked to participate in the discussion of this implementation plan. Therefore, it is important that Thorsten and Louise help to update the last version of this implementation plan on the PAGES website. Focus 1 of the IP deals with the omprovement of the forcings and modelling, and Focus 2 is centered on regional reconstructions, including modelling aspects. Therefore, the Foci 1 and 2 work closely together as I discussed with Bette while I was in the NCAR. Our goal is in fact what you nicely formulated like "exploring how models simulate the climate variability (and the natire of the association with forcings) that we reconstruct from the paleodata" or "issues such as the climate sensitivity of models versus the real world....", etc. The idea of the regional reconstructions in Focus 2 is in fact to support such a procedure. I also agree that we have to show to to a broader community (including especially the press and our politicians) how important paleoclimatic studies are. This is also important for our future funding. Very best regards, Heinz ------------------------------------------------------ This mail was sent through IMP at http://mail.unibe.ch 1220. 2007-07-13 10:22:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:22:40 +0100 (BST) from: Shoni.Dawkins@uea.ac.uk subject: Are you able to meet this afternoon? to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hello Phil, managed to get the annual analysis done for 5 rainfall divisios (the whole area, and then divided into 4), TMAX and TMIN. The attached sheet shows the graphs of the residuals. The rainfall trends look consistent with what I expected. Bit worried about TMAX and TMIN, the drop off at the end is rather dramatic, and not totally consistent with trends shown at this website (though these do include Tasmania in southeastern Australia): http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi The raw temperature data did show a dip, when eye balling it. I'll double check that no other station series end that I have not noticed in the later period. cheers Shoni Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Annual.xls" 3694. 2007-07-13 10:34:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:34:08 +0100 from: International CLIVAR Project Office subject: WOCE ATLAS SERIES to: icpo@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk With apologies for any cross postings ************** THE WOCE ATLAS SERIES - VOLUME 2 Pacific Ocean The second volume of the WOCE Atlas Series (The Pacific Ocean prepared by Lynne Talley at SIO) is about to be printed. It contains 347 pages of: -introductory material - vertical sections of up to fifteen parameters along the WOCE One-Time Hydrographic survey lines - horizontal property maps on depth and density surfaces - property-property plots The atlas also includes a DVD containing all the printed plates plus additional material. The contents can be seen online at http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/whp_atlas/pacific_index.htm If you are interested in receiving a copy of this or of Volume 1 (the Southern Ocean prepared by Alex Orsi of TAMU see http://woceatlas.tamu.edu/) please email Mrs Jean Haynes (jchy@noc.soton.ac.uk) or fax +44 (0)23 8059 6204 . Thanks to support from BP the printing costs for atlases have been provided, but in most cases a contribution to the distribution costs will need to be made. In order to minimize these costs a number of regional distribution centres will be used. We encourage bulk orders and ask for the number of copies required and the mailing addresses. Please note that there are only a limited number (800/volume) of the atlases available. The list for the main mailing of the Pacific Atlas will compiled at the end of July and so requests for copies should be made before then. Regards , Mike Sparrow, Piers Chapman and John Gould (atlas editors) -- International CLIVAR Project Office Room 256/20 National Oceanography Centre University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, SOUTHAMPTON SO14 3ZH, UK email: icpo@noc.soton.ac.uk tel: +44 (0)23 8059 6777 fax: +44 (0)23 8059 6204 http://www.clivar.org CLIVAR - The Climate Variability and Predictability Project of the World Climate Research Programme This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Both NERC and the University of Southampton (who operate NOCS as a collaboration) are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The informationcontained in this e-mail and any reply you make may be disclosed unless it is legally exempt from disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be stored in the electronic records management system of either the University or NERC as appropriate. 4231. 2007-07-13 10:42:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck ,tim Osborn date: Fri Jul 13 10:42:13 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG to: "Christopher Kuonqui" Hi Christopher could you be more specific about which data sets you require ? All the numbers that allow you to plot the separate lines on 6.10b ? or the data required to lot 6.10 b (which would be difficult) ? thanks Keith At 22:23 12/07/2007, you wrote: Dear Mr. Briffa and Mr. Osborn, Following-up to Prof. Overpecks email, Im writing to see if I could get a hold of the estimates for global temperature variations going as far back as you may have them (what I have in mind is Figure 6.10 from the IPCC WGI report). Id like to use these figures to work out a few graphics for the United Nations Human Development Report which is themed on climate change and human development this year. Getting the estimates on a simple Excel spreadsheet would be more than sufficient. I would greatly appreciate your help with gathering these data at your earliest convenience as were now promptly approaching our production deadline. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Many thanks, Chris --- Christopher Kuonqui Writing Team Human Development Report Office United Nations Development Programme Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 Email: [1]chris.kuonqui@undp.org Website: [2]http://hdr.undp.org ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Overpeck [[3]mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:02 PM To: Christopher Kuonqui Cc: Keith Briffa; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; joos; Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG concentrations Hi Chris - the folks to coordinate with are: 1) 6.10 - Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn 2) atm concentrations - Fortunat Joos I'll cc these guys so they know what's up, and you have their emails. Best, Jonathan Dear Dr. Overpeck, I am writing you from the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report Office. This year's global Human Development Report is on climate change and human development. We are right now finalizing the statistical figures we are presenting in the Report and I'm working on using data from WG I to present some key points in climate change science on temperature and GHG atmospheric concentrations. I have been in touch with Kathryn Averyt and Kevin Trenberth who both pointed me in your direction. We're working on piecing together a number of graphics based primarily on historical data as far back as IPCC publishes them. These are for: (1) Global average temperature (the infamous 'hockey stick' graph), and (2) Global GHG concentrations. This would be for the six Kyoto gases, but most especially for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The graphics in the FAR that most closely match what I have in mind on these two measures are Figure 6.10 (temperature), and FAQ 2.1 and Figure TS.2 (atmospheric concentrations). I would greatly appreciate your urgent help on getting a hold of these data. Please let me know if you should have any questions regarding this request. Many thanks, Chris --- Christopher Kuonqui Writing Team Human Development Report Office United Nations Development Programme Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 Email: [4]chris.kuonqui@undp.org Web: [5]http://hdr.undp.org -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [6]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [7]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3972. 2007-07-13 17:01:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:01:51 +0100 from: Sarah Dry subject: Re: Other proxy papers to: Phil Jones Dear Phil Thanks for sending this papers my way and sharing your thoughts, especially the intriguing last one you mentioned, about how skewed the proxy world is to Northern Hemisphere data without really acknowledging that it is so. I'll read up on this material and Mike and I will continue with the temperature story. Have a good two weeks away--I do hope it's a vacation! Many thanks and best wishes, Sarah On Jul 13, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Sarah, Here's another from 1998. This is the first paper to produce annual estimates back to AD 1000. The first article on the development of an NH series from multiproxy data was Bradley, R.S. and Jones, P.D., 1993: 'Little Ice Age' summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends. The Holocene 3, 367-376. The journal has not been back-scanned this far. There were earlier estimates of NH Temp series back in time, but none including Hubert Lamb's various endeavours are not reproducible today. They are very highly smoothed versions of the course of change. I mention this as a lot of people got their ideas of the last millennium - the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age etc - from his papers. They seem not to trust newer versions (which use orders of magnitude more data) if they don't have an MWP and an LIA. Odd that people accept a paper from the 1960s/1970s and ignore 90% of the subject which has been developed since 1980! The issues in the proxy world are the global nature of the MWP and the LIA - how global were they? They occurred in Europe and North America, but did they in the SH? My take on this is that any series should be representative of as many regions of the world as possible. We don't take the instrumental record back before 1850, as it is mostly then just representative of Europe. Odd then that people are happy to use just proxy series from Europe and say they are good for the NH. We would have quite different concepts of the last millennium if proxy science had developed in Australia/NZ and not in the North America/North Atlantic/Europe region. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm 3698. 2007-07-16 08:34:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Scott D Woodruff , worley@ucar.edu, Gil Compo , Phil Jones , Masao Kanamitsu , Tara Ansell , David Jones , Philip Woodworth date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:34:24 -0600 from: Gil Compo subject: Re: Request for input to: alexeyk@ldeo.columbia.edu Alexey Kaplan wrote on 7/9/07 3:08 PM: > Dear Scott, Steve, and Gil, > > As a new member for the CLIVAR's "Processes, Observations, Synthesis" > (POS) panel, I was asked by our chairman (who is Mike Alexander) to > cover at the panel meeting (which is in 2 weeks) the issues of > obtaining/digitizing historical climate data. I wonder if you could > point me towards any recent report/documents/website which I could use > as an authoritative source on the current state of these activities. > And/or please let me know if you want any particular issues relevant > to this topic brought to the attention of the POS panel or CLIVAR > summit. Mike also hinted that, if needed, CLIVAR panels can draft > letters to the government or international agencies with > requests/recommendations. Let me know. > > Another question is, with the retirement of Joe Elms, who would be a > right contact on the terrestrial climate data side? I've been in touch > with Karen Andsager recently: is she a right contact to get the entire > picture from? > > With subsurface ocean the issue seems easy: I'll ask to Levitus what > he thinks. > > Any input from you guys will be attended to most dutifully. > > Hope all is well with each of you, > Alexey > Dear Alexey, I think you have gotten a pretty good set of responses. My only additional 2 bits are. 1- CMDP, contact Tom Ross 2-Get your new group to please support the GCOS AOPC/OOPC Surface Pressure Working Group request to the DWD (Reinhard Zoellner ) to exchange their historical marine data with ICOADS as soon as possible. Whatever subset they are will to exchange will be a useful addition, particularly anything prior to 1948. 3. Exchanging South American data pre-1948 has been very difficult outside of Chile (thanks to CDMP). We need some good link with someone who is interested in seeing the subdaily data for this region recovered. 4. Scientific expedition data needs a home. It is neither all land data or all marine data (take the Byrd Antarctica expedition data as an example: many ships from New Zealand, data from the ice shelf, data from the continent). I think that a push to get all polar scientific expedition data digitized would be very useful as someone was going to one or the fairly often throughout the 20th century at least. David Bromwich had suggested this to me for Antarctica in particular, and I think it is a good idea. Let me know if I can be of any more help, best wishes, gil -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "All Thy works shall praise Thy name, in earth, and sky, and sea" R. Heber 974. 2007-07-16 09:11:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:11:02 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: [Fwd: RE: Nature review request - manuscript 2007-07-07125] to: Phil Jones Phil I see you area co-author on this paper submitted to Nature which I am not reviewing as you can see. Thought you should know or our work though: attached. Kevin -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Nature review request - manuscript 2007-07-07125 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:50:26 +0100 From: Mossinger, Juliane [1] To: Kevin Trenberth [2] Dear Kevin Thank you for your offer to review the paper by John Milliman and colleagues for Nature. Given that you have a paper on the same topic under review, however, we feel that it may be best to ask another referee to assess the paper. Thanks very much for letting me know about the submission of your work to the Journal of Climate. Best regards Juliane ****************************** Dr Juliane C. Mossinger Senior Editor - The Macmillan Building, 4-6 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 (0)207 833 4000; Fax +44 (0)207 843 4596; [3]nature@nature.com ****************************** -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Trenberth [[4]mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu] Sent: 16 July 2007 15:10 To: Mossinger, Juliane Subject: Re: Nature review request - manuscript 2007-07-07125 Hi Juliane I feel a bit conflicted as we have a paper on the same topic already submitted to Journal of Climate: Dai, A., T. Qian and K. E. Trenberth, 2007: Changes in continental discharge from 1949-2004. J. Climate. Submitted. I may be able to review it if you get it to me today, monday, as I would have to do it today. I leave for New Zealand on Thursday until 10 August and will not be available. My colleague Aiguo Dai would also be appropriate as a reviewer but he is in China until 21 July. Kevin Trenberth [5]j.mossinger@nature.com wrote: > Dear Dr Trenberth > > A manuscript has been submitted to Nature, which we were hoping you would be interested in reviewing. The manuscript comes from John Milliman, Katherine Farnsworth, Laurence Smith, Phil Jones, and kehui xu and is entitled "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000". Its first paragraph is pasted below. > > Is this a paper that you would be able to review for us within about two weeks? If so, please let me know as soon as possible, and I will send instructions to you on how to access the manuscript. Failing that, it would be helpful to us if you could suggest alternative referees. > > Nature's information for peer-reviewers is at [6]www.nature.com/nature/authors/referees/index.html. > > Many thanks in advance for your help; I look forward to hearing from you. > > Best regards > > Juliane Mossinger > > ****************************** > Dr Juliane C. Mossinger > Senior Editor > - > The Macmillan Building, 4-6 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK > Tel +44 (0)207 833 4000; Fax +44 (0)207 843 4596; [7]nature@nature.com > - > 968 National Press Building, 529 14th Street NW, Washington DC 20045, USA > Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [8]nature@naturedc.com > - > 225 Bush Street, Suite 1453, San Francisco CA 94104, USA > Tel +1 415 403 9027; Fax +1 415 781 3805; [9]nature@naturesf.com > > ****************************** > > > Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000 > > John Milliman, Katherine Farnsworth, Laurence Smith, Phil Jones, and kehui xu > > During the last half of the 20th century, global precipitation and cumulative water discharge from 135 representative rivers (watershed areas ranging from 0.3 to 6300 x 103 km2) to the global ocean remained constant, although discharge from ~40% of these rivers individually changed by >30%. Runoff trends in many rivers were dictated primarily by precipitation change; other than the Parana, Mississippi, Niger and Congo, few of these rivers experienced significant change in either parameter. Collective runoff from many mid-latitude rivers, in contrast, decreased by ~60%, in large part due to damming and irrigation. A number of high-latitude and high-altitude rivers experienced increased runoff despite generally declining precipitation. Poorly constrained precipitation data do not seem to explain fully these "excess" rivers; changed seasonality in runoff, decreased storage and/or decreased evapotranspiration also may play important roles. > > Please note that your contact details are being held on our editorial database which is used only for this journal's management of the peer review process. If you would prefer us not to contact you in the future please let us know by emailing [10]nature@nature.com. > > This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [11]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [12]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\dai-discharge-jc-paper-1subm.pdf" 1539. 2007-07-16 10:41:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:41:10 -0400 from: "Christopher Kuonqui" subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG to: "'Keith Briffa'" Dear Keith, Many thanks for your reply. The data on this we're basically after is the 'hockey stick' curve. If I get things right, this would mean the data used to estimate the instrumental temperatures (a) in Fig 6.10, and perhaps the data for the PS2004 curve in (b) NH temperature reconstructions. What we aim to capture here are the key temperature data that illustrate the impact of human behavior on climate change. While we're concentrating on the socioeconomic and human development potential impacts, we are trying to present the basic data and scientific points in climate change to establish the rise in temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration points to our readers. (On atmospheric concentrations, I'm following up with Dr. Fortunat Joos.) I hope this request is clearer! Thank you, Chris --- Christopher Kuonqui Writing Team Human Development Report Office United Nations Development Programme Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org Website: http://hdr.undp.org -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 5:42 AM To: Christopher Kuonqui Cc: Jonathan Overpeck; tim Osborn Subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG concentrations Hi Christopher could you be more specific about which data sets you require ? All the numbers that allow you to plot the separate lines on 6.10b ? or the data required to lot 6.10 b (which would be difficult) ? thanks Keith At 22:23 12/07/2007, you wrote: >Dear Mr. Briffa and Mr. Osborn, > >Following-up to Prof. Overpeck's email, I'm writing to see if I >could get a hold of the estimates for global temperature variations >going as far back as you may have them (what I have in mind is >Figure 6.10 from the IPCC WGI report). I'd like to use these figures >to work out a few graphics for the United Nations' Human Development >Report which is themed on climate change and human development this >year. Getting the estimates on a simple Excel spreadsheet would be >more than sufficient. > >I would greatly appreciate your help with gathering these data at >your earliest convenience as we're now promptly approaching our >production deadline. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. > >Many thanks, >Chris > > >--- >Christopher Kuonqui >Writing Team >Human Development Report Office >United Nations Development Programme >Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >Website: http://hdr.undp.org > > >---------- >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:02 PM >To: Christopher Kuonqui >Cc: Keith Briffa; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; joos; Eystein Jansen >Subject: Re: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG >concentrations > >Hi Chris - the folks to coordinate with are: > >1) 6.10 - Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn >2) atm concentrations - Fortunat Joos > >I'll cc these guys so they know what's up, and you have their emails. > >Best, Jonathan > >>Dear Dr. Overpeck, >> >>I am writing you from the United Nations Development Programme's >>Human Development Report Office. This year's global Human >>Development Report is on climate change and human development. We >>are right now finalizing the statistical figures we are presenting >>in the Report and I'm working on using data from WG I to present >>some key points in climate change science on temperature and GHG >>atmospheric concentrations. I have been in touch with Kathryn >>Averyt and Kevin Trenberth who both pointed me in your direction. >> >>We're working on piecing together a number of graphics based >>primarily on historical data as far back as IPCC publishes them. These are for: >> >>(1) Global average temperature (the infamous 'hockey stick' graph), and >>(2) Global GHG concentrations. This would be for the six Kyoto >>gases, but most especially for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. >> >>The graphics in the FAR that most closely match what I have in mind >>on these two measures are Figure 6.10 (temperature), and FAQ 2.1 >>and Figure TS.2 (atmospheric concentrations). >> >>I would greatly appreciate your urgent help on getting a hold of >>these data. Please let me know if you should have any questions >>regarding this request. >> >>Many thanks, >>Chris >> >> >>--- >>Christopher Kuonqui >>Writing Team >>Human Development Report Office >>United Nations Development Programme >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >>Web: http://hdr.undp.org >> > > > >-- Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5092. 2007-07-16 11:48:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:48:16 +0100 from: "Bob Ward" subject: FW: The Sunday Telegraph to: Dear Phil Dear Phil, I was wondering whether you have seen the article by David Whitehouse that appeared in yesterday's edition of 'The Sunday Telegraph': [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/15/do1508.xml The article included the statement: "Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve." I would like to respond to the article - do you know if anybody has published an analysis of global average temperature over the last decade which shows that the trend is upwards ? Best wishes, Bob Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [2]www.rms.com This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. 3770. 2007-07-17 15:26:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:26:15 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: carbon emissions to: paul41@webone.com.au Dear Paul, there is no absolute "proof" in science, but rather observations together with explanations for those observations that are called hypotheses, theories or laws (depending on the degree to which the explanation has been tested, how well it has passed those tests, and the degree to which it is generally accepted). The greenhouse effect provides the link between extra carbon emissions and global warming, and is often described as a theory, given that it has been relatively well tested and as a result is generally accepted. The greenhouse effect theory is complex, in that it depends upon many different processes each behaving according to various laws, e.g. the size of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration following extra carbon emissions is determined by various chemical and biological processes that remove some of the extra CO2, e.g. the effect of the remaining extra CO2 on the heat balance of the Earth is determined by various physical laws that quantify the emission and absorption of radiation by different gas molecules and that determine the flow of the atmosphere etc. As a result, it is difficult to point you towards a single piece of research that is, on its own, able to demonstrate testing of the greenhouse effect theory, because acceptance is based on a huge number of studies that have tested individual processes or components within this complex theory, and even those studies that have attempted to test the overall sequence of events from carbon emissions through to global warming/climate change could not be relied upon individually -- rather it is the combined message from multiple studies that has led to widespread acceptance of the greenhouse effect theory. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reviewed and summarised many of these strands of evidence, so I would suggest that you read their recently-published summary for policymakers available here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf especially, for example, the diagram on page 11. This summary is based on a full report, the chapters of which are available here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html Chapters 1 and 9, together with the studies that they refer to, might be of most interest in terms of the development and subsequent testing of the greenhouse effect theory. I hope you find this reply useful. Best regards Tim >-----Original Message----- >From: Margaret and Paul [mailto:paul41@webone.com.au] >Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:49 AM >To: cru@uea.ac.uk >Subject: carbon emissions > >Hi, > >I am an ordinary person, trying to fathom the whole global warming >issue. > >I am trying to establish the proof that carbon emissions are causing >global warming. > >Can you direct me to any research that proves this point. > >I am looking for proof, rather than an association. > >Many thanks, > >Paul Wright Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 1709. 2007-07-20 07:28:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:28:31 -0400 from: John Milliman subject: Nature ms to: trenbert@ucar.edu, Aiguo Dai Dear Kevin and Aiguo: Attached is our Nature manuscript, together with figures and supplementary data upon which we based the paper. In our attempt we used only observed discharge data - from 135 rivers - between 1951 and 2000, taking care that the records were as complete as possible (median record length was 49 years; mean was 47), thus avoiding the problems of Milly and the French. Also, our database is reasonably global in extent. We then compared this with precipitation change to see if we could delineate climatic vs anthropogenic drivers, which I think we did reasonably well. So our approaches are somewhat similar, but certainly not identical. And our results are not diametrically different either. We should hear from Nature within the next few weeks, at which point we should be able to discuss this better. In the meantime, if you have questions or comments, fire away.... Sincerely, John Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Milliman_Sup1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Milliman_txtfigs1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\50-yr_trend_Nature_text.doc" 2001. 2007-07-23 09:36:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 23 09:36:58 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Review request from Stephen Schneider, Climatic Change ms to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk,Tim Osborn FYI I have said I would review this - comments welcome (in confidence of course) X-Sender: kivel@kivel.pobox.stanford.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:35:23 -0700 To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk From: Katarina Kivel Subject: Review request from Stephen Schneider, Climatic Change ms 3808 Esper et al Dear Keith, Please see attached Steve Schneider's request for a review of the paper by Jan Esper et al entitled "IPCC on Heterogeneous Medieval Warm Period." We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible whether you can review this manuscript for Climatic Change. Regards, Katarina Katarina Kivel Assistant Editor, CLIMATIC CHANGE Department of Biological Sciences 385 Serra Mall Stanford University Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA TEL 650-725-6508 FAX 650-725-4387 EMAIL kivel@stanford.edu -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1436. 2007-07-23 10:34:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:34:48 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG to: Keith Briffa , "Christopher Kuonqui" Dear Chris, sorry for the delay. Attached is the data file containing all values used to construct panels (a) and (b) of figure 6.10 in IPCC WG1. Note that most of the values shown in this figure were smoothed (as described in the caption) prior to constructing the figure, but the data in the attached file are the raw data prior to smoothing. If you would prefer to have the smoothed data, then please let me know. Best regards Tim At 09:39 23/07/2007, Keith Briffa wrote: >Christopher >I have asked my colleague Tim Osborn to send these data as he >assembled the Figures for the IPCC Chapter. best wishes >Keith > >At 22:57 19/07/2007, you wrote: >>Dear Keith, >> >>Just following-up to my email from Monday. Are there any further questions I >>could clarify? >> >>Many thanks for your help on getting a hold of these data. >> >>Best >>Chris >> >> >>--- >>Christopher Kuonqui >>Writing Team >>Human Development Report Office >>United Nations Development Programme >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >>Website: http://hdr.undp.org >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Christopher Kuonqui [mailto:chris.kuonqui@undp.org] >>Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:41 AM >>To: 'Keith Briffa' >>Subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG >>concentrations >> >>Dear Keith, >> >>Many thanks for your reply. The data on this we're basically after is the >>'hockey stick' curve. If I get things right, this would mean the data used >>to estimate the instrumental temperatures (a) in Fig 6.10, and perhaps the >>data for the PS2004 curve in (b) NH temperature reconstructions. What we aim >>to capture here are the key temperature data that illustrate the impact of >>human behavior on climate change. >> >>While we're concentrating on the socioeconomic and human development >>potential impacts, we are trying to present the basic data and scientific >>points in climate change to establish the rise in temperature and CO2 >>atmospheric concentration points to our readers. (On atmospheric >>concentrations, I'm following up with Dr. Fortunat Joos.) >> >>I hope this request is clearer! >> >>Thank you, >>Chris >> >> >>--- >>Christopher Kuonqui >>Writing Team >>Human Development Report Office >>United Nations Development Programme >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >>Website: http://hdr.undp.org >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 5:42 AM >>To: Christopher Kuonqui >>Cc: Jonathan Overpeck; tim Osborn >>Subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG >>concentrations >> >>Hi Christopher >> >>could you be more specific about which data sets you require ? All >>the numbers that allow you to plot the separate lines on 6.10b ? or >>the data required to lot 6.10 b (which would be difficult) ? >>thanks >>Keith >> >>At 22:23 12/07/2007, you wrote: >> >Dear Mr. Briffa and Mr. Osborn, >> > >> >Following-up to Prof. Overpeck's email, I'm writing to see if I >> >could get a hold of the estimates for global temperature variations >> >going as far back as you may have them (what I have in mind is >> >Figure 6.10 from the IPCC WGI report). I'd like to use these figures >> >to work out a few graphics for the United Nations' Human Development >> >Report which is themed on climate change and human development this >> >year. Getting the estimates on a simple Excel spreadsheet would be >> >more than sufficient. >> > >> >I would greatly appreciate your help with gathering these data at >> >your earliest convenience as we're now promptly approaching our >> >production deadline. Please let me know if you have any questions or >>concerns. >> > >> >Many thanks, >> >Chris >> > >> > >> >--- >> >Christopher Kuonqui >> >Writing Team >> >Human Development Report Office >> >United Nations Development Programme >> >Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >> >Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >> >Website: http://hdr.undp.org >> > >> > >> >---------- >> >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >> >Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:02 PM >> >To: Christopher Kuonqui >> >Cc: Keith Briffa; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; joos; Eystein Jansen >> >Subject: Re: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG >> >concentrations >> > >> >Hi Chris - the folks to coordinate with are: >> > >> >1) 6.10 - Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn >> >2) atm concentrations - Fortunat Joos >> > >> >I'll cc these guys so they know what's up, and you have their emails. >> > >> >Best, Jonathan >> > >> >>Dear Dr. Overpeck, >> >> >> >>I am writing you from the United Nations Development Programme's >> >>Human Development Report Office. This year's global Human >> >>Development Report is on climate change and human development. We >> >>are right now finalizing the statistical figures we are presenting >> >>in the Report and I'm working on using data from WG I to present >> >>some key points in climate change science on temperature and GHG >> >>atmospheric concentrations. I have been in touch with Kathryn >> >>Averyt and Kevin Trenberth who both pointed me in your direction. >> >> >> >>We're working on piecing together a number of graphics based >> >>primarily on historical data as far back as IPCC publishes them. These are >>for: >> >> >> >>(1) Global average temperature (the infamous 'hockey stick' graph), and >> >>(2) Global GHG concentrations. This would be for the six Kyoto >> >>gases, but most especially for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. >> >> >> >>The graphics in the FAR that most closely match what I have in mind >> >>on these two measures are Figure 6.10 (temperature), and FAQ 2.1 >> >>and Figure TS.2 (atmospheric concentrations). >> >> >> >>I would greatly appreciate your urgent help on getting a hold of >> >>these data. Please let me know if you should have any questions >> >>regarding this request. >> >> >> >>Many thanks, >> >>Chris >> >> >> >> >> >>--- >> >>Christopher Kuonqui >> >>Writing Team >> >>Human Development Report Office >> >>United Nations Development Programme >> >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >> >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >> >>Web: http://hdr.undp.org >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >-- Jonathan T. Overpeck >> >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> >Professor, Department of Geosciences >> >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> > >> >Mail and Fedex Address: >> > >> >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> >University of Arizona >> >Tucson, AZ 85721 >> >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >>-- >>Professor Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\fig6.10_ipccar4_wg1_2007.unsmoothed.dat" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 4056. 2007-07-24 15:57:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Joanna D. Haigh" date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:57:14 +0100 from: "Roger Coe" subject: solar climate forcing to: Mike, Thank you for the copy of your Royal Society paper. I have just returned from holiday to find that the comments I might have made have been put much more succinctly by David Whitehouse in the Sunday Telegraph and today by Joseph D'Aleo on the icecap.us website. In summary, the conclusions cannot be justified from a simple analysis over a short time frame which is dominated by the problem of the ACRIM gap, and almost seem to contradict your comments in the preceding two paragraphs which suggest that there is indeed a solar influence. The need now is to quantify this influence as Scafetta and West and others have attempted. It reads almost as if your paper has been hijacked by the Royal Society and others to answer a TV programme! I hope this is not the case. Roger Coe Bromsgrove, Worcs. 1049. 2007-07-24 16:54:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:54:33 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG to: "Christopher Kuonqui" Dear Chris -- hope it's not too late, but I've only just got to this today. The data as plotted (i.e. smoothed if plotted after smoothing, or unsmoothed if plotted without smoothing) are now also ready for you. please see the attached text file (this contains all series for panels (a) and (b), you'll need to cut out those you want). Regards, Tim At 16:06 23/07/2007, you wrote: >Dear Tim, > >Again, thank you so much for these data -- they are extremely useful. > >Could I ask you to share with us the smoothed data for the HadCRUT2v >(instrumental) series along with the 5%-95% error range data? > >Best, >Chris > > >--- >Christopher Kuonqui >Writing Team >Human Development Report Office >United Nations Development Programme >Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 >Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org >Website: http://hdr.undp.org > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:35 AM >To: Keith Briffa; Christopher Kuonqui >Subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG >concentrations > >Dear Chris, > >sorry for the delay. Attached is the data file containing all values >used to construct panels (a) and (b) of figure 6.10 in IPCC WG1. > >Note that most of the values shown in this figure were smoothed (as >described in the caption) prior to constructing the figure, but the >data in the attached file are the raw data prior to smoothing. If >you would prefer to have the smoothed data, then please let me know. > >Best regards > >Tim > >At 09:39 23/07/2007, Keith Briffa wrote: > >Christopher > >I have asked my colleague Tim Osborn to send these data as he > >assembled the Figures for the IPCC Chapter. best wishes > >Keith > > > >At 22:57 19/07/2007, you wrote: > >>Dear Keith, > >> > >>Just following-up to my email from Monday. Are there any further questions >I > >>could clarify? > >> > >>Many thanks for your help on getting a hold of these data. > >> > >>Best > >>Chris > >> > >> > >>--- > >>Christopher Kuonqui > >>Writing Team > >>Human Development Report Office > >>United Nations Development Programme > >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 > >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org > >>Website: http://hdr.undp.org > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Christopher Kuonqui [mailto:chris.kuonqui@undp.org] > >>Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:41 AM > >>To: 'Keith Briffa' > >>Subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG > >>concentrations > >> > >>Dear Keith, > >> > >>Many thanks for your reply. The data on this we're basically after is the > >>'hockey stick' curve. If I get things right, this would mean the data used > >>to estimate the instrumental temperatures (a) in Fig 6.10, and perhaps the > >>data for the PS2004 curve in (b) NH temperature reconstructions. What we >aim > >>to capture here are the key temperature data that illustrate the impact of > >>human behavior on climate change. > >> > >>While we're concentrating on the socioeconomic and human development > >>potential impacts, we are trying to present the basic data and scientific > >>points in climate change to establish the rise in temperature and CO2 > >>atmospheric concentration points to our readers. (On atmospheric > >>concentrations, I'm following up with Dr. Fortunat Joos.) > >> > >>I hope this request is clearer! > >> > >>Thank you, > >>Chris > >> > >> > >>--- > >>Christopher Kuonqui > >>Writing Team > >>Human Development Report Office > >>United Nations Development Programme > >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 > >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org > >>Website: http://hdr.undp.org > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 5:42 AM > >>To: Christopher Kuonqui > >>Cc: Jonathan Overpeck; tim Osborn > >>Subject: RE: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG > >>concentrations > >> > >>Hi Christopher > >> > >>could you be more specific about which data sets you require ? All > >>the numbers that allow you to plot the separate lines on 6.10b ? or > >>the data required to lot 6.10 b (which would be difficult) ? > >>thanks > >>Keith > >> > >>At 22:23 12/07/2007, you wrote: > >> >Dear Mr. Briffa and Mr. Osborn, > >> > > >> >Following-up to Prof. Overpeck's email, I'm writing to see if I > >> >could get a hold of the estimates for global temperature variations > >> >going as far back as you may have them (what I have in mind is > >> >Figure 6.10 from the IPCC WGI report). I'd like to use these figures > >> >to work out a few graphics for the United Nations' Human Development > >> >Report which is themed on climate change and human development this > >> >year. Getting the estimates on a simple Excel spreadsheet would be > >> >more than sufficient. > >> > > >> >I would greatly appreciate your help with gathering these data at > >> >your earliest convenience as we're now promptly approaching our > >> >production deadline. Please let me know if you have any questions or > >>concerns. > >> > > >> >Many thanks, > >> >Chris > >> > > >> > > >> >--- > >> >Christopher Kuonqui > >> >Writing Team > >> >Human Development Report Office > >> >United Nations Development Programme > >> >Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 > >> >Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org > >> >Website: http://hdr.undp.org > >> > > >> > > >> >---------- > >> >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] > >> >Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:02 PM > >> >To: Christopher Kuonqui > >> >Cc: Keith Briffa; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; joos; Eystein Jansen > >> >Subject: Re: UNDP data request - Global average temperature and GHG > >> >concentrations > >> > > >> >Hi Chris - the folks to coordinate with are: > >> > > >> >1) 6.10 - Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn > >> >2) atm concentrations - Fortunat Joos > >> > > >> >I'll cc these guys so they know what's up, and you have their emails. > >> > > >> >Best, Jonathan > >> > > >> >>Dear Dr. Overpeck, > >> >> > >> >>I am writing you from the United Nations Development Programme's > >> >>Human Development Report Office. This year's global Human > >> >>Development Report is on climate change and human development. We > >> >>are right now finalizing the statistical figures we are presenting > >> >>in the Report and I'm working on using data from WG I to present > >> >>some key points in climate change science on temperature and GHG > >> >>atmospheric concentrations. I have been in touch with Kathryn > >> >>Averyt and Kevin Trenberth who both pointed me in your direction. > >> >> > >> >>We're working on piecing together a number of graphics based > >> >>primarily on historical data as far back as IPCC publishes them. These >are > >>for: > >> >> > >> >>(1) Global average temperature (the infamous 'hockey stick' graph), and > >> >>(2) Global GHG concentrations. This would be for the six Kyoto > >> >>gases, but most especially for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous >oxide. > >> >> > >> >>The graphics in the FAR that most closely match what I have in mind > >> >>on these two measures are Figure 6.10 (temperature), and FAQ 2.1 > >> >>and Figure TS.2 (atmospheric concentrations). > >> >> > >> >>I would greatly appreciate your urgent help on getting a hold of > >> >>these data. Please let me know if you should have any questions > >> >>regarding this request. > >> >> > >> >>Many thanks, > >> >>Chris > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>--- > >> >>Christopher Kuonqui > >> >>Writing Team > >> >>Human Development Report Office > >> >>United Nations Development Programme > >> >>Tel.: +1 (212) 906-6316 / +1 (917) 225-1076 > >> >>Email: chris.kuonqui@undp.org > >> >>Web: http://hdr.undp.org > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >-- Jonathan T. Overpeck > >> >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > >> >Professor, Department of Geosciences > >> >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >> > > >> >Mail and Fedex Address: > >> > > >> >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > >> >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > >> >University of Arizona > >> >Tucson, AZ 85721 > >> >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > >> >fax: +1 520 792-8795 > >> >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > >> >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >> > >>-- > >>Professor Keith Briffa, > >>Climatic Research Unit > >>University of East Anglia > >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >> > >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 > >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >> > >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > > >-- > >Professor Keith Briffa, > >Climatic Research Unit > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 > >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\fig6.10_ipccar4_wg1_2007.smoothed.txt" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 706. 2007-07-26 17:04:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:04:16 -0700 from: Katarina Kivel subject: Kafle, Bruins ms 3751 Climatic Change to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr. Jones, Please see attached copy of manuscript, which has recently been submitted to Climatic Change. In view of your interest and expertise in the topic, Dr. Stephen Schneider has asked me to contact you to see if you would be willing to review it for us. Attached are also a number of other documents relevant to the review process. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Regards, Katarina Kivel Assistant Editor, CLIMATIC CHANGE Department of Biological Sciences 385 Serra Mall Stanford University Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA TEL 650-725-6508 FAX 650-725-4387 EMAIL kivel@stanford.edu Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Kafle, Bruins ms 3751.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SHScoverltr.reviewers.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SHS Editorial Policy 2006.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CCGuidelinesRevs98.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CCNote to Reviewers.pdf" 1449. 2007-07-30 12:01:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:01:38 +0100 from: Nathan Gillett subject: Re: Revised version of Nature paper to: peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk, Kate Willett , Phil Jones Hi Peter, peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > Nathan, > > this looks good to me. A few very minor points: > > 1. The references are still in need of a bit of attention. The three new > refs (a,b,c) in the main text need to be numbered. The Methods refs need > to be incremented up by three as a result. The SI refs need to > renumbered 1,2,3 etc rather than referring to the ref numbers in the > main section. according to the editor's guidelines in the review. > > I realise this - sorry not for mentioning in my email - I'll sort these out once the refs are finalised. > 2. In the text and the response to reviewers you mention d&a up to 30 > EOFs, but in SI Fig 3 you go up to 100 now. We need to resolve this in > both the main text and the response to reviewers. We actually do better > analyses than the current text and response to reviewers implies! > > In the main analysis we use a 30 EOF truncation. In the sensitivity test I show truncations from 3 to 100. However, I note in the caption that the results for a 30 EOF truncation are equivalent to those shown in figure 3. I now note in the main text that results are robust to wide variations in the truncation, so hopefully this is now reflected in the text. > 3. Reviewer 3 asked whether it was RH or q that was important for heat > stress. This is a tricky one to answer directly because it depends upon > the index being used. In the Met Office we use two approaches that are > broadly interchangable, one uses "q" the other RH: > > Heat Stress Model for WBGT (Wet Bulb Global temperature): > > WBGT= 0.7 Tewb + 0.2 Tbg + 0.1 Tdb > > Where > > Tewb = Tw +(0.19 SQRT(S)) -(0.0354 ES) +(0.12 Tdb) -(0.087 U) -1.3 > > Here Tewb is the exposed wet bulb temperature (C), Tbg is the black > globe temperature (C) (a thermometer exposed to sunlight), Tdb is the > screen dry bulb temperature (C), Tw is > the screen wet bulb temperature (C), S is the net solar radiation > (W/m2), Es is the sturation vapour pressure, and U is the 10m wind speed > (m/s). > > > Environmental Stress Index (ESI) as proxy for WBGT: > > ESI = 0.62 * T - 0.007 * RH +0.002 * SR + 0.0043 * (T * RH) - 0.078 / ( > 0.1 + SR ) > > T = ambient temperature > RH = Relative Humidity > SR = Solar short wave radiation > > The bottom line is that if the air is humid then it inhibits evaporation > of perspiration and therefore the ability of the human (animal) body to > maintain its core body temperature. > Thanks for this on the apparent temperature - see also my email to Phil. Cheers, Nathan > Hope this is helpful > > Peter > -- **************************************************************************** Dr. Nathan Gillett, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1603 593 647 Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507 784 Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ **************************************************************************** 101. 2007-07-31 10:14:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:14:48 +0100 from: "Carroll Victoria" subject: RE: Climate change request - In Confidence to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil Thanks for your comments - they're useful. We'll need to be careful not to imply that climate scientists know everything there is to know about the climate system, and about how technologies, say, would effect it. (This issue of how to communicate uncertainty to the public is a hot topic at the moment in science communication, especially in connection with climate change.) As for your second comment, we are planning to look at the basics of life cycle analysis in the exhibition, which will bring in the point about fertilizers, decommissioning, etc needing to be taken into account. Thanks again for your help - it's really helpful to know what other people think are the most important messages to get across. Best wishes Vicky ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 30 July 2007 15:20 To: Carroll Victoria Subject: Re: Climate change request - In Confidence Vicky, Your toolkit assumes there is a technological solution to mitigate climate change. By definition this assumes we fully understand the climate system, and I don't think we do - in the sense that if we do something, we know what the effect will be. On biofuels, we need to fully understand the advantages. Will be need to use so much nitrogen fertilizer to produce the crops. I guess these aspects will be addressed in your three questions, but there needs to be a full budget analysis of the savings made. This is similar to knowing the full costs of nuclear power including all aspects of decommissioning. As you say though technological solutions are not my area of research. Cheers Phil At 14:52 24/07/2007, you wrote: Dear Phil, Keith, Nathan I hope you're both well. Further to our meeting in May I wondered if I might be able to pick your brains regarding an up-coming `Antenna Feature' on climate change that I'm working on. In particular, I'd appreciate any feedback on the idea, outlined below, for a `toolkit' to help Science Museum visitors get to grips with the current debates surrounding proposed technological `solutions' for climate change - e.g. biofuels, nuclear power, reflectors in space, etc. Just to clarify - when I visited back in May I was working on the Museum's major 2009 Climate Change gallery and Holly Cave was working on the Antenna Feature. Plans for the 2009 gallery are progressing well and we've had a really positive response from everyone we've contacted about the project so far. I've now been seconded onto the Antenna team (who deal with contemporary science news) to help deliver the smaller (and necessarily more focused) Feature, which will launch this October. Here's where we've got to so far: - Our starting point is that climate change is a serious challenge and science and technology have an important role to play in dealing with it. Scientists are exploring new technologies which they hope will help to mitigate climate change. However, to the average visitor, the debates surrounding these technologies can seem complex and confusing. - We want to provide visitors with a toolkit of, say, three simple questions which will help them better to understand the pros and cons of particular technologies and engage with current debates. The example we plan to focus on in the exhibition is biofuels, but the central messages will also be applicable to other technologies. The `toolkit' questions we are currently working with are: 1. Will/how will the technology help mitigate climate change? 2. Is the technology practically achievable? 3. Is the technology sustainable? (to include environmental and social aspects) The exhibition will also include background information about the physical science basis and likely impacts of climate change and opportunities for feedback. I realise that technology is not your main area of research, but we'd really like to get a range opinions on our ideas for the exhibition, especially on the 3 questions in the toolkit. Do you think they usefully capture the main issues which arise when assessing proposed technological solutions? Are there any important questions we might have overlooked? As the questions will underlie the whole Feature it is obviously important that we get them right! Do phone me if you think that would be easiest - I can also explain more about exhibition if that would be helpful. I very much look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes Vicky Vicky Carroll Curator Science Museum Exhibition Road London SW7 2DD Email: victoria.carroll@sciencemuseum.org.uk Web: [1]www.sciencemuseum.org.uk Tel: +44 (0) 20 7942 4219 If you want to help inspire the next generation of scientists, creators and inventors back NMSI's transformational new project, Inspired. More than a museum, Inspired will be a hothouse of invention and innovation, making science serious fun for all. It's your future: be Inspired Visit [2]www.voteinspired.org.uk or text 'SMS Inspired' to 88833 for more information. This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned on behalf of NMSI for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. If you want to help inspire the next generation of scientists, creators and inventors back NMSI's transformational new project, Inspired. More than a museum, Inspired will be a hothouse of invention and innovation, making science serious fun for all. It's your future: be Inspired Visit www.voteinspired.org.uk or text 'SMS Inspired' to 88833 for more information. This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. 3389. 2007-08-01 12:29:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:29:51 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: newbigfile to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I have processed the latest Canadian homogenized series that came via Lucie Vincent. I have a couple of questions: Are these files a kind of revamp on the earlier set that Anders(?) incorporated into our archives. Were the earlier set just a collection of long (sometimes joined) files or had there been some homogenization work at that time? Which is the (latest) current working version of the file *newbigfile*? Is it the one that I produced (newbigfile0606.dat)? I think that Harry may have produced a version that "we should all use" - i will have to look into this. When I merge the new series with *newbigfile*, I will get an outfile of differences for overlap periods. I will check this for any problems. Cheers David 1951. 2007-08-09 10:57:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:57:42 +0100 from: "Mark New" subject: RE: review for GRL to: "'Phil Jones'" I think start with the new one, but look at the previous reviews...then if you really need to, look at the previous version. Thanks, Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 09 August 2007 10:22 > To: Mark New > Subject: Re: review for GRL > > > Mark, > Good of you to send me the easy ones to review. Do you want > a review of the new version, or do you want me to look also at the > responses to the earlier 4 reviews? > I can do both. I can guess who some of the earlier ones are! > > I will likely finish over the weekend. I've not reckoned their > earlier papers. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 17:54 02/08/2007, you wrote: > >Phil, > > > >I have assigned you as a "potential reviewer" for a tricky paper > resubmitted > >to GRL on solar-radiation temperature relationships. If you have the > time > >I'd really appreciate it if you could do the review. > > > >Cheers, and hope the weekend away was good fun, > > > >Mark > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > 4137. 2007-08-10 12:15:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:15:33 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU data to: "Marsh, AKP ((Kevin)) - SSTD" Hi Kevin, On 10 Aug 2007, at 11:56, Marsh, AKP ((Kevin)) - SSTD wrote: > Hi Harry, > Sorry to hassle you again, but I've been asked when we can expect > to have the CRU data/software updated here -any news? Well it's still happening! You'll understand that I'm reluctant to give a date. Every estimated date so far has been blown away and it only adds to frustration (and worse) here, and can't be helpful at your end. Currently producing secondary variables, primaries are all done. If the secondaries go OK, there is still some software to write to assist in the 'automation', including the NetCDF conversion. I want this to all be over as much as anyone. Including the incredibly patient people who I should now be working for! Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2991. 2007-08-10 14:31:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "Garthwaite, Rachel" date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:31:10 +0100 from: "Dawn Ashby" subject: Royal Society response to the UK Department for International to: "Dawn Ashby" Dear all, Please see attached a Public Consultation Document on DFID's Research Strategy 2008-2013. If you would like to contribute to the Royal Society's response to the document please send comments to Joann Fong (joann.fong@royalsoc.ac.uk), copied to Rachel Garthwaite (Rachel.Garthwaite@royalsoc.ac.uk). With many thanks Dawn Ashby Secretary, UK IGBP National Committee -----Original Message----- From: owner-rc-gerc@lists.ed.ac.uk [[1]mailto:owner-rc-gerc@lists.ed.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Casey Ryan Sent: 09 August 2007 16:59 To: rc-gerc@lists.ed.ac.uk Subject: Royal Society response to the UK Department for International Development (DFID) Research Strategy consultation Please see below a message from Rachel Garthwaite > Dear All, > > The International Section of the Royal Society will be submitting > a response to the consultation on the UK Department for International > Development's (DFID) new research strategy for 2008-2013. We would be > most grateful for your input to develop an informed Royal Society > response. DFID's research budget will double from 110 million in > 2005/06 to 220 in 2010. Approximately 650 million will be available > to fund new research programmes in the forthcoming strategy period, > which will be five years (2008-2013). Therefore it is important the > scientific and relevant communities have a voice in how DFID > approaches the development of its research programmes. > > The Royal Society will be responding to the questions in the > consultation document. For your information we have listed these > below, however, I recommend you look at the consultation document > (attached) - as explanatory information is provided for each of the > questions. Please let us know if you are able to provide input by > 17 August. We will then require your responses by 28 August. > > Please also note that as the International section is leading on this > response that all responses should be sent directly to Joann Fong, > (details below) but copied to myself. > > Joann Fong > joann.fong@royalsoc.ac.uk > Manager, Capacity Building > International Policy Section > tel: +44 (0)20 7451 2504 > fax: +44 (0)20 7925 2620 > > > The consultation document defines the following issues for the new > research strategy: > 1. Urbanisation, globalisation and climate change are just some > of the issues which present new challenges for development and > development research. This consultation asks how the new research > strategy can help countries deal with emerging issues - be they new > diseases, trading opportunities, migration, changes in world economic > power etc. This consultation also asks how the new strategy can build > on the strengths of the current research programme. In particular, how > DFID can: > > > o build on the four priority research themes and address the links > between them effectively: these are > > > o sustainable agriculture, especially in Africa, moving towards a > broader agenda of economic opportunity and growth; (Please note that > the this includes forestry and fisheries). > o "killer diseases" and healthcare, moving towards building > capabilities of individuals and families for a better life; o states > that work for poor people, where our good governance and social > research will include more emphasis on policy design areas; o the > impact of climate change on poverty, moving towards research that > helps partner countries understand, influence and adapt to changes and > future "shocks" more broadly. > > > o improve the way DFID identif ies demand for research from end- > users in developing countries; > > > o promote more cutting-edge science that will benefit poor people; > > > o work more effectively to help developing countries to carry out, > access and use research themselves; and > > > o make it more likely that research will be used. > > 2 The context for funding international development research has > changed since the Research Funding Framework was produced in 2004. > Research is part of a rising UK aid budget and DFID is set to become > one of the world's leading funding agencies for development research. > The new strategy needs to make choices about how and where DFID > research can have the greatest impact in future, given the > contributions of other funders. > > The consultation document questions are as follows: > > 1. How can DFID build on its work on sustainable agriculture and > develop its work on economic opportunities and growth? > 2. How can DFID improve research on "killer diseases" and healthcare > and develop its work on building the capabilities of individuals and > families for a better life? > 3. How can DFID improve research into good governance, including > social and policy design areas? > 4. How can DFID improve research into the impact of climate change on > poverty and environmental change more broadly? > 5. In addition to climate change, what are the emerging global trends > that DFID research needs to address? > 6. How can DFID improve the way research responds to user demand? > 7. How can DFID best support cutting-edge science that benefits poor > people? > 8. How can DFID be more systematic in helping developing countries to > increase their research capacity? > 9. Communicating research: How can we make sure people in developing > countries can access and use research? > 10. How should DFID position its research in the future? > 11. How far should DFID take a more regional approach to some research > questions? > 12. How should DFID work with other funders of international > development research? > > > I look forward to hearing from you all, > > Best wishes, > > Rachel G. > > > Rachel Garthwaite > Manager (Environment and Climate Change) Science Policy Section tel > +44 (0)20 7451 2526; fax +44 (0)20 7451 2692 > > web [2]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk > > The Royal Society > 6-9 Carlton House Terrace > London SW1Y 5AG > > Registered Charity No 207043 > The Royal Society - promoting excellence in science > > > > > ********************************************************************** > ******** > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also > be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the > recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, > you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the > information contained in this e-mail. > > ______________________________________________________________________________________ Plymouth Marine Laboratory Prospect Place Plymouth PL1 3DH Website: [3]www.pml.ac.uk Registered Charity No. 1091222 Company No. 4178503 PML is a member of the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership Website: [4]www.pmsp.org.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, its content and any file attachments are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please do not copy, disclose it to any third party or use the contents or attachments in any way. Please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail or e-mail [5]forinfo@pml.ac.uk and then delete the email without making any copies or using it in any other way. The content of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Plymouth Marine Laboratory unless specifically stated. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information may be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete or contain viruses. Plymouth Marine Laboratory accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\DFID research-strategy-consultation.pdf" 1615. 2007-08-10 15:31:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:31:58 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1186759918889555" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:31:58 UT Message-Id: <1118675991820@gems> Dear Dr. Jones: Thank you for your review of "The phenomenological solar effect on climate" by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West [Paper #2007GL031345], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Mark New Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 4 Presentation Category: Presentation Category C Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Publishing this will generate a number of comments, plus irate letters from the three earlier reviewers Formal Review: Review of Scafetta and West I am a new reviewer and have been sent the revised submission plus the responses to the previous reviews. I began by reading the revised paper, then had a relatively quick look through the earlier comments and responses. My overall impression of that the paper is that it shouldn't be published. It makes too many claims that aren't justified, and seems more an exercise in curve fitting (the arm waving one of the earlier reviewer's refers to). I have separated my comments into major and minor ones. Major comments 1. There are many other quotes from the 2007 IPCC report in various chapters. You seem to want to use the one from Ch 9 to justify the 0.1K response to the solar cycle since 1980. However, just look at the observations of global temperature and show the reader how you can justify this? EBMs get much smaller amplitudes and these are more realistic. The reason they are smaller is that they are also accounting for volcanic forcing of the climate system over the same time. There is only 26 years of data since 1980 and there are two major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991 which were 9 years apart. I can't see how you can look at solar influences on the 11-year timescale over this short period and ignore volcanic forcing. The omission of volcanic forcing will come up again. 2. If EBMs (or even GCMs for that matter) are missing important processes then come up with mechanisms to show that they are important! It is no good just saying that something is missing in the models - prove it. This is all speculation. Modellers will be able to incorporate these aspects into climate models (probably in GCMs first) if the mechanism (amplification process) can be shown. It is circular to try and say this must be happening by looking at the global temperature data. 3. The point about GHG and TSI not being independent is not an issue on the timescale of the last few hundred years. It is an issue on the Ice Age timescale, but it isn't on this timescale. The GHGs in the atmosphere can be shown to be anthropogenic and not related to any feedbacks. 4. For global temperature data you have chosen the two extreme series (in terms of amplitude of changes) from the plethora of series that have reconstructed temperatures over the last 1000 to 2000 years. This is reasonable to give you a range, but have you considered that many of the others look more like the Mann series than Moberg's. So from the spread of the various series (see IPCC Ch 6) Mann's series is more likely to be nearer the truth. There are also a number of statements in the paragraph about the description of the Mann series (Hockey Stick, Blade, Shaft) that are unnecessary. It is also not necessary at this stage to pre-judge the reader to say solar activity was low during the LIA (by the way you never define when this was, nor when it ended). 5. What is totally unreasonable about your use of these series is to patch the instrumental record from 1850 onwards on the end. You need to show the Mann and Moberg series through to their ends then add the instrumental data to the plot for comparison (after whatever smoothing you've applied). You don't say in Figure 1 how the series have been smoothed. You say you've given them the same mean over 1850-1899 (a reasonably good choice), but on what timescale? Did you also scale their interannual variances over this period as well? You could patch a few years on the end from about 1990, but don't do it the way you have. All the millennial reconstructions have different characteristics to the instrumental series. 6. Why are you bothering to use the Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction? Surely the Wang et al. (2005) paper supercedes this. I'm sure Judith Lean would agree with this being her latest thinking. If I write a new paper with a new series, I would expect people to use the new series, or use the old one of they are not up date with the literature. I wouldn't expect both to be used. This is different with the millennial reconstructions. There are various groups involved. With Lean it is the same person. She doesn't believe her 2000 paper now, so why do you still use it. You could use another person's reconstruction. 7. I've been saying to myself all along why ignore volcanic forcing. I see that the earlier referees mentioned the omission of other non-solar forcing. Volcanoes are the main one to my mind - there were a number of major volcanoes in the period from 1670 to 1700. Land-use change is much more uncertain and likely to be much smaller. Smoothing the proxy temperature reconstructions doesn't negate volcanism (as the effects are episodic) when events occur regularly. There are a number of volcanic forcing series that can be used. 8. One of the other arguments of Reviewer 4 is very compelling, but completely dismissed by the authors. This is the implication of saying the Moberg series is better than Mann and what this means for the period before 1600. I know the sunspot observations don't exist before this time, but there are beryllium and carbon-14 indices that say something about solar variability on longer timescales. They don't suggest that solar output was that much higher in Medieval times to explain the high temperature levels Moberg has then. If I were the authors, I would re-read Moberg's paper to see what the low frequency for the last 2 millennia is based on. I wouldn't want to put any faith in these proxies ability to record low-frequency temperature variations - a feature that cannot be assessed at all against instrumental temperature records. Minor comments 1. Putting the word 'Phenomenonological' in the title wasn't a good start. It isn't a great word and is repeated several times in the abstract. 2. A reference shouldn't be in the abstract. Also the IPCC (2007) report has with each chapter indicated how it should be cited. Just giving the page number is not appropriate. Why not refer to it as requested by IPCC. 3. The first sentence of the Introduction is not a good start. It needs a reference. The SPM of the AR4 IPCC report doesn't think there is much of a debate. They said they were 90% certain. Isn't this good enough in your mind. That there is an anthropogenic contribution is what is important. 4. With Figure 1, I can't see where the amplitudes of 0.2 and 0.8 K are plucked from. 5. I have said earlier, but when was the LIA. I know it is not defined at all well. It is far simpler to use calendar dates than pejorative terms like LIA and MWP. By their name they convey messages to the reader. Dates don't. 6. You seem to want to ignore Frhlich's PMOD series that adjusts the ACRIM series. It seems as though throughout the paper you want to take the series - solar and millennial temperature that go along with your preconceptions. I can see you're trying to use different series to accommodate the possible ranges of the various series, but if Frlich and Lean are right, then from solar alone Moberg must be wrong. 3059. 2007-08-13 07:03:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:03:16 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: TP Water - evapotranspiration advice?] to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, Many thanks for keeping me updated on the PET work of Aiguo Dai and friends. Also good to hear that Harry is nearing the end of his struggle with the updating. I'll contact him to get the data, and then we can start doing some of the calculations. One of my plans, next to analysing a scPDSI signal in the updated CRU data, is to see if it is possible to build a European Drought Monitor - more-or-less similar to the US Drought Monitor ( [1]http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html ) - on the basis of the ECA&D dataset. What do you think? The ECA&D dataset is (in my opinion) a bit of a mess. The data is not updated frequently enough and the numerics which should keep the data and the calculations of the indices up-to-data are slow and cumbersome. Hopefully, this is sorted out before the new year starts. Cheers, Gerard Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:55:46 -0600 From: Aiguo Dai [2] User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Kevin Trenberth [3] CC: [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: TP Water - evapotranspiration advice?] X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Kevin and Phil, Attached is a paper (just submitted to GRL) on the effects of different PET parameterizations on the simulated soil moisture and PDSI over Australia and New Zealand. Tom Karl's group at NCDC is also interested in looking at this in a bit more detail. Aiguo Kevin Trenberth wrote: FYI Kevin Gerard, Just got this paper. I thought it might of interest. It is submitted to GRL. Harry should have finished version 3 of the high-res dataset by the end of next week. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [6]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 [7]www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 4259. 2007-08-13 07:57:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kathy_Bireley date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:57:00 -0700 from: Pam Drumtra subject: Re: 2007 Climate Change Prediction Program Meeting - to: Phil Jones Phil - I got your FAX but it didn't have the registration page. No need to send again I will just use the information you've given me here. Thanks, Pam >Pam, > Have tried faxing, but the machine here says there is a problem >with yours. > Anyway I'm arriving on Sept 15 and leaving on the 19th. I plan to attend the > dinner on the 17th and I am NOT a vegetarian. > > Presentation title is : Variability of European Weather Types >and Climate Change > > If you want me to refax let me know. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:32 09/08/2007, you wrote: >>Phil - Yes, there has been a change regarding foreign nationals and >>off-site meetings, so we don't have to go through the approval >>process at this time. Just send me the meeting registration form >>when you're ready. >> >>Thanks, Pam >> >> >>>Pam, >>> I've booked flights and the hotel. I'll sort out a title over >>>the weekend. >>> I guess you don't need those forms now about foreigners and DoE meetings? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>>At 21:53 17/07/2007, you wrote: >>>>Dear Climate Change Prediction Program Principal Investigator: >>>> >>>>This email is to inform you about the upcoming Science Team >>>>Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana on September 17-19, 2007. >>>>Attached you will find general information about registration and >>>>meeting logistics, as well as a registration form. >>>> >>>>We recommend you plan on staying the entire 2-1/2 days of the >>>>meeting, as the format this year is designed to encourage more >>>>interaction among scientists and exposure to the program's >>>>breadth. There will be nine or ten 90-minute sessions scheduled >>>>with approximately six project presentations in each session. We >>>>ask that each principal investigator on a university grant >>>>prepare a large poster (each poster board is 8' wide x 4' high) >>>>and one or two viewgraph slides (either transparency or >>>>electronic) describing the main objectives and primary results of >>>>the project. Each PI will be given four minutes to present their >>>>slides. Following the presentations, the presenters will move to >>>>their posters, and the remaining meeting participants will be >>>>free to circulate among the posters to ask questions and discuss >>>>the research. >>>> >>>>We will work with the large and multi-institutional collaborative >>>>project PIs to discuss how best to present their work within the >>>>poster format. The agenda is being developed and we're looking >>>>into whether it is best to integrate the sessions to include both >>>>large project and single-PI grants research around subject area, >>>>or to have separate sessions for the large projects. Any opinion >>>>you may have on this will be appreciated. >>>> >>>>Once again, we will also have a lunchtime general poster session >>>>with a large number of smaller posters (4' x 4') to highlight >>>>specific aspects of projects that you may wish to publicize. >>>>Lunch will be provided. This forum provides an excellent >>>>opportunity for collaborators and students to present their work. >>>>Please indicate on your registration form if you plan to bring a >>>>poster for this session. >>>> >>>>Please contact Pam for any questions about logistics and either >>>>of us for anything else. >>>> >>>>See you in Indianapolis. >>>> >>>> >>>>David C. Bader Anjuli Bamzai >>>>CCPP Chief Scientist Program Manager >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Pam Drumtra >>>>CCPP Meeting Planner >>>>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >>>>P.O. Box 808, L-103 >>>>Livermore, CA 94551 >>>>(925) 423-9602 >>>>FAX (925) 422-6388 >>>>drumtra1@llnl.gov >>> >>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>-- >> >> >>Pam Drumtra >>NARAC/IMAAC and PCMDI Program Administrator >>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >>P.O. Box 808, L-103 >>Livermore, CA 94551 >>(925) 423-9602 >>FAX (925) 422-6388 >>drumtra1@llnl.gov > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Pam Drumtra CCPP Meeting Planner Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, L-103 Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 423-9602 FAX (925) 422-6388 drumtra1@llnl.gov 1210. 2007-08-13 13:52:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT) from: "David M. Ritson" subject: Re: to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim, Just a reminder. RCS also is plagued with systematic distortions. I really would like to see your basis for it in greater detail than provided in the Cook .. Briffa 1995 article, where it appears more a wish than a fact. Cheers Dave On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, David M. Ritson wrote: > > Dear Tim, > > Thanks for your clarifications. However my underlying concern was to find a > detailed account and defense of the RCS method ("global RCS" processing). > I may well have missed something but was not helped by your references. > in this connection. I have already , as carefully as possible, read > the extant RCS literature starting from Fritts 1976 and Briffa's 1992 and > proceeding to the present. > > The claim that RCS methodology avoids the problems > of `the segment curse' appears to rest on an > (otherwise unsupported(?) claim in Cook et al 1995 that " ,,, the > cross-dated annual changes in ring-width between trees due to > climate are forced out of alignment and effectively averaged out in the > creation of the mean regional curve."? If Cook et al's above statement was a > valid approximation, RCS would indeed > avoid the `segment curse'. I have taken a preliminary look at this using > simulated data focussed on cases with sufficient data to > make systematics the primary final error-source. > In the presence of systematic trends in paleo forcing history and > sample-depth the Cook cancellations are less than perfect. This is of course > preliminary. I have no desire to reinvent the wheel, and particularly not to > replace it with a square wheel, and may not be doing what you guys do, or > you may have already looked at this in depth. > In my past life as a particle physicist, prior to analysis we would write-out > a detailed mathematical prescription for processing a set of data. Such an > algorithm was sufficient so that it could (if wished) be handed over to a > soft-ware programmer and he/she could then, even without knowledge of the > field, provide clean working code. I presume > that you follow this procedure. Your RCS mathematical algorithm is what I am > looking for, not its code implementation. > > I would be grateful if you could let me have this and of > course any revelant work of you or others in this area. Hopefully this is not > a burdensome request, > > Cheers > > Dave > > > > > > > > > 1723. 2007-08-14 13:15:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:15:24 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1187097324177271" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:15:24 UT Message-Id: <76118709732424@gems> Dear Dr. Osborne: Thank you for your review of "Signal strength and climate calibration of a European tree-ring isotope network" by Kerstin Treydte [Paper #2007GL031106], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Mark New Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 1 Presentation Category: Presentation Category B Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: No Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: Formal Review: The manuscript by Treydte et al. presents new and interesting work concerning the potential for isotopic analysis of annual growth material sampled from trees to yield useful proxies for past climate variability, even at sites where the trees are not close to some physiological or ecological limits. The particular importance of this manuscript is that it considers a continental-wide network of sites, which provides for a much better assessment of the robustness of the potential climate signals and their dependence on tree genus and/or location. There are no major flaws in the manuscript and therefore I recommend that it be published in Geophys. Res. Lett. I list below a number of minor items that the authors should consider while preparing their final manuscript. (1) Abstract, line 45, and line 172: "wavelength" is ambiguous here; perhaps change to "time-scale"? (2) Line 57: surely it should be "high latitudes OR altitudes" not "AND"? (3) Line 78: "The sampling design considered not only ecologically extreme sites...". It sounds that some, perhaps previously published, analysis has been done using total ring width and/or maximum latewood density measurements from these tree sites. If so, perhaps an extra column could be added to Supplementary Table 1 to indicate whether the climatic factor found to dominate these "traditional" tree-ring measurements is one of "Temperature", "Moisture", "Mixed" or "None/Not Known"? This would help the reader who is not experienced in this area to appreciate the coverage of "extreme" and "temperate" sites in the network. (4) Line 96: Pederson et al. (2004) seems missing from the reference list, and also some references seem to be out of alphabetical order. (5) Line 102: "considered mean, min and max temperatures...we focus on the highest correlations observed for Tmax and P..." The later discussion does not present any biophysical reasoning why Tmax would influence the isotopic composition more than Tmin or Tmean. If there is no such a priori argument for the dominance of Tmax, the reader may wonder whether it is simply fortuitous that the correlations with Tmax are higher than with Tmean. If so, it would be useful to briefly note how much stronger the Tmax correlations are compared with the Tmean correlations (e.g., "the correlations with Tmean are lower by 0.XX when averaged across all sites"). (6) Line 115: use of the word "standardized" is going to cause problems here. The supplementary information indicates that, here, "standardized" simply means having the long-term means subtracted, yet clearly there is scope for confusion with the standardization used in dendroclimatology to remove age-related effects, which has not been done here. Since the correlations are unaffected by the long-term mean anyway, perhaps just change "standardized" to "raw"? (7) Line 116: apparently the rbar values shown in the supplementary information indicate little common variance, yet I think that they are reasonably strong for such a widely dispersed network as this. For comparison, perhaps the authors could note the rbar values between the instrumental records of Tmax and P for the 23 site locations; in comparison to these instrumental rbar values the tree-ring isotopic rbars may seem quite respectable. (8) Line 129: "generally WEAKER than was expected" may be less ambiguous that the current "LOWER" (what is a "lower signal"?). (9) Line 133-134: here it is stated that the temperature-precipitation correlation is higher in NW Europe than in Mediterranean Europe, but for summer (which is being used here) this may not be the case. See, e.g., fig. 2 of Briffa et al. (2002; Holocene 12, 737-757). Although this compares averages from a number of northern and mid-latitude regions, not just from Europe, since I drew the figure I have the results for the individual regions! For Briffa et al.'s "Northern Europe", r(Tmean,P) for JJA is about -0.25, while for "Southern Europe" it is -0.45. Unless the authors have done their own calculation and find different results for Tmax than for Tmean, or for their definitions of "NW Europe" and "Mediterranean", then they should correct this. (10) Line 151: should "temporarily" be changed to "temporally"? (11) Lines 161-168: the use of "LOW" loadings is confusing here, because the authors mean that they are a bit lower than the "highest" loadings, but they are still much stronger than the loadings at all the non-marked sites. Perhaps "moderately high" is better than "low"? (12) Line 181: should this be "RPC2" not "RPC3"? (13) Line 355: should this be "(Tmax)" not "(T)"? 4051. 2007-08-17 00:22:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:22:29 -0400 from: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov subject: Re: Hansen and the NASA data to: Phil Jones Hi, Phil, I've been on vacation in Oregon the past 9 days so I didn't pay too much attention to the controversy. Yes, the other reviews are back. Tom has, or so he says, responded to all but the one on UHI that I agreed to do just before I left. We are, however, reconsidering our approach to the buoy correction as Dick wants to use a different approach since his further assessment has indicated the current one isn't as robust as Tom thought. Warm regards, Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:35 am Subject: Hansen and the NASA data > > > Tom, > In the light of the reaction to NASA's incorrect use of > your US data, > are you sure you want to run with your J. Climate paper? Question is > mainly in jest, but you ought to have some additional material > available if it comes out. > > Have you got the other reviews back yet? > > Getting SSTs right is far more important than getting the lower > 48 land area > correct. > > I had a quick look earlier but couldn't find your lower 48 > average to see > if yours had 98 or 34 the warmest - or another year entirely. > > A very good British newspaper (Guardian) ran with the NASA > story today. > I've tried to stop two others following suite, but they seem to > like the headline - > NASA caught out Canadian blogger! > > Just shows that errors are worth doing - all the differences > between years > are within the range! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > > > 655. 2007-08-17 07:33:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: ,"Fuchs Tobias" , "Schneider Udo" , "David (Met Office) Parker" , , "David Goodrich" , "Stephan Bojinski" date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:33:19 +0200 from: "Richard Thigpen" subject: Re: AW: potential new GSN stations to: ,"Phil Jones" Hi Tom, Udo et al, I sent Tom's note to the CBS lead centers in preparation for a discussion at our coordination meeting in November. That along with some of the objectives we set at last AGG/AOPC meeting (which I am still working on) and some offers we received from PR's at Congress. I think it should be a good discussion and have positive results. Cheers Dick Richard K. Thigpen GCOS Secretariat 301-598-5683 301-452-7669 41 22 730-8068 (in Geneva) [1]thigpenr@erols.com [2]RThigpen@wmo.int >>> 8/17/2007 6:41 AM >>> Hi, Udo et al., I'm delighted to see you actively involved in the quest to better the GSN. My view is actually a little beyond Phil's. The places left in the world where we don't have GSN but could use some are most likely the places with very poor international exchange of data. So it might even be appropriate to focus specifically on stations that are not reporting well and seek to improve them. Indeed, the Lead Centers that Dick has been encouraging along seem to be making some progress in that direction already. So perhaps they will be up to new challenges! Warm regards, Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:35 am Subject: Re: AW: potential new GSN stations > > Udo, > Just one thought on your comments on suggestions for new GSN > sites. We do need to check whether the sites are producing CLIMATs > and/or SYNOPs, > but if designation as GSN will improve their > reporting rates (and quality), then this would > be good. I know it takes a time for the > correspondence to make changes, and then > to get some improved receipts (and check quality), but we don't > want to be > restricted by the history of reporting in some regions. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 08:47 16/08/2007, Schneider Udo wrote: > >Dear Tom, > > > >I agree with most of your suggestions for new > >GSN stations; for all these regions it would be > >great to have some (more) GSN stations. However > >at GPCC we don't have many (or any in some > >cases) CLIMAT data for some of these regions > >and, in part, of very poor quality. > >Therefore I think the following stations > >probably should not be added (if NCDC or the > >other centres don't have much more/better > >quality CLIMAT data there than we at GPCC do): > > > >Midway Isl. 91066 (at GPCC we received the last > >CLIMATs in 1978!; SYNOPs have been received at > >DWD until 1991; at CPC/NOAA until 2007, however > >the data during the last years, esp. since mid 2006 are very > unreliable!),>Dem. Rep. of Congo (it would be great to have > >some stations there, but there are only 2 > >stations for which GPCC has CLIMATs (Kinshasa, > >Lubumbashi) up to 2006 - only very sporadic > >during the last years! - and no data for 2007), > >Cuba (it would be great to have some stations > >there, but there is only 1 station for which > >GPCC has CLIMATs up to 2007 (Guantanamo-Oriente, 78367), > >the Horn of Africa (Somalia) (GPCC has CLIMATs > >from there only for Mogadishu, and no data since 1987), > >interior and northern Greenland (GPCC has no > >CLIMATs from interior Greenland). > > > >Before stations are designated to become new GSN > >stations it should be checked what CLIMAT (or > >other?) data are available at the GSNMCs or at > >NCDC for these stations and what the data quality is. > >Another question may be whether the reporting of > >the stations in these regions can be improved by > >designating them as GSN stations. > > > >Kind regards, > >Udo > > > >-----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- > >Von: Thomas C Peterson [mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov] > >Gesendet am: Montag, 18. Juni 2007 17:23 > >An: Phil Jones > >Cc: Parker, David (Met Office); Stephan Bojinski; rudolf@dwd.de; > >konogi@naps.kishou.go.jp; Richard Thigpen; David Goodrich - GCOS > >Betreff: potential new GSN stations > > > >Dear AGG, > > > > At the last AOPC meeting, we were looking at a map of GSN > stations>and discussing where else we should seek GSN. As I > recalled we decided > >to sic (is that the right term?) Dick on Yemen and Indonesia (for > >Borneo). I made a note to myself to find out where stations are > >transmitting GTS messages that we don't have GSN. Larry Griffin (who > >retired last month) creates a list summarizing all the GTS reports > NCDC>receives. I went through that list and plotted in red all the > stations>that transmitted something in 2006 or 2007 (all that I > could find in Pub > >9 Volume A - about 1,000 stations that sent something over the GTS > >during that time were not listed in Volume A). I then plotted the > GSN>stations in blue. We can look at the attached map and see remote > >locations where we don't have a GSN station but evidently there is a > >station reporting over the GTS. My assessment is that the GSN has > >potential to improve by adding stations from: > > > >Midway Island > >the far end of the Aleutian Islands > >Sandwich Islands > >Bouvet Island > >Solomon Islands > >Democratic Republic of Congo > >Cuba > >Falkland Islands > >the Caribbean coast of Belize or Honduras > >the Horn of Africa > >Franz Josef Land off the north coast of Russia > >interior and northern Greenland > >Micronesia > >(and, of course, Yemen and Borneo) > > > > I didn't check the details about what reports were sent or > for how > >long. Some of these may be seasonal research observations. But many > >are likely well worth further investigation. Did I miss any holes > that>you can see &/or list any that any of you think are too small > to be > >worth bothering about? (Antarctica? central Algeria?) > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > > > 986. 2007-08-20 09:44:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:44:12 +0100 from: "Meardon Fiona Miss \(RBS\)" subject: FW: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\)" Dear Phil and Janice I've received some further queries from Michael Hill at US DoE which are below. I should be able to work out point 1 (but please let me know if there's anything you think I need to know or which will be helpful) but I do need your input for point 2 please. I'll need to refer point 3 elsewhere but, unfortunately, I think the key two people are on leave till next week. with best wishes Fiona =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Fiona Meardon (working hours 0830 to 1630, Mon-Fri) Research Contracts Associate, Research & Business Services, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ phone 01603 591479, fax 01603 591550 email f.meardon@uea.ac.uk web [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/business Please remember - when corresponding with RBS about a research project, be sure to include a project reference code, or the formal title. =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. Get research specific funding alerts by email, visit www.ResearchResearch.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Hill, Michael [mailto:Michael.Hill@ch.doe.gov] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:28 PM To: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS) Subject: RE: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601 (Phil Jones' Project - UEA Ref R14702) Hi Fiona, I have reviewed what you have submitted in full. Upon this review, I've determined I still need you to address the following: 1. Please briefly explain why Haylock's salary rate increases so much between years: 13.6% from year one to two and 7.1% from year two to year three. It appears to be more than just a cost-of-living inflation adjustment. For example, is a promotion expected? 2. Publication Costs - you indicate that these are based on past years' charges and an assumption of a similar number. But the amounts are significantly higher than you budgeted in past years for this project. You've budgeted between $6,000 USD and $8,000 USD for the next three years. For the previous three years you budgeted between $4,000 and $4,400. It is recognized that changes in the exchange rate might account for about 10% of the 60% increase and inflation might count for another 10%. By why is the increase so much? What changes in the project are leading to the increased estimate? 3. Indirect Costs - I am now satisfied that your costs appear to be based on a nationally approved indirect costing system. But I still cannot tell at all what percentages were applied to what bases to come up with the amount that you included in the DOE budgets. For instance, how did you calculate $82,794 for year one. Please explain the math for each of the three years and show how these calculations relate to the information you provided me on July 20^th. If you can adequately address these three items, we should be about ready to award the modification to the grant. Thanks, Michael D. Hill Contract Specialist U.S. Department of Energy Chicago Operations Office (ACQ) 9800 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 Phone: (630) 252-2338 Fax: (630) 252-5045 e-mail: michael.hill@ch.doe.gov ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS) [mailto:F.Meardon@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:19 AM To: Hill, Michael Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Darch Janice Dr (SCI) Subject: RE: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601 (Phil Jones' Project - UEA Ref R14702) Dear Michael I'd be grateful if you could give me an idea when we may hear regarding the renewal of this project as I am concerned that time is passing and that delays will impact on the project. Please note that the UEA will be shut on 27 August for a public holiday and I will be out of the office for the rest of that week. with thanks Fiona 3888. 2007-08-20 13:50:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 20 13:50:07 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Nanne Weber & RAPID project to: Keith Briffa , "Thomas Kleinen" Hi Thomas and Keith, I just spoke with Nanne about our RAPID project and this unresolved possibility of comparing Thomas' simulations with HadCM3 with their ECBilt simulations. Now that Gerard has this new "permanent" position, he will still have some time to work on the project but not all his time and so they are employing someone new for the final 5 months of the project, called Virginia (I didn't catch her surname), starting 1st September. If we are to do a comparison, they'll need to know (1) how to configure a matching set of simulations and (2) which variables will be intercompared and compared with proxy data. For (1), a radiative forcing history that we (Thomas) used in HadCM3 would be needed. In ECBilt, they don't put in volcanic aerosol, just lower the solar irradiance, so the volcanic+solar radiative forcing time series would be needed (not sure if they would need monthly or annual resolution), plus GHG concentration time series. For the combined radiative forcing plus atmospheric perturbation, the target NAO index value would be needed. Similarly the target THC/MOC perturbation value would be needed to compare with those runs. For (2), we could send them a copy of the document Thomas put together showing some of the proxy data values for the key periods. Thomas, did you yet manage to reproduce this document but with 30-year means for 1671-1700 instead of the 10-year means used originally? We'll talk in more detail soon -- Keith, are you here at all this week, or still having fun in the rain at Aldeborough? Cheers Tim 4112. 2007-08-22 14:37:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:48 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Another Reminder about your Wengen contribution to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,ammann@ucar.edu Keith, Tim, Caspar, I will add in the ice core piece over the weekend. It was only about 5pp of text with no figures, so it shouldn't take too long for you to do your part! Those that wrote the ice core piece didn't even have the nice few days in Wengen! Cheers Phil >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:34:19 +0100 >To: Thorsten Kiefer >From: Phil Jones >Subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection > > > Thorstein, > I have the ice core contribution. I have amended this, but not yet > added it to the current draft. Ellen Mosley-Thompson is also > keen to add a paragraph on tropical ice caps. She will do this > soon, so she said over the weekend. > I will send reminders to Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Caspar Amman - > the only ones not to send anything yet. I have just reminded Tim as > he is here. Keith is away. > > It wouldn't do any harm you sending them a strong reminder, as this > whole exercise is dragging on! > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 13:24 22/08/2007, you wrote: >>Dear Phil, >>I just had contact with Larry Williams from EPRI for an update on >>PAGES/CLIVAR. Of course the question came up whether the missing >>chapters to the synthesis paper had come in and where it stands now? >>Can you give me a very brief update? >>Thanks and cheers >>Thorsten >> >> >> >>On 11 Jul 2007, at 14:19, Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Heinz, >>> Thanks for the update on future plans for the PAGES/CLIVAR >>>intersection. >>> Work on the paper is coming along slowly. I just need contributions >>> from Keith and Tim here and Caspar at NCAR. I'm away July 16-28, >>> so I hope that the final contributions will arrive whilst I'm >>>away, just like >>> Swiss trains - always on time! >>> >>> I've reminded Keith and Tim, so remember Swiss timing Caspar! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>>At 09:10 11/07/2007, Keith Briffa wrote: >>>>Hi Heinz >>>>I am in agreement with your outline - I would like to stress my >>>>own bias that PAGES (and the rest of us) need to be pursuing the >>>>issue of model validation (or specific process validation if you >>>>prefer) . There is much to be done on the area of exploring how >>>>models simulate the climate variability (and the nature of the >>>>association with forcings) that we reconstruct from the >>>>palaeodata. Many people, scientists among them, believe that the >>>>issue of global warming has nothing to gain from palaeolcimate >>>>studies and they are wrong. Issues such as the climate sensitivity >>>>of models versus the real world and the roles of specific forcings >>>>and their influence on the future, represent important foci for >>>>continued study. I would like to see this area of work and >>>>collaboration between palaeoclimatologists and climate (and >>>>ecological) modelers as an explicit priority of future work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 14:41 09/07/2007, Heinz Wanner wrote: >>>>>Dear Gavin, dear Eystein, >>>>> >>>>>PAGES has actually to formulate its new implementation plan. This >>>>>gave us the opportunity also to discuss our engagement within the >>>>>PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection part. Beside the publication of a basic >>>>>methodological paper (coordinated by Phil) the decision of the >>>>>Wengen meeting was (as far as I know): >>>>>a) to organize a methodological workshop in Trieste (June 2008, >>>>>mainly organized by Kim Cobb and Sandy Tudhope); >>>>>b) to start the so-called PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge >>>>>with three working groups: Modelling, pseudoproxies and >>>>>reconstructions. >>>>> >>>>>In addition, Focus 2 of the new PAGES implementation plan intends >>>>>to continue (or to start) to reconstruct the climate of the last >>>>>2 ka with a very high resolution (continental, seasonal). If >>>>>possible, the three important state parameters temperature, >>>>>precipitation and air pressure should be reconstructed. Some >>>>>groups already started with this work: Europe, North and South >>>>>America. New initiatives will likely be taken by teams from >>>>>Asia/ China, Australia and the Arctic. >>>>> >>>>>The question is now how we can coordinate these activities. Our >>>>>suggestion is to organize two well coordinated meetings in 2008 >>>>>and 2009: >>>>> >>>>>2008 >>>>>- Workshops by the three working groups of the PAGES/CLIVAR >>>>>Reconstruction Challenge, followed by the methodological PAGES/ >>>>>CLIVAR workshop in Trieste (June 2008). >>>>> >>>>>2009 >>>>>PAGES Open Science Meeting in the U.S.: Special session on the >>>>>actual results of PAGES, Focus 2: Regional reconstructions. The >>>>>different modules of this workshop should be organized by the >>>>>leaders of the different regional teams, such as Luterbacher, >>>>>Briffa and Esper for Europe, Ammann and Wahl for North America, >>>>>or Villalba and Grosjean for South America. >>>>> >>>>>1. Can I ask Kim and Sandy to answer whether they have already >>>>>made plans for Trieste. The PAGES office offers to help to >>>>>organize this meeting. >>>>>2. Caspar, can you send out the official text of the PAGES/CLIVAR >>>>>Reconstruction Challenge immediately. This text could form the >>>>>basis for the definitive formation of the three working groups >>>>>(and for the nomination of the group leaders normally a >>>>>difficult task!). >>>>>3. I will personally help to plan the session of the U.S. Open >>>>>Science session on regional reconstructions in 2009. >>>>> >>>>>The PAGES SSC meets soon in Australia. I will not attend this >>>>>meeting, but Thorsten Kiefer will present the above mentioned >>>>>ideas there. We ask all recipients of this mail to comment this >>>>>concept and to send us our ideas or propositions. >>>>> >>>>>With very bets regards, Heinz >>>>> >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>Dr. Heinz Wanner >>>>>Prof., Director NCCR Climate >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>>Office Institute of Geography: >>>>>Hallerstrasse 12, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) >>>>>Phone +41 (0)31 631 88 85 / Secr.: 88 59 >>>>>Mail: wanner@giub.unibe.ch >>>>>www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet >>>>> >>>>>Office NCCR Climate: >>>>>Erlachstrasse 9a, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) >>>>>Phone +41 (0)31 631 31 60 / Secr.: 31 45 >>>>>Mail: wanner@giub.unibe.ch >>>>>www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Professor Keith Briffa, >>>>Climatic Research Unit >>>>University of East Anglia >>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >>>> >>>>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>>>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>>> >>>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >>> >>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>------ > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5231. 2007-08-23 13:28:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:28:04 -0700 (PDT) from: "David M. Ritson" subject: Re: RCS to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim and keith, I will await your longer comments with interest. I have quickly read Melvins thesis. Currently your reply reinforces the need for specific detailed algorithms as to exactly what approach(es) you and others are actually taking. The fact that there are many variants on possible approaches makes it much more essential that the actually used choices are clearly delineated. For instance my preliminary analysis code permits solutions by iterative relaxations to a final solution. I noted that Melvin sometimes used this, but prior to that I had thought all your results (and those of others) were based on a single iteration, and accordingly believed that simulations of the extant results should be based on a single iteration? My preliminary reading of Melvins thesis is that he had noted the effects of trees relative to age distribution. However you can only use extant measurements and they use based on far from optimal age distributions. Prior to his thesis there seems little mention of this potential systematic bias which with most currently available data is certainly non-negligible. Behind my questions is the idea that the current RCS results on millenial change did not avoid the uncertainties of age-growth extrapolations back in time associated with non-RCS. My gut feeling is that for currently available data RCS should be used to set bounds not `exact' values. I would propose that the first hundred years or so of juvenile grouth be cut out as variable and subject to large uncertainties. That an `upper' bound be set by assuming subsequent constant ring-width growth and a lower bound be set by assuming subsequent growth with constant ring-area (not width) age-increase. Obviously one can't sugest/document `improvements' until one knows what one purports to improve on. Cheers Dave On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Tim Osborn wrote: > Dear Dave, > > I'm leaving it to Keith to respond in detail to you about the RCS questions, > but since he is on holiday at the moment I thought I should at least make a > brief answer. > > Regarding our paper, our purpose was to try a different method of combining > proxy records and see if that made a difference to the conclusions, and so we > deliberately wanted to avoid changing, at the same time, the proxy records > themselves (e.g. by standardising them differently) because changing two > things at once would have confused the issue. This doesn't mean that we are > completely satisfied with the way that some, or indeed all, of the proxy > records have themselves been processed/constructed, but that is for separate > work -- which we are now doing with respect to RCS > > I'll leave it to Keith to respond about the availability, or not, of a > mathematical algorithm for the RCS method. It can be implemented in a number > of ways, probably, and so this may be difficult (e.g. I referred to Esper's > version as "global" RCS because he used the same expected age-growth curve > across widely distributed sites, I believe, which is somewhat unusual). > > We have been aware for some years that the RCS method does not recover an > unbiased representation of the input climate signal in certain situations, > and, although these can be partly mitigated by combining sub-fossil and > living material, there are particular problems near the ends of the record. > Tom Melvin, one of Keith's PhD students, completed his thesis on this topic a > few years back and much of his work (identifying RCS biases and testing > potential solutions) is nearing publication now. > > It is, however, true to say that the RCS method, when implemented using > samples from a number of epochs (i.e. not just modern living material) does > not suffer from the "segment length curse" that methods which detrend each > individual tree sample do suffer from, although, as noted above, the > resulting chronology may suffer from other biases. > > That's all I'll say for now until Keith is back from vacation, > > Tim > > At 03:10 30/07/2007, David M. Ritson wrote: > >> Dear Tim, >> >> Thanks for your clarifications. However my underlying concern was to find a >> detailed account and defense of the RCS method ("global RCS" processing). >> I may well have missed something but was not helped by your references. >> in this connection. I have already , as carefully as possible, read >> the extant RCS literature starting from Fritts 1976 and Briffa's 1992 and >> proceeding to the present. >> >> The claim that RCS methodology avoids the problems >> of `the segment curse' appears to rest on an >> (otherwise unsupported(?) claim in Cook et al 1995 that " ,,, the >> cross-dated annual changes in ring-width between trees due to >> climate are forced out of alignment and effectively averaged out in the >> creation of the mean regional curve."? If Cook et al's above statement was >> a valid approximation, RCS would indeed >> avoid the `segment curse'. I have taken a preliminary look at this using >> simulated data focussed on cases with sufficient data to >> make systematics the primary final error-source. >> In the presence of systematic trends in paleo forcing history and >> sample-depth the Cook cancellations are less than perfect. This is of >> course >> preliminary. I have no desire to reinvent the wheel, and particularly not >> to replace it with a square wheel, and may not be doing what you guys do, >> or >> you may have already looked at this in depth. >> In my past life as a particle physicist, prior to analysis we would >> write-out a detailed mathematical prescription for processing a set of >> data. Such an algorithm was sufficient so that it could (if wished) be >> handed over to a soft-ware programmer and he/she could then, even without >> knowledge of the field, provide clean working code. I presume >> that you follow this procedure. Your RCS mathematical algorithm is what I >> am looking for, not its code implementation. >> >> I would be grateful if you could let me have this and of >> course any revelant work of you or others in this area. Hopefully this is >> not a burdensome request, >> >> Cheers >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > 2810. 2007-08-23 17:15:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:15:43 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Manuscript requires scientific revisions to: anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk We are one step closer. Minor changes to be reviewed by the editor (see attachments). Gerd Burger's main remaining objections are linked to his belief that we should not compare reconstructed temperatures with temperatures ouside the reconstruction period: i.e. 1980 to present. I think we should be able to refure this if we argue carefully. A major second issue concerns the inclusion of detailed discussion of some McIntyre and McKitrick issues in the supplement. I feel that this should be retained. Section 3 deals with the omission of data by MM2003 the accuracy of this section is not contested, and it has not previously been reported in detail in the peer review literature. Section 4 of the supplement deals with the MM2005 reconstruction. The problem is that if we do not explain why we omit the MM2003, MM2005 reconstructions from Fig 1, our choice will appear biassed. I feel that failing to explain why these reconstructions are omitted would severely undermine the value of the paper. There are also a few minor technical points, but these look easy to deal with, cheers, Martin ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: cp-2006-0049 - Manuscript requires scientific revisions Date: Wednesday 22 August 2007 16:26 From: publishing@cosis.net To: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk Dear Dr. Martin Juckes With regard to the manuscript submitted for publication in Climate of the Past: MS-NR: cp-2006-0049 Version: 3 Received: 12 July 2007, 10:11 CET Title: Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation Author(s): M. Juckes, M. Allen, K. Briffa, J. Esper, G. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T. Osborn, and S. Weber we kindly inform you that scientific revisions are still required before it can be accepted for publication in CP. Please find the reports of the editor and of the involved referee(s) at: http://www.cosis.net/link.php?ts=jeao&ms_id=5220&uid=38478 You are kindly requested to prepare the files of the corrected manuscript together with a point-by-point reply to the referee(s)'/editor's suggestions according to the journal guidelines and to submit them as soon as possible but not later than 5 September 2007 17:26:09 CET. Upon submission of the corrected manuscript please upload here http://www.cosis.net/link.php?ts=jeav&ms_id=5220&uid=38478 all files which were corrected together with your point-by-point reply. Your corrected manuscript will be reviewed by the editor for final approval and acceptance for publication, and you will be informed accordingly. In case of acceptance the manuscript will be forwarded directly to the production office (typesetting). For this manuscript please use your COSIS-ID: 38478 Kind regards, Natascha Otto Copernicus Editorial Office http://www.climate-of-the-past.net PS: If you have any questions/suggestions please contact me directly at editorial@copernicus.org. Please do not directly reply to the sender of this automated message. ------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-3-0-rrf3700.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-editors-comments.txt" 568. 2007-08-23 22:30:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:30:10 +0800 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: Another Reminder about your Wengen contribution to: Phil Jones Got it, thanks Phil. we are currently lucky, they just took half of the cars off the streets to test if they can reduce the air pollution in Beijing. ONly cars with either even or odd car plates are allowed. Not too many traffic jams this way either. Still, not your typical Boulder mountain air quality here... You'll have my text by the end of the weekend. Cheers, Caspar On Aug 23, 2007, at Aug 23/3:50 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Caspar, Here's the latest version. If you work on section 4 and 4.1. I'll add the ice core stuff in for section 2.3 over the weekend. I won't get a chance to do it before you leave. Any suggestions on the rest welcome. I've reminded Keith and Tim here! Have a look at what Gavin put in for 4.2. Enjoy Beijing! If it rains you might see something, otherwise from my experience in mid July, it will just be about 200-300m then haze. Cheers Phil At 05:03 23/08/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil, poooh that is really very embarrassing ... YES, will send you a text and merge it with Gavin's and your stuff. I'm getting on an airplane Saturday morning and will use the 100 million hours between Beijing and the US to draft this. A year should be enough it seems... Cheers, Caspar On Aug 22, 2007, at Aug 22/9:37 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Keith, Tim, Caspar, I will add in the ice core piece over the weekend. It was only about 5pp of text with no figures, so it shouldn't take too long for you to do your part! Those that wrote the ice core piece didn't even have the nice few days in Wengen! Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:34:19 +0100 To: Thorsten Kiefer <[1] Thorsten.Kiefer@pages.unibe.ch> From: Phil Jones <[2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection Thorstein, I have the ice core contribution. I have amended this, but not yet added it to the current draft. Ellen Mosley-Thompson is also keen to add a paragraph on tropical ice caps. She will do this soon, so she said over the weekend. I will send reminders to Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Caspar Amman - the only ones not to send anything yet. I have just reminded Tim as he is here. Keith is away. It wouldn't do any harm you sending them a strong reminder, as this whole exercise is dragging on! Cheers Phil At 13:24 22/08/2007, you wrote: Dear Phil, I just had contact with Larry Williams from EPRI for an update on PAGES/CLIVAR. Of course the question came up whether the missing chapters to the synthesis paper had come in and where it stands now? Can you give me a very brief update? Thanks and cheers Thorsten On 11 Jul 2007, at 14:19, Phil Jones wrote: Heinz, Thanks for the update on future plans for the PAGES/CLIVAR intersection. Work on the paper is coming along slowly. I just need contributions from Keith and Tim here and Caspar at NCAR. I'm away July 16-28, so I hope that the final contributions will arrive whilst I'm away, just like Swiss trains - always on time! I've reminded Keith and Tim, so remember Swiss timing Caspar! Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 09:10 11/07/2007, Keith Briffa wrote: Hi Heinz I am in agreement with your outline - I would like to stress my own bias that PAGES (and the rest of us) need to be pursuing the issue of model validation (or specific process validation if you prefer) . There is much to be done on the area of exploring how models simulate the climate variability (and the nature of the association with forcings) that we reconstruct from the palaeodata. Many people, scientists among them, believe that the issue of global warming has nothing to gain from palaeolcimate studies and they are wrong. Issues such as the climate sensitivity of models versus the real world and the roles of specific forcings and their influence on the future, represent important foci for continued study. I would like to see this area of work and collaboration between palaeoclimatologists and climate (and ecological) modelers as an explicit priority of future work. At 14:41 09/07/2007, Heinz Wanner wrote: Dear Gavin, dear Eystein, PAGES has actually to formulate its new implementation plan. This gave us the opportunity also to discuss our engagement within the PAGES/CLIVAR Intersection part. Beside the publication of a basic methodological paper (coordinated by Phil) the decision of the Wengen meeting was (as far as I know): a) to organize a methodological workshop in Trieste (June 2008, mainly organized by Kim Cobb and Sandy Tudhope); b) to start the so-called PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge with three working groups: Modelling, pseudoproxies and reconstructions. In addition, Focus 2 of the new PAGES implementation plan intends to continue (or to start) to reconstruct the climate of the last 2 ka with a very high resolution (continental, seasonal). If possible, the three important state parameters temperature, precipitation and air pressure should be reconstructed. Some groups already started with this work: Europe, North and South America. New initiatives will likely be taken by teams from Asia/ China, Australia and the Arctic. The question is now how we can coordinate these activities. Our suggestion is to organize two well coordinated meetings in 2008 and 2009: 2008 - Workshops by the three working groups of the PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge, followed by the methodological PAGES/ CLIVAR workshop in Trieste (June 2008). 2009 PAGES Open Science Meeting in the U.S.: Special session on the actual results of PAGES, Focus 2: Regional reconstructions. The different modules of this workshop should be organized by the leaders of the different regional teams, such as Luterbacher, Briffa and Esper for Europe, Ammann and Wahl for North America, or Villalba and Grosjean for South America. 1. Can I ask Kim and Sandy to answer whether they have already made plans for Trieste. The PAGES office offers to help to organize this meeting. 2. Caspar, can you send out the official text of the PAGES/CLIVAR Reconstruction Challenge immediately. This text could form the basis for the definitive formation of the three working groups (and for the nomination of the group leaders normally a difficult task!). 3. I will personally help to plan the session of the U.S. Open Science session on regional reconstructions in 2009. The PAGES SSC meets soon in Australia. I will not attend this meeting, but Thorsten Kiefer will present the above mentioned ideas there. We ask all recipients of this mail to comment this concept and to send us our ideas or propositions. With very bets regards, Heinz ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Heinz Wanner Prof., Director NCCR Climate ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Institute of Geography: Hallerstrasse 12, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) Phone +41 (0)31 631 88 85 / Secr.: 88 59 Mail: <[3]mailto:wanner@giub.unibe.ch >[4]wanner@giub.unibe.ch [5]www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet Office NCCR Climate: Erlachstrasse 9a, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland) Phone +41 (0)31 631 31 60 / Secr.: 31 45 Mail: <[6]mailto:wanner@giub.unibe.ch >[7]wanner@giub.unibe.ch [8]www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [10]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [11]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [12]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [13]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [14]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [15]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 3000. 2007-08-24 10:50:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:50:22 +0100 from: "Meardon Fiona Miss \(RBS\)" subject: RE: FW: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Hi Phil I've heard from Michael advising that he has to refer this to someone else to see if the information we have provided is now sufficient. He knows we have provided as much information as we can but, unfortunately, it's a case of two completely different sets of systems/requirements/information not matching up with each other and he needs to refer to someone with the authority to accept in these circumstances. I have not mentioned that Malcolm Haylock has left but just explained there was promotion plus annual increments, move to National Framework, etc, and Michael seems to have accepted that as he hasn't queried it. I didn't want to throw another complication into the mix at the moment by mentioning Malcolm had left and it's something we can go back to. thanks for the offer to help Sue if needed - I have mentioned it to her. regards Fiona =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Fiona Meardon (working hours 0830 to 1630, Mon-Fri) Research Contracts Associate, Research & Business Services, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ phone 01603 591479, fax 01603 591550 email f.meardon@uea.ac.uk web [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/business Please remember - when corresponding with RBS about a research project, be sure to include a project reference code, or the formal title. =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. Get research specific funding alerts by email, visit www.ResearchResearch.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:06 PM To: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS) Subject: Re: FW: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601 (Phil Jones' Project - UEA Ref R14702) Fiona, I'm happy for you to continue to claim on the grant as you've always done. It doesn't affect me, so if reimbursement is fine with you and Sandra then it's fine with me. I, just like you, want to progress to the RGN1s and RGN2s. I'll leave it up to you to decide on cheques or bank-to-bank transfers. Tell Sue Steel I'm around next week if she wants any help with any more questions. Janice Darch will be away the next 2 weeks, so I'm the only person to help. Cheers Phil At 15:48 23/08/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil Michael Hill has asked about the way in which we wish to claim (which I'm taking as a good sign that we might finally be in sight of receiving some award paperwork) and Sandra Cater has advised that we have always used reimbursement and should continue to do so provided you agree. Please could you confirm that you are happy to continue with reimbursement so that I can get back to him on this? Just to let you know that I have already responded to Michael regarding his other points and said that I'm looking to be able to progress the renewal. I will not be here next week but Sue Steel has kindly agreed to caretake it in my absence and she knows that it needs to be resolved and will escalate things if Michael responds by seeking yet more clarification. with thanks and best wishes Fiona =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Fiona Meardon (working hours 0830 to 1630, Mon-Fri) Research Contracts Associate, Research & Business Services, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ phone 01603 591479, fax 01603 591550 email f.meardon@uea.ac.uk web [2]http://www.uea.ac.uk/business Please remember - when corresponding with RBS about a research project, be sure to include a project reference code, or the formal title. =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. Get research specific funding alerts by email, visit [3]www.ResearchResearch.com ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Hill, Michael [[4] mailto:Michael.Hill@ch.doe.gov] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:48 PM To: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS) Subject: RE: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601 (Phil Jones' Project - UEA Ref R14702) One other thing: Do continue to require payment in advance, or would reimbursement work? If you do need advance, do you have a bank in the United States? If so, we could enroll you our automated payment request system. Thanks, Mike ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Hill, Michael Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 2:28 PM To: 'Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS)' Subject: RE: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601 (Phil Jones' Project - UEA Ref R14702) Hi Fiona, I have reviewed what you have submitted in full. Upon this review, I've determined I still need you to address the following: 1. Please briefly explain why Haylock's salary rate increases so much between years: 13.6% from year one to two and 7.1% from year two to year three. It appears to be more than just a cost-of-living inflation adjustment. For example, is a promotion expected? 2. Publication Costs - you indicate that these are based on past years' charges and an assumption of a similar number. But the amounts are significantly higher than you budgeted in past years for this project. You've budgeted between $6,000 USD and $8,000 USD for the next three years. For the previous three years you budgeted between $4,000 and $4,400. It is recognized that changes in the exchange rate might account for about 10% of the 60% increase and inflation might count for another 10%. By why is the increase so much? What changes in the project are leading to the increased estimate? 3. Indirect Costs - I am now satisfied that your costs appear to be based on a nationally approved indirect costing system. But I still cannot tell at all what percentages were applied to what bases to come up with the amount that you included in the DOE budgets. For instance, how did you calculate $82,794 for year one. Please explain the math for each of the three years and show how these calculations relate to the information you provided me on July 20^th. If you can adequately address these three items, we should be about ready to award the modification to the grant. Thanks, Michael D. Hill Contract Specialist U.S. Department of Energy Chicago Operations Office (ACQ) 9800 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 Phone: (630) 252-2338 Fax: (630) 252-5045 e-mail: michael.hill@ch.doe.gov ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS) [[5] mailto:F.Meardon@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:19 AM To: Hill, Michael Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Darch Janice Dr (SCI) Subject: RE: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601 (Phil Jones' Project - UEA Ref R14702) Dear Michael I'd be grateful if you could give me an idea when we may hear regarding the renewal of this project as I am concerned that time is passing and that delays will impact on the project. Please note that the UEA will be shut on 27 August for a public holiday and I will be out of the office for the rest of that week. with thanks Fiona Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 365. 2007-08-24 11:15:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:15:33 -0700 from: "MIchael Wehner" subject: RE: msg from Gabi - WGCM to: "'JKenyon'" , "'Gabi Hegerl'" , "'Bamzai, Anjuli'" , "'Myles Allen'" , "'Tim Barnett'" , "'Nathan'" , "'Phil Jones'" , "'David Karoly'" , , "'Tom Knutson'" , "'Toru Nozawa'" , "'Doug Nychka'" , "'Claudia Tebaldi'" , "'Ben Santer'" , "'Richard Smith'" , "'Daithi Stone'" , "'Stott, Peter'" , "'Xuebin Zhang'" , "'Francis Zwiers'" , , , "'Amthor, Jeff'" , "'Chris Miller'" Gabi I would also suggest that the daily data be saved for all realizations of the ensemble, not a single run as was specified for AR4. To provide some relief, the number of variables could be reduced to only those that are observed (vis a vis detection studies). It seems unlikely to me that all 14 daily output variables specified for the AR4 have quality observations to go with them. Michael -----Original Message----- From: JKenyon [mailto:kenyon@duke.edu] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:58 AM To: Gabi Hegerl; Bamzai, Anjuli; me; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; David Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Hans.von.Storch@gkss.de; Amthor, Jeff; Chris Miller Subject: msg from Gabi - WGCM Hi IDAG people, I'll be going to the WGCM meeting, and will present your ideas about model runs for AR5, as well as variables. I thought if there are any updates on d+a or other things you think the modellers should know about, please email them to me next week (early is better than late). The attached thing I sent to Satyan gives just some idea (bit shortened from our document), happy to edit, and would be very happy for ppt slides filling some on item one (or paper pdfs but ppt would be even better :) Greetings from Edinburgh Gabi [please let me know (Jesse) if attachment doesn't come thru] -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jesse Kenyon Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919-681-8160 email: kenyon@duke.edu 1162. 2007-08-24 14:58:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:58:33 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Subject: RE: Ammann-Wahl paper >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:38:38 -0400 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: Ammann-Wahl paper >thread-index: AcepFULqAYlWCKIKTbyOB1+lctXkygF1KrVl >From: "Wahl, Eugene R" >To: "Phil Jones" , > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Hi Phil and Juerg: > >Here is the Ammann-Wahl paper as promised. We received letter of >final acceptance and movement to "in press" status yesterday from >Stephen Schneider. We would ask that distribution be kept limited >until it actually comes out in hard copy (scheduled for the November >2007 issue of Climatic Change) so that its chances of getting to >McIntyre (et al.) are reduced, and thus the the probability is >decreased that he/they will have chance to attack it before it is >fully available to the public--as they almost certainly would if the >opportunity arises. Weird to need to consider such things, but that >is the state of our science re: this particular paper. > >However, you should certainly feel free to share it within your >research groups. > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\AW_Final_changes_6-14-07.doc" 2184. 2007-08-24 19:48:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:48:53 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: WMO Code adjustments to: dave lister , Phil Jones Hi Well I suppose it was too much to hope for that I could work late tonight and pass a milestone. I've just tried to integrate the CLIMAT/MCDW combined update file for rd0 with the existing 'wet' database. I have found that, where 5-digit WMO codes have been expanded to six digits, they are clashing with existing WMO codes. Example: NANCY/ESSEY is listed as having a WMO code of 07180. However, the header in the combined update file is: 718000 4868 622 217NANCY/ESSEY FRANCE 20002006 -7777777 I assume this is due to '71800' being shifted left. Unfortunately, 718000 is an existing code in the 'wet' database: 718000 4665 -5306 28 CAPE RACE (MARS) CANADA 1920 1969 -999 -999 CAPE RACE is listed as having a WMO code of 71800. Both listings are here: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadslp2/hadslp2_stations.dat Nancy.Esse 07180 1951 2003 4868 621 225 Cape.Race 71800 1921 1966 4665 -5307 28 This is just one example - there are others. Since many of the Update stations do not have any metadata apart from their WMO codes, this is a problem! Now to the big question - is it safe for me to shift any update station ending '00' one place to the right? Or am I going to have to modify the matching routines to examine all possible orders of magnitude when comparing WMO codes? Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1512. 2007-08-28 15:53:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:53:48 UT from: l.griffin@nature.com subject: NATURE: Decision for referees on Nature manuscript 2007-07-07090 to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 9195 Content-Type: text/plain Dear Professor Briffa Thank you for your help with the manuscript entitled "Climate change and acid deposition reduce long-term tree growth in central Europe" by Professor Xu and colleagues. We have now received all of the referees' reports, which I have attached below for your information. In the light of these various comments, we have declined publication of this study. Thank you again for your help and I hope that we can call upon your advice in the future. Yours sincerely Lisa Griffin Editorial Assistant On behalf of Dr Juliane C. Mossinger Senior Editor - The Macmillan Building, 4-6 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 (0)207 833 4000; Fax +44 (0)207 843 4596; nature@nature.com - 968 National Press Building, 529 14th Street NW, Washington DC 20045, USA Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; nature@naturedc.com - 225 Bush Street, Suite 1453, San Francisco CA 94104, USA Tel +1 415 403 9027; Fax +1 415 781 3805; nature@naturesf.com ****************************** Reviewers' comments: Referee #2(Remarks to the Author) I do not intend to provide a very detailed report on this manuscript - it simply does not justify such a use of my time. My overall opinion is that it is a poorly written description of a misconceived investigation, based on limited data. It makes assertions that are not nearly supported by the evidence. The fundamental problem is a lack of rigorous analyses, which amount to little more than computing a series of statistically insignificant correlations between what are often inter-related time series (or at least have various degrees of common trend). What is even more surprising is that the simple or multiple correlations reported are not sufficiently strong to justify the overstated interpretations of cause of tree-growth trends anyway. The paper makes grandiose statements about "the need to unravel the links...tree growth in tropical forests and long-term decreases....in central Europe in response to climate change". It goes no where in this regard. The tree-ring data are insufficient, as is their treatment as regards identifying and accounting for ring growth trends resulting from tree ageing. No attempt is made to investigate interannual ring-width variability (as distinct from 100-year trend) with respect to specific (and relevant) climate variables. The use of data originally in Greenland ice cores as a proxy for local, Belgian atmospheric pollution (let alone specific local soil conditions) is outrageous. Similarly, the use of CO² data only up to the 1970s is clearly limiting. No attempt is made to deal explicitly with interaction effects (such as by using a formal analysis of variance). The paper amounts to little more than exaggerated statements based on insufficient analyses. I firmly reject this submission as being entirely unsuitable for publication in Nature or elsewhere. Referee #3(Remarks to the Author) This paper proposes to sort out effects of temperature, precipitation, acid deposition and [CO2] on growth of oak and beech in northern and central Belgium. I think the ring-width and d13C records the authors derived are potentially important and useful if used in the right way. However, I think the paper suffers from two major problems: 1) the authors are using the Greenland ice core record as a record of acid deposition in Belgium, presumably because of northern hemisphere proximity. One need only look at acid rain maps published for all of Europe over the last 50+ years to see that acid deposition has been far from uniform in Europe, furthermore with evidence of reduction in recent decades. Unlike atmospheric [CO2], which is worldwide, acid deposition is more regional so that the acid deposition trends at each of the Belgium forest sites could be very different from Greenland's records. Aren't there any other records of acid deposition that can be used instead of ice cores? Or at least maybe to establish that the ice cores acidity does represent what is occurring in Belgium? 2) a bigger problem is that the authors have confused d13C with water-use efficiency (WUE), and they assume that because d13C declines, then WUE declines (for example, the statement on p. 8 "The decrease in long-term tree water use efficiency, as reflected in tree ring δ13C"). This would be true if neither atmospheric δ13C nor [CO2] change, but in fact both of them are changing, so it is possible that a downward tree-ring δ13C trend might actually represent an increase in WUE when calculated. I believe both the Duquesney et al. (1998) and Saurer et al. (2004) papers properly calculate WUE from their data. The authors need to properly calculate intrinsic WUE before their analysis, because based on the δ13C declines in Fig. 2, I estimate that at worst WUE is constant, but more likely it is increasing (certainly for beech), so many of their stated observations involving decreasing WUE are just wrong. Once WUE is calculated, the authors may find it is counteracting the effect of reduced precipitation to some degree. Other comments 3) why is there δ15N methodology in the Methods section when no d15N is reported in this paper? 4) many statements throughout the manuscript, such as "with the temperature increase resulting from rising [CO2]" on page 9, and "due to [CO2]-induced warming" in the abstract, are wrong. The authors cannot demonstrate that [CO2] is causing rising temperature, only that they are correlated (not necessarily cause-effect related), furthermore that is not the purpose of the paper. Additionally it is wrong because the authors have not (nor has anyone) separated out the proportion of temperature rise coming from [CO2] versus other greenhouse gases, nor the fraction of global warming that is currently related to anthropogenic causes versus natural warming (THAT, would be a Nature cover story!). I suggest the authors drop all reference to "[CO2] caused warming" and simply discuss response of trees to warming, [CO2], acid deposition, etc. (this comment is also related to the statement on p. 7 "The [CO2] is not directly related to annual rainfall, summer rainfall and growing season rainfall, but is positively related to winter rainfall", and to "[CO2]-induced warming" both on p. 9 and in the Abstract) 5) at the beginning the authors refer to experiments looking at the effects of single environmental parameters on growth. Of course the purpose of these experiments is to isolate the influence of these individual factors, which is not a bad thing but a good thing. Furthermore, the authors' system with multiple influences may be too complex to sort everything out. The biggest omission I can see is the effect of ozone (O3), which undoubtedly has also been increasing in the region and also has strong deleterious effects on plant growth. For all we know, everything the authors have presented in regard to reduced growth is a consequence of ozone pollution, and slightly different responses of oak and beech to ozone pollution. 6) The first sentence of the abstract "Climate change, particularly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [CO2]" implies that rising [CO2] is a climate change, which it is not. Perhaps it should be written "Global environmental change, particularly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [CO2]...". This also applies to "may be used to reconstruct past, long-term climate change (particularly atmospheric [CO2]" on p. 2. 7) on p. 3, the goal of "to examine the relationships between rising [CO2] and local temperature" appears to me beyond the limits of the paper and what can be done with the data. 8) what does "and decreasing source of atmospheric δ13C from increasing CO2 emissions" mean on p. 4? Do authors mean "decreasing atmospheric d13C from increasing CO2 emissions"? 9) on page 4, the statement "Plant water use efficiency and growth can be increased by elevated [CO2]" repeats what was just said 4 lines above. 10) on page 5 the statement "due to the fact that central Belgium with higher mean temperature and lower mean annual rainfall has a more water limiting environment, compared with high Belgium" (also on p. 8 "central Belgium with lower rainfall"), seems opposed to the later statement on p. 6 that "Hence, it is reasonable to use the rainfall and temperature data in central Belgium as estimates of those for high Belgium due to their longer period". The authors need to reconcile these: either they are climatically different or they are climatically the same. 11) on p. 8 "compared with the significant decrease in oak tree ring δ13C from rising [CO2] (Fig. 1)", but there is not d13C in Fig. 1 (only Fig. 2). 12) what does "were corrected to coincide with the 5-year periodicity of individual tree Rings" on p. 10? * Please see NPG's author and referees' website (www.nature.com/authors) for information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer, our blog about peer-review. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS 1680. 2007-08-29 12:03:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Something not to pass on to: Phil Jones Phil, I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he's U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too. I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy. I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them. Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to such matters, mike Phil Jones wrote: > Kevin, Mike, > Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment > has gone > to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but > Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about. > I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond? > If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends. I could > come up > with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data > rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's > web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the > sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has > no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't > seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for > whatever, so it > seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. > > Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review? > E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal. > > Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best > documentary > proxies. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100 >> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >> thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A= >> From: "Peiser, Benny" >> To: >> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC) >> FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47] >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> Dear Dr Jones >> >> I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud >> that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment >> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene. >> >> >> I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and >> factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much >> appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17. >> >> I look forward to hearing from you. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Benny Peiser >> Guest editor, E&E >> Liverpool John Moores University, UK >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3476. 2007-08-29 12:09:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:09:01 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Something not to pass on to: Phil Jones Phil, as far as the credibility of E&E is concerned, I think you'll find this amusing: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.html It is not a peer-reviewed journal, it is not a science journal. None of us should in any way ever consider being involved with this journal in any way. mike Phil Jones wrote: > Kevin, Mike, > Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment > has gone > to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but > Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about. > I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond? > If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends. I could > come up > with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data > rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's > web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the > sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has > no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't > seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for > whatever, so it > seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. > > Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review? > E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal. > > Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best > documentary > proxies. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100 >> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >> thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A= >> From: "Peiser, Benny" >> To: >> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC) >> FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47] >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> Dear Dr Jones >> >> I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud >> that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment >> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene. >> >> >> I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and >> factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much >> appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17. >> >> I look forward to hearing from you. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Benny Peiser >> Guest editor, E&E >> Liverpool John Moores University, UK >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 105. 2007-08-29 14:41:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Michael E. Mann" date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:41:06 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: Something not to pass on to: Phil Jones Phil Confidential: [[[retracted 1 paragraph: health, 3rd party]]] ============ This is awful stuff and I can't imagine that this could be published. I know of this fellow Peiser though and he is extremely biased (against you likely). So treading with caution is warranted. The email seems to invite a comment but not a review. You should probably only respond with something that you would not mind being published. You can also point out errors of fact. Whether you point out errors of logic or opinion is another matter altogether. If you write just to the editor you can try to evaluate the comment and point out that it lacks substance. I think my approach would be to try to stick to science.e.g. I don't know what was done for the 1990 paper but obviously sound practice is 1) we attempt to use homogeneous data 2) Site moves are one indication of lack of homogeneity but there are standard means of adjusting for such moves especially when there is an overlap in the record. 3) All data are scrutinized for possible problems and discontinuities, especially if there is a question about a possible move and the date is known. 4) Site movements do not necessarily prejudice the record toward warming or cooling: a move from the inner city to an outlying airport can result in cooling, for instance. 5) Revisions are made when new information becomes available. 6) It is helpful if researchers can improve the records and provide updated analyses. Or something to this effect. You could try a patronizing approach of over explaining the difficulties. At the very least you should be critical of the statement in 4. that he "politely requested an explanation". He quotes you as saying: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?".[1][1] ______________________________ [2][1] McIntyre S. (19 July 2006), Submission to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives). This is a sworn statement by McIntyre. [It is available at [3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pd f.] but you have no reason to be defensive: if there was a problem with the data and all due care was taken, then if there is something wrong with it, it was the responsibility of those who took the data, not those who used it responsibly. You should also point out that the data are just as available to anyone as to you. In the IPCC report we are careful to say that there are urban effects and they are important and we have a lot about them. But they are small on the global scale. His conclusions are wrong. Also the IPCC evaluates published works and does not do research or deal with raw data. In the appendix, presumably the quotes are based on the best information at the time. That was then. The conclusions of the author that fabrication occurred is not valid. Maybe things could have been done better, but that universally applies. Let me know if you want more concrete suggestions Kevin Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Mike, Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment has gone to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about. I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond? If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends. I could come up with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for whatever, so it seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review? E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal. Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best documentary proxies. Cheers Phil Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A= From: "Peiser, Benny" [4] To: [5] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47] X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr Jones I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment [6]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene. I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Benny Peiser Guest editor, E&E Liverpool John Moores University, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [7]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 91. 2007-08-30 13:22:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kevin Trenberth , Gavin Schmidt date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:22:04 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Fwd: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud to: Phil Jones sounds good Phil, please let me know if there is any way I can be of further help. There are some folks I could put We-Chyung in touch with who could certainly help him out with w/ the legal issues, if he's interested. As you might imagine, I have some experience and numerous contacts now in this area ;) mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > Sending to Gavin is fine. I did mean to say, but forgot. > We-Chyung is probably like me too meek and mild to want to go > down the legal route, but I'll suggest it to him. I'll also ask > him about doing a very brief response about the SUNY process. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:01 30/08/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote: >> thanks Phil, >> >> I did take the liberty of discussing w/ Gavin, who can of course be >> trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We're in agreement >> that Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and >> that in its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even >> a pretense that he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, >> while many of us fall under the category of 'limited public figures' >> and therefore the threshold for proving libel is quite high, this is >> *not* the case for Wei-Chyung. He is not a public figure. I believe >> they have made a major miscalculation here in treating him as if he >> is. In the UK, where E&E is published, the threshold is even lower >> than it is in the states for proving libel. We both think he should >> seek legal advice on this, as soon as possible. >> >> With respect to Peiser's guest editing of E&E and your review, >> following up on Kevin's suggestions, we think there are two key >> points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud >> allegation) it is very important that you point them out now. If not, >> Keenan could later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as >> he provided you an opportunity to respond and you did now. Secondly, >> we think you need to also focus on the legal implications. In >> particular, you should mention that the publisher of a libel is also >> liable for damages - that might make Sonja B-C be a little wary. Of >> course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement >> would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only >> hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually win-win for us, not >> them. Lets see how this plays out... >> >> RealClimate is of course always available to you as an outlet, if it >> seems an appropriate venue. But we should be careful not to jump the >> gun here. >> >> Kevin: very sorry to hear about Dennis. Please pass along my best >> wishes for a speedy recovery if and when it seems appropriate to do >> so... >> >> Mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> Mike, Kevin, >>> Thanks for your sets of thoughts. I've been in touch with >>> Wei-Chyung, >>> who's in China at the moment. He forwarded the 'paper!' to the >>> people dealing >>> with Keenan's allegations at SUNY. He got a reply to say that Keenan >>> has now violated the confidentiality agreement related to >>> the allegation. So, it isn't right to respond whilst this is >>> ongoing. I will >>> draft something short though, whilst it's all fresh in my mind. >>> Then I can >>> get onto something else. >>> I did send the email below to Peiser clarifying whether he wanted >>> a review or just thoughts. I got the amazing reply - sent to three >>> reviewers! >>> So, letting the SUNY process run its course. Once finished, >>> Real Climate >>> may be one avenue to lay out all the facts/details. >>> >>> Away tomorrow. I think you have Monday off, so have a good long >>> weekend! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>>> Subject: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >>>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:48:43 +0100 >>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: >>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >>>> thread-index: AcfqVG3NykjMc9doTBWIfTqkHPH+xwACAfp3 >>>> From: "Peiser, Benny" >>>> To: "Phil Jones" >>>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 16:53:26.0748 (UTC) >>>> FILETIME=[1E7969C0:01C7EA5D] >>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >>>> >>>> Dear Phil >>>> >>>> The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take >>>> your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the >>>> claims are unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper. >>>> >>>> I hope this clarifies your query. >>>> >>>> With best regards >>>> Benny >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>>> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51 >>>> To: Peiser, Benny >>>> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Benny, >>>> Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review journal. Your >>>> email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the paper? >>>> If you >>>> want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say - such as >>>> reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been reviewed? >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> At 15:18 29/08/2007, you wrote: >>>> >Dear Dr Jones >>>> > >>>> >I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang >>>> fraud >>>> >that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment >>>> >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its >>>> content and >>>> >factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much >>>> >appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17. >>>> > >>>> >I look forward to hearing from you. >>>> > >>>> >Yours sincerely >>>> > >>>> >Benny Peiser >>>> >Guest editor, E&E >>>> >Liverpool John Moores University, UK >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>> University of East Anglia >>>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>> NR4 7TJ >>>> UK >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 4490. 2007-08-30 13:38:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:38:32 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Stations used by CRU in CRUTEM3 to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, m.salmon@uea.ac.uk,i.harris@uea.ac.uk,d.lister@uea.ac.uk Dear All, I'm being forced by the FOI Act to make some aspects of the data used by CRU to develop CRUTEM3. I've agreed to provide the information contained in the second file. In order to explain this, I've written the word document. Once you've all had a look at this, Mike can put it on our web site when I incorporate your changes. Can you all look at the word document and suggest changes? You'll need to look at the other file to see what I'm having to explain. The main issue is that many of the country names are missing or not now correct and some of the station elevations are missing or zero (for some sites in the fUSSR). These are not important for the gridding - which is what I'm trying to explain. Harry - can you recall if any of these locations (the lat/longs) were changed within Brohan et al. (2006). Maybe you'll have some info about any location changes. I'm unsure as to whether these were incorporated into the file I used to make the 4167 lines. I've told the FOI person here in the library that we'll get this up soon. So hopefully we can get this up by the end of next week. You will all notice that the years associated with each station are missing. These were not included in the offer I made, so they aren't getting these pieces of information. The years are only useful in reading the temperature file, as they do give the first and last years, but some stations often have sections of missing data. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\crustation_details.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\crustnsused.dat" 822. 2007-08-30 16:35:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:35:39 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Mitrie to: Anders Moberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by balin.rl.ac.uk id l7UFZiNe012479 Hello, attached is a draft updated manuscript, plus a draft reply to the editor. I've used most of Anders' suggestions (see below). There is one `to do', but that will now have to wait until next week -- I'll be away at a conference. Let me know what you think, cheers, Martin On Monday 27 August 2007 16:28, Anders Moberg wrote: > Dear Martin and all others, > > I have some comments to your reply outline and the manuscript (the > version dated 10 July). > > p.2. HadCRUT2v is from Jones and Moberg (2003), so delete the reference > to Jones et al. (2001) here. > Done > p.6-7. A main point in von Storch et al. (2004) is that they claim that > MBH1999 under-estimates CENTENNIAL variability (or more loosely > 'low-frequent' variability). This should be pointed out here. They don't > really investigate variance across all frequencies. > Done > Moreover, the sentence "The debate is ongoing" needs a better selection > of references. As the section starts with referring to von Storch et al. > (2004), it is not relevant to refer to papers published before 2004 as > part of the "ongoing debate". Delete the references to Mann et al. > 2003a,b and Soon et al 2003 here. More relevant references are e.g. > Esper et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, Burger and Cubasch 2005, von > Storch et al. 2006 (Science 312, p.529; Response to Comment on...) and > Mann et al. 2007 (a new paper which we definitely should refer to - > Mann, Rutherford, Wahl, Ammann: Robustness of proxy-based climate field > reconstruction methods, JGR-Atmospheres, 112, D12109, > doi:10.1029/2006JD008272). > Done > p.9. Re the 'extrapolation argument' and our words "It is possible, > however, that this question is not relevant ... OER2005 suggest that > ...": I believe your point here is that OER2005 is not affected by the > problem of statistical calibration of proxy-data time-series against > instrumental data. Thus, as OER2005 together with the instrumental data > suggest that the instrumental period covers the entire range of NH temps > in the last millennium, then there should be no problem with > extrapolation "outside the range experienced during the calibration > period" with proxy data. I think you should underscore that OER2005 is > indeed not affected by the statistical calibration problem, but this > itself does not imply that there is no extrapolation problem associated > with traditional proxy data. OER2005 is instead affected by OTHER > problems, such as an assumption that the glacier advance/retreat is > solely governed by temperature and not affected by precipitation (which > is a simplification of reality). Burger does seem to think that we do > not understand that we have a proxy data problem here. We do understand > this - could you just stress a bit more clear what you actually mean > with your sentence here? > I've reworded it to tie in more closely with the Burger and Cubasch (2005) interpretation: it is proxies going outside the range of variation in the caibration period which cause a problem -- I think this is what he is concerned about. From a physical perspective, I feel it would be more sensible to see temperature climate variations as the cause of the problem -- but the point is not worth arguing. > p.12 and Fig.2. Maybe we can satisfy the reviewer by omitting the > crosses in Fig. 2. These are not needed as the relevant info is anyway > clearly shown in Fig. 5. Then, we would not need to say explicitly which > year that holds the pre-industrial maximum - but we do have to define > what we mean with 'pre-instrumental' period. > Done > > p.13. I think you should add early in section 4 a reference to Jansen et > al. 2007 to make it clear that we are aware of what is said there, and > what is not said there, about the MM criticism of MBH. You could perhaps > use this to argue why our discussion is needed at all. It appears a bit > odd that our paper almost never mentions IPCC2007 but several times > refers to IPCC2001. > OK. We submitted in 2006 -- I think the most readers will understand the relative light discussion of work published after submission. [to do] > p.14. ""... papers which claim to refute that IPCC2001 conclusion and > found that their claims are not well > supported. This is too focal a statement to leave it that imprecise." I > agree that this sentence is still not good. We could perhaps say > something like: > > "We have also reviewed some criticism (in particular MM200 and MM2005b) > against the MBH1998 and MBH1999 investigations, which were central for > the IPCC2001 conclusion concerning temperature in the last millennium, > and illuminated these past disputes with new analyses which clarify > reasons why different authors have come to different conclusions." > I've changed it too: `` We have also reviewed and, in some cases, tested with new analysis, papers (in particular Soon and Baliunas, 2003, MM2003 and MM2005b)which claim to refute that IPCC2001 conclusion and found that those claims were not well supported.'' This is gives the references, and I've also changed `their claims' to `those claims', meaning specifically the claims to refute the IPCC 2001 conclusions. I'm trying to steer away from the questions to do with whether Mann et al. were justified in publishing what they did when they did, hence I want to keep the reference here to suggestions that IPCC > Fig. 2 and 7. Rayner et al is mentioned in the captions to both these > figures. Replace with Jones and Moberg 2003. > Done > > Supplement: > > Omit Zorita among the authors here. Moreover, I suppose you should write > MM2005b instead of MM2005 in the headline and text for Section 4. > Done > The reviewer says he is still not satisfied with sections 3-4. These two > sections do really go into depth of the MM2003 and MM2005b issues - so > deep that I have not tried to grasp everything. To be honest, I cannot > judge what is good and bad or right and wrong here simply because I have > not studied the MM papers in that great detail. Similarly, I have hardly > contributed anything to sections 1-2 and all figures in the supplement. > Therefore, I cannot really say that I am a 'co-author' of the > supplement. I would feel more comfortable if you could remove my name > from the list of authors of the supplement. Would that be OK? Or, is it > necessary that all authors of the main paper are also authors of the > supplement? > I think the authors listed in the supplement should be the paper authors, not the authors of that particular bit. I'd like to retain the two sections on MM2003, MM2005b because I think we need to justify omission of their conclusions in our review of recent literature. I've added a couple of references to these two subsections into the manuscript section 4. > > cheers, > Anders > > > > Martin Juckes wrote: > > Attached is a rough draft of a response. I hope to get a manuscript modified > > along these line finished by next Wednesday. I'll then be away until Sept. > > 10th, and would like to sent in the reply by the 14th if possible. > > > > I'll get in touch with Hugues next week to see whether he is prepared to offer > > any flexibility concerning the reviewers demands, particularly were the > > reviewer does not comment on the arguments presented in our previous > > response, > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > -- > > Anders Moberg > Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology > Stockholm University > SE-106 91 Stockholm > Sweden > > Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 > Fax: +46 (0)8 164818 > anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se > www.ink.su.se www.suclim.su.se > http://people.su.se/~amobe > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-ms1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\reply1.pdf" 4852. 2007-08-31 08:02:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]" , "Gabi Hegerl" date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:02:36 -0400 from: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" subject: RE: Extreme indices advice to WGCM to: "Nico Caltabiano" , "David Karoly" Hi all, It would be great if Gabi could carry a message for us - and I think what you propose (that we promise to provide input) is fine. As a zeroth order promise I think we should revisit the indices that were calculated for the AR4 (we would presumably want to revise the list at least a bit). Also, we might want to make some suggestions for what kind of information we would like to collect to enable the analysis of extremes in the far tails of the distribution. We collected 20-year slices of daily data for that purpose last time around - which did turn out to be very useful - but we might want to consider if we should do this differently this time. Asking for daily data is onerous for modelling groups (high volumes of data involved) but allows flexibility in analysis - e.g., affectionadoes of using either annual maxima or peaks-over-threshold approaches can both have at the data, whereas the possibilities are more limited if we ask modellers to archive only, say, monthly or annual extremes. Cheers, Francis Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Nico Caltabiano [mailto:caetano@noc.soton.ac.uk] Sent: August 31, 2007 7:51 AM To: David Karoly Cc: Phil Jones; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Gabi Hegerl Subject: Extreme indices advice to WGCM Dear David et al. Hope all is well. WGCM is meeting this coming week. I think you won't be attending the meeting but I saw Gabi's name on the list of participants. At the last ETCCDI meeting, we've discussed that we should provide advice to WGCM on indices that should be calculated on a possible effort of model runs to the next IPCC. We surely won't have time to provide a proper input to WGCM now (I apologise for not starting this email exchange earlier). However I think we should send them a message saying that we're startin g this discussions and will feed them during inter-sessions. If they want to propose something in the meantime, I think this would be ok. Perhaps Gabi could take this message to WGCM? Your thoughts on this are welcome. Regards Nico ----------------------------------- Antonio Caetano Caltabiano International CLIVAR Project Office National Oceanography Centre, Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK TEL: +44-(0)23-80596207 FAX: +44-(0)23-80596204 SKYPE: nico_caltabiano Climate Variability and Predictability | [1]http://www.clivar.org World Climate Research Programme | [2]http://wcrp.wmo.int This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Both NERC and the University of Southampton (who operate NOCS as a collaboration) are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information contained in this e-mail and any reply you make may be disclosed unless it is legally exempt from disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be stored in the electronic records management system of either the University or NERC as appropriate. 2193. 2007-08-31 12:50:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Xuebin Zhang , Francis Zwiers , Gabi Hegerl date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:50:51 +0100 from: Nico Caltabiano subject: Extreme indices advice to WGCM to: David Karoly Dear David et al. Hope all is well. WGCM is meeting this coming week. I think you won't be attending the meeting but I saw Gabi's name on the list of participants. At the last ETCCDI meeting, we've discussed that we should provide advice to WGCM on indices that should be calculated on a possible effort of model runs to the next IPCC. We surely won't have time to provide a proper input to WGCM now (I apologise for not starting this email exchange earlier). However I think we should send them a message saying that we're startin g this discussions and will feed them during inter-sessions. If they want to propose something in the meantime, I think this would be ok. Perhaps Gabi could take this message to WGCM? Your thoughts on this are welcome. Regards Nico ----------------------------------- Antonio Caetano Caltabiano International CLIVAR Project Office National Oceanography Centre, Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK TEL: +44-(0)23-80596207 FAX: +44-(0)23-80596204 SKYPE: nico_caltabiano Climate Variability and Predictability | [1]http://www.clivar.org World Climate Research Programme | [2]http://wcrp.wmo.int This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Both NERC and the University of Southampton (who operate NOCS as a collaboration) are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information contained in this e-mail and any reply you make may be disclosed unless it is legally exempt from disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be stored in the electronic records management system of either the University or NERC as appropriate. 2169. 2007-09-03 14:59:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:59:45 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Stations used by CRU in CRUTEM3 to: Clare Goodess , Tim Osborn , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Mike Salmon , dave lister Hi All, I've added my working notes from the project as a separate Word doc (they're pasted from a text doc so no formatting). They give an idea of the QC techniques employed and might be useful.. or damning. Not sure what I can add to Phil's doc - or how to use Word's change tracking mechanisms! Cheers Harry On 3 Sep 2007, at 14:01, Clare Goodess wrote: > And a few more, very minor, comments from me. > > Clare > > At 13:25 03/09/2007, Tim Osborn wrote: >> Hi Phil -- I've made some edits and comments using tracked changes >> in the attached file... hopefully of some use. Cheers, Tim >> >> At 13:38 30/08/2007, Phil Jones wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> I'm being forced by the FOI Act to make some aspects of the >>> data used by CRU >>> to develop CRUTEM3. I've agreed to provide the information >>> contained in the second file. >>> In order to explain this, I've written the word document. Once >>> you've all had a look at this, >>> Mike can put it on our web site when I incorporate your changes. >>> Can you all look at the word document and suggest changes? >>> You'll need to >>> look at the other file to see what I'm having to explain. The >>> main issue is that >>> many of the country names are missing or not now correct and >>> some of the >>> station elevations are missing or zero (for some sites in the >>> fUSSR). These are >>> not important for the gridding - which is what I'm trying to >>> explain. >>> >>> Harry - can you recall if any of these locations (the lat/ >>> longs) were changed within >>> Brohan et al. (2006). Maybe you'll have some info about any >>> location changes. >>> I'm unsure as to whether these were incorporated into the file I >>> used to make >>> the 4167 lines. >>> >>> I've told the FOI person here in the library that we'll get >>> this up soon. So >>> hopefully we can get this up by the end of next week. >>> >>> You will all notice that the years associated with each >>> station are missing. >>> These were not included in the offer I made, so they aren't >>> getting these pieces >>> of information. The years are only useful in reading the >>> temperature file, as they >>> do give the first and last years, but some stations often have >>> sections of missing >>> data. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -------- >>> >> >> >> >> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >> >> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >> phone: +44 1603 592089 >> fax: +44 1603 507784 >> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> >> > Dr Clare Goodess > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich > NR4 7TJ > UK > > Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\revised_db_readme.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\crustation_details_osbornedits_goodess1.doc" 2287. 2007-09-03 15:22:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk, "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , caetano@noc.soton.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:22:04 +1000 (EST) from: David Karoly subject: Re: Extreme indices advice to WGCM to: "Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]" Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting involved in this exchange. First, Gabi Hegerl is going to the WGCM meeting and will be trying to represent the interests of ETCCDI in a very busy agenda at WGCM, as well as climate change detection and attribution interests etc. We had already had a brief exchange at IDAG and WGCM about archiving daily data and extremes indices from any new WGCM coordinating modelling experiments. I agree with Xuebin that there are concerns about the software used by some groups, as well as the need to think some more about a small number of changes to the standard indices to be calculated on a monthly, as well as an annual basis. I am sure that Gabi will represent the ET interests very well. Best wishes, David -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prof David Karoly School of Earth Sciences University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA ph: +61 3 8344 4698 fax: +61 3 8344 7761 email: dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Sat, September 1, 2007 10:56 am, Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario] wrote: > Hi, Gabi and Francis > > I agree with your ideas. One suggestion is perhaps we should ask the > modelling groups to use a standard package to compute the idices. I think > we could modify what we have, to cvompute only those that we want. > > Cheers > Xuebin > Sent from my BlackBerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gabi Hegerl > To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] > Cc: Nico Caltabiano ; David Karoly > ; Phil Jones ; Zhang,Xuebin > [Ontario] > Sent: Fri Aug 31 10:18:15 2007 > Subject: Re: Extreme indices advice to WGCM > > Hi all, I just had a chat with Francis, it sounds good to both propose > to store daily data and some monthly indices of extremes. The modelling > groups might find it easier to send the indices, but the IDAG group, for > example, is already asking for some daily data. > > Gabi > >> >> Also, we might want to make some suggestions for what kind of >> information we would like to collect to enable the analysis of >> extremes in the far tails of the distribution. We collected 20-year >> slices of daily data for that purpose last time around - which did >> turn out to be very useful - but we might want to consider if we >> should do this differently this time. Asking for daily data is onerous >> for modelling groups (high volumes of data involved) but allows >> flexibility in analysis - e.g., affectionadoes of using either annual >> maxima or peaks-over-threshold approaches can both have at the data, >> whereas the possibilities are more limited if we ask modellers to >> archive only, say, monthly or annual extremes. >> >> Cheers, Francis >> >> Francis Zwiers >> Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada >> 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 >> Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Nico Caltabiano [mailto:caetano@noc.soton.ac.uk] >> *Sent:* August 31, 2007 7:51 AM >> *To:* David Karoly >> *Cc:* Phil Jones; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; >> Gabi Hegerl >> *Subject:* Extreme indices advice to WGCM >> >> Dear David et al. >> >> Hope all is well. >> >> WGCM is meeting this coming week. I think you won't be attending the >> meeting but I saw Gabi's name on the list of participants. >> >> At the last ETCCDI meeting, we've discussed that we should provide >> advice to WGCM on indices that should be calculated on a possible >> effort of model runs to the next IPCC. We surely won't have time to >> provide a proper input to WGCM now (I apologise for not starting this >> email exchange earlier). However I think we should send them a message >> saying that we're startin g this discussions and will feed them during >> inter-sessions. If they want to propose something in the meantime, I >> think this would be ok. >> >> Perhaps Gabi could take this message to WGCM? >> >> Your thoughts on this are welcome. >> >> Regards >> Nico >> >> /-----------------------------------/ >> /Antonio Caetano Caltabiano/ >> /International CLIVAR Project Office/ >> /National Oceanography Centre, Southampton/ >> /Waterfront Campus, European Way/ >> /Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK / >> / >> / >> /TEL: +44-(0)23-80596207/ >> /FAX: +44-(0)23-80596204/ >> /SKYPE: nico_caltabiano/ >> / >> / >> /Climate Variability and Predictability | //http://www.clivar.org/ >> >> /World Climate Research Programme | //http://wcrp.wmo.int/ >> >> >> >> /This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and intended solely >> for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Both >> NERC and the University of Southampton (who operate NOCS as a >> collaboration) are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. >> The information contained in this e-mail and any reply you make may >> be disclosed unless it is legally exempt from disclosure. Any material >> supplied to NOCS may be stored in the electronic records management >> system of either the University or NERC as appropriate./ >> / >> / >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr Gabriele Hegerl > School of GeoSciences > The University of Edinburgh > Grant Institute, The King's Buildings > West Mains Road > EDINBURGH EH9 3JW > Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 > Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk > > 3736. 2007-09-03 15:51:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 3 15:51:52 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Your sumission to the Holocene. to: bjorn.gunnarson@natgeo.su.se Dear Bjorn Below is (Tom,s) review of your paper. It is generally favourable and I do not consider it necessary to get another opinion. If you would deal with all these points in a revised version , we would be happy to publish. Please pay particular attention to the specific formatting details in your revised submision and send this to me for checking (along with details of how specific points have been addressed) , I will then forward , if acceptable, to John Matthews. Thanks Keith Review : Temporal distribution pattern of subfossil pines in central Sweden Perspectives on Holocene humidity fluctuations - Bjorn Gunnarson The data presented are generally useful and well worth publication. A number of relatively minor changes, many to do with the use of English, need to be made. List of numbers presented in abstract. Probably best shown in a figure with centuries marked e.g. in an adjustment of Figure 5 and then mentioned in the discussion of this figure and referred to as a list of periods when .. in the abstract. Is there a problem with preservation e.g. does the lake level control the preservation of wood e.g. trees that die when lake levels are dropping may not be preserved? That tree growth ceased 6000 years ago at the highest altitude site suggests an altitudinal problem. RCS method presumes trees from similar altitude (or same altitudinal distribution over time). You probably need to mention this somewhere. Detailed comments (suggestions): All references to figures should be consistent e.g. Figure 3 Abstract Replace oldest trees with trees from the earliest periods Replace the time for tree growth with the time of tree growth Remove list of numbers entirely. P2, para 1 Do you mean accurately-dated changes rather than high-resolution changes? P2, para 2 Sentence What do we know about can be removed. P2, para2 - Has precipitation always been controlled by temperature Payette 2000 refers to the most recent Millenium only and to a different continent? P2, para 3 Replace were in Sweden with in Sweden were. P2, para 3 Replace thus affect the bog hydrologies were with affect the bog hydrologies and were. P3, para 2 end Replace when level with when the level P3, para 3 Replace The results from the studies with The results from studies P4, para 1 Replace in dependence of with dependant on. P4, para 3 Replace dendrochronology with tree-ring chronology. P5, para 2 Replace 830-560 m with 560-830 m. P6, para 1 Replace before being hoist to shore. A diver with in situ after which a diver. Replace after it could be by to enable the log to be. P6, para 1 Replace All discs were with Where possible, discs were P7, para1 Could add sentence to say that similar methods to Gunnarson 2002, Holocene were used. P7, para 1 Replace is known to by can. Replace longer climatic by long-timescale variance of climatic. P7, para 2 Replace In executing this method, by Ideally,. Replace Lower by here, because the lower. Replace which creates an uncertainty of the by creating uncertainty as to the. Replace I made the assumption that with The assumption was made that. Replace implies by assumes. Replace when the series were produced by when the trees grew. Do you mean different periods of time rather than different age classes. What is meant by form? The bias is to the shape of the RCS curve. P7-8, para 4-2 Could not find Figure 7? P8 Discussion replace with Results and Discussion P8, para3 Replace pines is still with pine samples still. Need to say relative to how fewer (trees or sites) . Replace Fig 4 with Figure 4b P8, para 4 Replace pine sample depth with pine sample counts P9, para 1, last sentence rapidly and quickly are vague. You need to say that the reaction wood was found near outside of the stem (if it was) one (2 or 3 ?) decades before mortality. P9, para 2 It is unlikely that an unsuccessful germination has occurred ???? P9, para 3 low growth coincides with Is this water-table induced mortality and low germination or is low temperature induced? P10, para 2 as fire refugee ?? maybe limits the spread of fire P11 para 1- Replace The observed differences decrease with The number of collected samples which are correctly dated (Table 1) will increase .. P11, para 2 depth. This could not have been possible replace with depth rules out the possibility of P11, para 3 for an open replace with of an open were partly representative for replace with included dampened replace with damped with open replace with with an open P12 280mm + 1.5 * 30 = ??? Are numbers correct. P12, para 4 no indications of varying temperature Are the tree-line changes a proxy measure of this i.e. your highest lake has no trees from recent millennia? Would no indications of varying temperature of sufficient magnitude to produce a negative water balance P13, para 1 Do you mean humidity or precipitation? P13 Conclusions summer temperature variability you did not show this in this paper Should temporal variations and be temporal variations of. Figure 1 caption. What is NW? Replace 1-7. Table 1 lake names. with 1-7 and described in Table 1. Replace Squares adjacent to Lake Annsjon marks the with Inset are large scale maps indicating the location of the sampled region within Sweden and squares adjacent to Lake Annsjon mark the. Figure 4 RCS chronology needs variance adjustment for sample count. Scale needs to be from 5000 BC to 2000AD. The trees at 2000 (count of nearly 100) do not appear to be sub-fossil from lakes either remove or explain e.g. in method, were they used in RCS curve etc? Figure 5 may be better presented with a line for each tree so that germination periods can be highlighted e.g. Figs 4 and 5, Leuschner, Holocene special issue 2002 would be clearer with only 350 samples. Table 1 Use North and East instead of x and y and make units clear e.g. 70.060. Tom Melvin 3242. 2007-09-03 16:50:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:50:11 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Couple of quick questions to: "Wilby, Rob" Rob, No. What Harry is doing is just observational data - so it will run to 2006 and hopefully beyond. It is nothing to do with the AR4 runs. How much are you offerring.. Cheers Phil At 10:58 03/09/2007, Wilby, Rob wrote: Hi Phil So, just to confirm, Harry is producing a high-resolution gridded data set for public access of IPCC AR4 runs, but will not be aggregating to county-level as before? How much would this extra step cost...? Cheers, Rob ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 28 August 2007 17:02 To: Mike Hulme; Wilby, Rob Subject: RE: Couple of quick questions Rob, Mike, We won't be doing the TYN country stuff for version 3, of the high-res datasets which should be up soon. It has taken us far too long to do this - Harry getting to grips with Tim's programs. Cheers Phil At 14:20 28/08/2007, Mike Hulme wrote: Rob, Hmm! Yes, there seems something fishy. Ive checked the UK plots against what we put in UKCIP02 and it seems that the TYN 2.0 version is the correct one. I cant figure out why TYN 3.0 is different (wrong). Please use TYN 2.0. Tim M is well out of circulation now, so it will be hard to track down. No plans known to me to re-do using IPCC AR4 you could check with Phil in CRU I guess, but I dont think there is funding. All the best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Wilby, Rob [ [2]mailto:rob.wilby@environment-agency.gov.uk] Sent: 09 August 2007 10:09 To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: Couple of quick questions Hi Mike I trust that the sabbatical and book writing is progressing well? I'm just completing a technical report for DFID on methods/resources for constructing decadal climate forecasts. I was browsing the high resolution gridded data sets and came across a couple of things I didn't understand: #1. In the attached plots for Morocco the results are very different for the TYN 2.0 and TYN 3.0 data (e.g., DJF A2) - why is this? #2. The links seem to mislabelled - the country plots from TYN 3.0 are all labelled as originating from TYN SC 2.0 - why is this? Final question on a different matter - are then any plans to produce similar country plots using the AR4 runs? Hope none of the above are stupid! Thanks and best wishes, Rob Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about the Environment Agency at [3]www.environment-agency.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about the Environment Agency at [4]www.environment-agency.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 402. 2007-09-03 16:56:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk date: Mon Sep 3 16:56:57 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Couple of quick questions to: Phil Jones , "Wilby, Rob" But what Harry *will* be doing once the observational data is done is to make future scenarios from some of the AR4 runs using pattern scaling and subsequent combination with the updated observational data. These could then be averaged to country-level (did you really mean "county" level?) but that wasn't currently planned. That is on a NERC QUEST project being coordinated by Nigel Arnell, which I'm PI on and Harry's working on, hence Phil's cc to me. Cheers Tim At 16:50 03/09/2007, Phil Jones wrote: Rob, No. What Harry is doing is just observational data - so it will run to 2006 and hopefully beyond. It is nothing to do with the AR4 runs. How much are you offerring.. Cheers Phil At 10:58 03/09/2007, Wilby, Rob wrote: Hi Phil So, just to confirm, Harry is producing a high-resolution gridded data set for public access of IPCC AR4 runs, but will not be aggregating to county-level as before? How much would this extra step cost...? Cheers, Rob ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 28 August 2007 17:02 To: Mike Hulme; Wilby, Rob Subject: RE: Couple of quick questions Rob, Mike, We won't be doing the TYN country stuff for version 3, of the high-res datasets which should be up soon. It has taken us far too long to do this - Harry getting to grips with Tim's programs. Cheers Phil At 14:20 28/08/2007, Mike Hulme wrote: Rob, Hmm! Yes, there seems something fishy. Ive checked the UK plots against what we put in UKCIP02 and it seems that the TYN 2.0 version is the correct one. I cant figure out why TYN 3.0 is different (wrong). Please use TYN 2.0. Tim M is well out of circulation now, so it will be hard to track down. No plans known to me to re-do using IPCC AR4 you could check with Phil in CRU I guess, but I dont think there is funding. All the best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Wilby, Rob [ [2]mailto:rob.wilby@environment-agency.gov.uk] Sent: 09 August 2007 10:09 To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: Couple of quick questions Hi Mike I trust that the sabbatical and book writing is progressing well? I'm just completing a technical report for DFID on methods/resources for constructing decadal climate forecasts. I was browsing the high resolution gridded data sets and came across a couple of things I didn't understand: #1. In the attached plots for Morocco the results are very different for the TYN 2.0 and TYN 3.0 data (e.g., DJF A2) - why is this? #2. The links seem to mislabelled - the country plots from TYN 3.0 are all labelled as originating from TYN SC 2.0 - why is this? Final question on a different matter - are then any plans to produce similar country plots using the AR4 runs? Hope none of the above are stupid! Thanks and best wishes, Rob Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about the Environment Agency at [3]www.environment-agency.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about the Environment Agency at [4]www.environment-agency.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 807. 2007-09-04 21:09:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu, rabryson@wisc.edu, coakley@coas.oregonstate.edu, charlson@chem.washington.edu, "Stephen Schwartz" , wigley@ncar.ucar.edu, rodhe@misu.su.se, Joyce Penner date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:09:46 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: A recommendation to: jfein@nsf.gov Jay: I recommend that NSF, perhaps together with AAAS and/or NAS/NRC, establish a "Truth in Attribution Office" whose purpose would be to establish provenance in scientific discovery. This "Truth Squad" would determine the lineage of scientific discoveries such that erroneous attribution, as that manifest in tonight's "Global Dimming" program, would be minimized, if not eliminated all together. Enough erroneous attribution is enough. It is time to bring science to the attribution of scientific discoveries. Regards, Michael 1086. 2007-09-04 22:33:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu, coakley@coas.oregonstate.edu, charlson@chem.washington.edu, "Stephen Schwartz" , wigley@ncar.ucar.edu, rodhe@misu.su.se, Joyce Penner , jfein@nsf.gov date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:33:54 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: NOVA program on "Global Dimming" to: Reid Bryson Reid: Truly wonderful to hear from you. I do remember the supersonic sled ride of Col. Stapp. Was it 1947? I recall seeing the film of the wrinkling of his face because of the force of acceleration. How many remember so far back as we? Sorry to learn the Murray Mitchell scorned your idea about contrails from supersonic aircraft. I very much liked Murray. At a meeting at Lamont in 1982 (Lamont-Doherty, not Lamont Cranston - the Shadow knows), he told me about his relationship with his father - not nice. I think Murray was a gentle and very kind man. It is truly sad that he died so young. I would be delighted to learn from you about contrails and the British-Icelandic "Herring War". Your skeptical view on global warming greatly surprises me but, as I wrote Bob Charlson, you taught me that "a professor is one who thinks otherwise". Accordingly, please invite me to UW to publicly debate you thereon. We can both think otherwise in public. That would be great fun, and it would be wonderful to see you again. Be well, Michael >Hi Michael- > Just a note that might interest you, > I gave a talk in Dallas in 1968 (AAAS?) in which I spoke of >the possibility that contrails might have some effect on the climate >(was immediately publicly scorned by Murray Mitchell) Chairman of >the session by the way was Singer. > This was a hot topic at the time and thereafter because of >plans for the Concorde and an American competitor, so very shortly I >had a call at the office from Col. Stapp (remember the supersonic >sled guy?) who said not to worry about supersonic stratospheric >contrails because the AirForce had lots of experience and they >almost never made contrails there. I asked him why my AF students >had special course on how to avoid contrail-making in the >stratosphere. He hung up and never called again. > Someday when I am not so tired I might tell you about >contrails and the British-Icelandic "Herring War". >Thanks for the note. >Reid A. Bryson Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr. >UNEP Global 500 Laureate >Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research >Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental >Studies >Univ. of Wisconsin, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI 53706 >Ph. 608-262-5814, FAX. 608-263-4190 >http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html > >"If what you are doing is wrong, doing it more efficiently makes >things worse." (V. Suomi) > > >On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Michael Schlesinger wrote: > >>Jay: >> >>I have just seen the NOVA program about "Global Dimming". >> >>I must say that I am very upset with the program because the wrong >>people were therein given credit for discovering this. >> >>I realize that there is only so much time in the program, hence not >>everyone can be mentioned. >> >>But, people were given credit for the discovery of this effect that >>did not discover this effect. >> >>Concerning the effect of aerosols on climate, now called "global >>dimming", how can there be no mention of Reid Bryson, Jim Coakley, >>Robert Charlson, Tom Wigley, Stephen Schwartz, Henning Rodhe, and >>many others, even me. >> >>I recall Helmut Landsberg telling me in the restaurant at the top >>of the Hotel Leningrad in 1977 that he thought airplane contrails >>might influence climate. >> >>All these scientists called attention to this issue long before >>those given credit in the program. >> >>That is truly dismaying. >> >>Does NSF not vet these programs before they are aired to check and >>correct such grievous errors and omissions? >> >>Regards, >> >>Michael 601. 2007-09-07 08:28:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Shoni Dawkins" date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +1000 from: "David Jones" subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week. Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway. Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don't need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse - across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations - numbers that will just about see the death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don't get good spring rain). The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism. Regards, David d.jones@bom.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 11:31 PM To: David Jones Cc: Shoni Dawkins Subject: Re: African stations used in HadCRU global data set [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi David, Shoni tells me you're having to respond to some skeptics. I commiserate with you! There is a map of the stations used in this paper. Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. The pdf of this paper is much too large to email, so I hope you can find it through AGU. Figure 1, early on is the one you want. It isn't very large, and the colouring we used to distinguish three aspects of the stations doesn't really help. As an aside, I'm attaching a 2 page document which I would greatly appreciate your views on. I've passed it by a few here, but getting someone good outside to read it through would be very useful. I've written his to go with the list of 4138 series we use. The text is designed to explain the list, including: - why the WMO numbers in some countries may not agree with those used in some countries. - why the place names and countries may not be what they are currently - why the above two issues don't matter, and also why the exact station locations don't matter either! and a few other things. This with the list will likely go up next week on our web site. Then the **** will hit the fan! All this stems from a number of Freedom of Information requests we've had in the UK. I've stuck to my principles and said I won't be releasing the station data , but instead will be putting this list up. The requester agreed to these fields. They didn't ask for the years of record for each site, nor would I have provided this. So, in a way, it is useless. Africa is probably the worst continent for sites (discounting Antarctica). We have spent a lot of effort trying to improve things though. A couple of other useful issues to mention in any reply to the skeptics you might make: 1. If you read Brohan et al. (2006) look at Figure 4. This is a histogram of all the monthly adjustments we apply (calculated by us and Lucie Vincent of AES in Canada). The bottom line of it is that site changes make very little difference. Getting them right is important locally, but not globally. 2. What matters to the global average is the biases. The urban bias is smallish and one-sided. The SST bucket/intake bias is what really matters to the long-term warming. As another aside, I did respond to another FOI request. This related to this paper Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172. This has resulted in a fraud allegation by one of the skeptics, which is being dealt with! Don't mention this to anyone at the moment - except Neil Plummer and Mile Coughlan. I suspect the skeptics will move on the Australian and Russian aspects of the 1990 paper at some point. Happy Days ! Cheers Phil At 13:34 06/09/2007, you wrote: >Hello Phil, > >David Jones is currently in a debate with a few sceptics and is >trying to source a list of the African stations that CRU uses in its >HadCRU global temperature dataset. > > >On the CRU website it states that "Maps/tables giving the density of >coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003)." > >This may be the easiest place for David to source the information - >unfortunately my athens login has expired so I cannot access the >full paper. David should be able to get it through our library at >the Bureau though - is this easiest place to locate a list of stations? > >Also, are you going to be at the university tomorrow? We leave on >Saturday, so it would be good to come in and say good bye. I could >also pop in this afternoon if that is better. >cheers >Shoni Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1071. 2007-09-07 09:26:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:26:31 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Schwartz to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, Thanks for sending me the Schwartz paper. It's a bit worrying that his conclusions rest rather heavily on the Levitus ocean heat content data. Steve does not seems to recognize the rather large uncertainties inherent in Levitus (see, e.g., Krishna's recent paper in PNAS, which I'm appending). Recent work by John Church and colleagues (which attempts to adjust ocean temperature data and heat content estimates for some of the instrumental biases identified by Gouretski and Koltermann) suggests that Levitus may have underestimated the true increase in ocean heat content over the 20th century. I'm not sure whether I'm going to the Indianapolis CCPP meeting. I'm feeling kind of burned out after our five-year external review, and lots of lecturing over the past few months. But if I don't go, I'm going to have to prepare a poster, which I also dislike doing! I'll let you know soon. Best wishes to you and Ruth, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > >> Tom, Ben, > I take it you've seen the attached! Easy to see how this > study can be misinterpreted!. > > Skeptics, deniers are talking things up a lot lately - > misinterpreting as usual and accepting what some papers > say too readily. > > Cheers > Phil > > PS Will you be in Indianapolis, Ben - the week after next? > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\0611375104v1.pdf" 2652. 2007-09-07 12:14:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thorsten Kiefer date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:14:11 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Yet Another Reminder about your Wengen contribution to: Caspar Ammann ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Francis Zwiers Dear All, Here is another version! This is larger and has in the contribution of the ice core group (section 2.3) - and they didn't even come to Wengen! There was a rumour (On Aug 24) that Caspar would send me his contribution by the following weekend. Clearly a rumour - even if did come from Caspar. We do need to submit this thing soon. Can you all let me and Thorstein know when you will send your contribution? Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_july05_20072.doc" 3261. 2007-09-07 15:15:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Folland, Chris'" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, john.caesar@metoffice.gov.uk, Alan@met.reading.ac.uk, 'Keith Haines' , peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, "'Thorne, Peter'" , "'Collins, Matthew'" date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:15:20 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: RMS_abstracts to: simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Shortened abstract : This talk will discuss the evidence that led the IPCC AR4 in 2007 to make a stronger statement on attribution of observed climate change than was possible at the time of the Third Assessment Report in 2001. In addition it will present further evidence obtained since the publication of the AR4 that the pattern of observed changes in the climate system paints a physically consistent picture of a climate system responding to anthropogenic forcing, including recent work attributing changes in the hydrological cycle and the moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere. The ability of climate models to simulate many observed changes increases confidence in their use for predictions of future climate change. On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 12:08 +0100, Simon Tett wrote: > All, > Attached are the abstracts (and titles) you gave me for your talks...Could > you provide a web link or email address so that interested people can find > out more. The link/address will go at the bottom of your abstract. If I hear > nothing I will put your email address... > > Abstracts should be about 10 lines. If your abstract is longer than this > could you please shorten it? > > See www.rmets.org/event/meeting/wednotes.php for guidance to speakers. > > We are invited for lunch as guests of the Society. Lunch is at 12 noon. > Please let me/Chris know if you would like to come. > > Could you let Chris & I know what visual aids you'd like to use -- > Powerpoint is preferred! > > We'd like a 3-4 line CV as well. > > Local centres organise evening meetings. Are you happy to be on a list of > possible speakers for them? > > The society likes to publish a short meeting summary in Weather. The copy > has to get there within three weeks of the meeting. Chris and I will find a > "victim" to help (or I may get Chris to do it!) > > Simon 3363. 2007-09-07 17:00:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:00:04 +0200 from: "Christian Kremer \(EPP\)" subject: RE: EPP Document on Climate Change to: "'Phil Jones'" Dear Phil, Thanks alot for your comments. You are right about the sceptics (I'd rather call them deniers) and I am currently trying very hard to keep a phrasing in the text which accepts the scientific consensus. I think it is not credible to call for tough measures to limit emissions when at the same time questioning the scientific basis. And in many aspects, the IPCC reports were quite conservative in their estimations and certainly not alarmist. Concerning the 2 C limit: from my point of view, it is 2 C increase globally in comparison to pre-industrial times. A colleague of yours from East Anglia University wrote an interesting article on the "tipping points" which gives an indication that the 2 C is rather at the upper end if we want to avoid dangerous climate change (especially as far as Arctic Sea Ice is concerned) but already that will be hard to get...and to set a goal below 450 ppm equivalent seems to me too unrealistic to put forward. The uncertainty of course is what additional warming the reduced albedo from complete absence of Arctic Sea Ice would produce and how this would influence other positive feedbacks such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. As far as I understand (and I also follow the realclimate website) the insecurity about the behaviour of melting ice sheets is extremely high? Kind regards Christian ************************************** Christian Kremer Deputy Secretary General European People's Party Handelsstraat 10 B-1000 Brussels phone +32-2-285.41.48 fax +32-2-285.41.41 [1]ckremer@epp.eu [2]www.epp.eu -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM To: ckremer@epp.eu Subject: Re: EPP Document on Climate Change Christian, There is not a lot wrong with the science part of your document (the first 10pp). It is, after all, based on the IPCC Reports from earlier this year. There will be one more, a Synthesis one, in Valencia in November. A few thoughts 1. p38-39 It may seem undeniable, but I can assure that there a lot of vociferous skeptics out there. They aren't all retired and some of them seem to have influence through writing op-ed pieces in newspapers. A lot of the public in Britain seem to believe that there is disagreement amongst the scientists. There have been surveys in Britain that show this. I know it first hand from talking to my neighbours in the village I live in! There is very little disagreement by the way, but perhaps we not all talking consistently. The skeptics are gearing up, I believe, for a large assault on the science in the coming months. There is nothing to worry about. It just distracts us from doing the work we ought to be doing. They just try to discredit by slinging mud hoping some will stick. Apologies for talking in English cliches! p46-47 The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don't know the answer, but I don't either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well. If it is 2 deg C globally, this could be more in Europe - especially the northern part. A better limit might be maintaining some summer Arctic sea ice! Recall that I said that whatever we do now, will not have any effect until 2040. Perhaps you can get this point in somewhere. p87 carbon (dioxide missing). p125 no idea where you have got last 65000 years from. I think this may come from the fact that CO2 and CH4 are much higher than they have been for the last 650000 years. Recent post IPCC work now extends this back 800000 years. p158-163 Try to get across the concept of greater variability of precipitation patterns. My neighbours have difficulty with this. They ask, how can I say East Anglia will have more floods and more droughts. This is exactly what happens if you have more variable precipitation, which is far more important than changes in the average rainfall. Finally, perhaps you need to make more of the Greek fires. I know some may have been started deliberately, but the conditions made them worse. There might be some monetary costs of these (in addition to the human deaths), as well as saying what resources will be needed to replant and how long it is going to take (>30 years probably) to get the forests back. Cheers Phil At 14:20 05/09/2007, you wrote: Dear Mr Jones, Again I would like to thank you very much for your contribution in Ioannina in July. I think it was very important for the participants to be confronted with the scientific evidence which currently is available. I skipped my summer holiday for some reading on the issue and I am now certainly even more worried than I was before. Enclosed you find the new draft document on climate change. I am still waiting for comments from some people (so this version is only preliminary) but I would be very happy if you could have a quick look on it (especially as far as the scientific situation is concerned). If you have any changes or additions, please let me know. Kind regards Christian Kremer ************************************** Christian Kremer Deputy Secretary General European People's Party Handelsstraat 10 B-1000 Brussels phone +32-2-285.41.48 fax +32-2-285.41.41 [3]ckremer@epp.eu [4]www.epp.eu Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 438. 2007-09-09 10:42:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:42:16 +0100 from: "John Mason, Machynlleth, Wales" subject: Re: Query re - raw data to: "Phil Jones" Thanks for that Phil. I find all the politics quite interesting: I publish in mineralogy and ore deposit formation and never run into much controversy in these relatively mundane subjects! My approach is simply to try and explain, repetitively, just what peer-reviewed science is, and I try to get forum members to understand the difference between that and politically-motivated denialist blogsites! Mind you, having read chapter 2 of George Monbiot's "Heat" last night, it looks like a steep uphill climb! I know George fairly well - he lives here in Machynlleth - and am tempted to suggest he posts to UKWW, but I think the reactions from some of the regulars on there might give us moderators too much work! So for now I shall keep plugging away and posting links to Realclimate as often as possible! Cheers - John John Mason Geological consultancy & Interpretation [1]www.geologywales.co.uk Severe Weather Photographer [2]www.geologywales.co.uk/storms Director, Tornado and Storm Research Organisation [3]www.torro.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: [4]Phil Jones To: [5]John Mason, Machynlleth, Wales Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Query re - raw data John, Just off home, but had a look at Climate Audit. A thread has just gone up on duplication of time series. It might be worth pointing some people to this link. Needless to say the document makes the whole issue exceedingly complex. I read the document ages ago, and then asked someone at NCDC what it meant. Steve McIntyre is reading far too much into it, as usual. Smithsonian, WWR and UCAR are not different sources - they are all the same. The different sources referred to in the document are different datasets released by National Met Services. They send the data each month, then send it again each decade from the 1960s onwards. They have made changes sometimes. So the 1960s may have changed the 1950s, the 1970s the 1960s and so on. Cheers Phil At 16:31 07/09/2007, you wrote: Thanks, Phil. We shall see what these characters make of that. I suspect it will be a case of "And Lo! it came to pass that the smiting did continue for evermore..." Cheers - John John Mason Geological consultancy & Interpretation [6]www.geologywales.co.uk Severe Weather Photographer [7]www.geologywales.co.uk/storms Director, Tornado and Storm Research Organisation [8]www.torro.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: [9]Phil Jones To: [10]johntherock@btopenworld.com Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:14 PM Subject: FW: Query re - raw data John, Have had a look at the discussion blog you help moderate, and you seem reasonable. You try to keep discussions civil and cut out ad hominens. I have learnt over recent years to be careful when responding as some of my emails later (sometimes years later) appear on various blog sites. I occasionally look at some of them, and good to hear that you get your information from IPCC and Real Climate. I eventually found the quote you are referring to. You have probably tried to get British climate and weather data out of the Met Office - through BADC. You can for research purposes, but not if anything commercial is being undertaken. This situation (which the Met Office started by the way) is common around the world. Only the US, Australia, Canada and a few other countries put their data up for all to use. Even then they put up the raw (as measured) data and have homogenized data on another page (which is often not linked from the one with the raw data). CRU has been collecting the same data (as NCDC and also GISS in the USA) over the last 25 years. We get access to real time data (monthly averages which come over a WMO system called GTS - the CLIMAT messages). We have an agreement with the Met Office Hadley Centre. We also have agreements with a number of other Met Services around the world (and also some individual scientists) not to pass on the data to third parties, but we are able to make the gridded products available - the HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 datasets. It is the gridded products that other scientists want. We have spent a lot of time over the last 25 years assessing the quality of all the data - improving some regions/countries when we gain access to improvements. Although we've made lots of adjustments (which are documented back in the mid-1980s), it became clear to us that this type of work is best done in the regions/countries as it these groups that have the full station histories. Not many countries though have the resources to do this. We still make checks periodically, but all the merging takes time and resources. The national datasets generally come with national numbers which we then have to determine are stations we had (so replace) or are new. GISS have released their data (principally GHCN) but Jim Hansen and others are being lambasted for not releasing the code they use. It is all described in their papers though and is easily reproducible. Our method of gridding is described in numerous papers. Most recently this was documented at [11]http://www.hadobs.org/ if you then click on CRUTEM3 and then the paper at the bottom right under references. I can't send you the full pdf from JGR as it is too large to email. My reason for mentioning this is that if we did release the data we use, the same lambasting would happen to us - it does anyway - as your email attests to. What I would do, in response to the comment, is to suggest that the skeptics derive their own gridded temperature data. They can use the GISS data, and then assess which stations they want to use etc. They don't want to do this, as it is lots of hard work, and it is much easier to criticize. I've suggested this to some of them in the past and many other people have as well. Whatever the outcome of such an analysis, it would be far more constructive than the continued criticism, which most people I know (on this issue and many others like Hockey Sticks etc) just ignore. In short if they think we're wrong prove it. Finally, one other thing. The first paper we produced on this subject was back in 1982. There have, as I said, been numerous ones up to the one you can get from last year by Brohan et al.. Why now, are all the requests coming? The whole global warming debate doesn't hinge on this one dataset, as is obvious from the latest IPCC report. If the italics come through, you can use parts of the paragraphs I've italicised. These are the 3rd, 4th and 6th paragraphs. Cheers Phil -----Original Message----- From: John Mason, Machynlleth, Wales [ [12]mailto:johntherock@btopenworld.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:40 AM To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Query re - raw data Hi folks! In my spare time, I have the possibly unenviable job of moderating the UK Weatherworld climate forum and attempting to defend the science against various sceptic activists! One of them has just posted up: "The CRU, whose global temperatures are used in the IPCC and various UN reports and countless media, don't even disclose its raw data and methods to get its temperatures." Is there a useful answer that I could give regarding this quite probably mischievous statement? Cheers - John John Mason Geological consultancy & Interpretation [13]www.geologywales.co.uk Severe Weather Photographer [14]www.geologywales.co.uk/storms Director, Tornado and Storm Research Organisation [15]www.torro.org.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3630. 2007-09-10 10:20:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 10 10:20:46 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Forcings to: t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Thomas -- the HadCM3 volcanic forcing from Tett should *not* be the same as Crowley (2000) forcing. Tett used Crowley (2003) and also implemented it as aerosol optical depth, leaving the model to convert this to forcing. The Crowley (2003) and (2000) volcanic spikes are indeed different magnitudes, however some of the bigger spikes are replaced by smaller but longer-lasting spikes -- so the total integrated forcing (or smoothed forcing) may be quite similar even though the spikes look quite different magnitude. The solar forcing might be scaled differently -- certainly it was scaled differently for the ECHO-G run compared with both Crowley (2000) and HadCM3/Tett. Cheers Tim At 01:31 08/09/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim. Thanks for that data. I can recreate your figure from that, and I can also produce something very similar from Crowley's original forcing data (see the attached Total_forcing_be.jpg). Using Simon Tett's forcing that is somewhat different, though. Crowley's solar forcing seems to have been multiplied by some factor - 1.5 or so, I think, but I'd have to check that figure, and the volcanoes seem to be stronger as well - see the attached Tett_sol_volc.jpg, where we get a stronger pek for the late 17th century, as well ast for the early 19th. I guess I'll have to check the original source code, but climatic response seems to indicate that the model really sees this (stronger) forcing. Cheers, Thomas On Friday 07 September 2007, you wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > after spending 20 minutes searching for the file, I've decided that I > must have created my forcing graphic interactively rather than > recording the steps in a program, so there's nothing to > find. However, the file I used is 99% certain the attached file that > I made by combining the ECHO-G solar and volcanic forcings > (originally provided by Crowley 2000) with the appropriate conversion > of solar (divide by 4, multiply by 1-albedo) and then added to that > is my calculation of the forcing from CO2, CH4 and N2O (I took the > concentrations of these gases used in the ECHO-G runs and converted > them to radiative forcing using the IPCC TAR simple conversion formulae). > > NOTE-- please ignore the years column in the attached file, which are > completely (and deliberately) wrong... the data runs from 901 to 1990. > > For presentation purposes (e.g. in a paper) I wouldn't use these > anyway, due to omission of tropospheric sulphate aerosol forcing. > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 09:30 06/09/2007, you wrote: > >Ooops, I overlooked that one. > >This is what it looks like with the additional 0.3 factor... > > > >Cheers, > >Thomas > > > >On Wednesday 05 September 2007, you wrote: > > > gotta go now, I'll get my program and data file out tomorrow to give > > > to you, but one thing is that to convert the solar "constant" > > > variation to "forcing", you would not only divide by 4 but also > > > multiply by 0.3 (i.e. one minus the planetary albedo)... obviously > > > the albedo bit is done by HadCM3, but for simple models that don't > > > bother to represent components that don't vary much, or for comparing > > > with forcings that aren't affected by albedo, it's usually done by > > > adjusting solar variations for the albedo. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > At 16:15 05/09/2007, you wrote: > > > >Hi Tim. > > > > > > > >I played around with those forcing timeseries some more... > > > > > > > >It's becoming even more intrigueing - now I have produced another > > > > figure that is once again different from all the others. > > > > > > > >This one is from the timeseries we put into HadCM3, solar and volcanic > > > >forcing. > > > >Since solar forcing is a solar constant variation, I divided that by > > > > four to get a radiative forcing. Then I determined the global annual > > > > mean from the volcanic forcing timeseries, and added that to the > > > > solar forcing timeseries. > > > > > > > >The figure is relative to the 1961-1990 mean, the thick black line is > > > > 30yr gaussian filter. > > > > > > > >As far as I can understand it, this is pretty much what the model > > > >sees, and it > > > >is once again rather different from our other figures... > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Thomas > > > > > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > > > Climatic Research Unit > > > School of Environmental Sciences > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > > > > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > > > phone: +44 1603 592089 > > > fax: +44 1603 507784 > > > web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > > > sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 3977. 2007-09-10 12:22:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:22:49 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Sent on behalf of Jerry Elwood, Acting Associate Director of to: "Phil Jones" , "Carlson-Brown, Karen" Phil, I had no idea Chicago had questions about how UK university staff are paid. I have not been asked to provide any clarifications or additional info. We are getting close to end of FY (sept 30) and I hope everything gets resolved by then... Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:54 AM To: Carlson-Brown, Karen; Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: Sent on behalf of Jerry Elwood, Acting Associate Director of Science for BER Dear Anjuli and Karen, I have written an abstract for what I think of as the current project. I cannot submit this as the renewal is still being dealt with by the Chicago office. There seems to be an inordinate delay in getting it approved. I and someone from the University Registry have been in touch with someone in Chicago, but it is still not settled. It was supposed to start on May 1, 2007, but was delayed by your CR. Discussions now seem to be about how in the UK University system staff are paid - this differs from the US. This hasn't been a problem before, but seems the stumbling block now. The timing hasn't been helped by holiday breaks during July and August. I am still working on the assumption that it will be approved at some point. I will be coming to the meeting in Indianapolis, the week after next, but have had to pay for the flights from somewhere else - which I'll reimburse when it comes through. I have had to move the staff to get paid from elsewhere, which hasn't caused problems yet, but it will soon, if the issue isn't resolved by October. Best Regards Phil At 19:54 28/08/2007, you wrote: Dear BER Investigator, The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) has developed a database system designed to provide a summary of BER's research to the public. The initial content will be descriptions of all projects that are currently active. This initial phase will require your providing an abstract for your current project, and this information will be maintained for the duration of your project period. When the project is renewed or when you receive a new award, you will then be required to provide new information. This system will complement, not replace the RIMS system. You will still be required to submit progress reports via the RIMS system. You have been assigned a user name by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), who is operating the system for BER. Username consists of LastNameFirstInitial (for example, smitha, johnsonb, millerc). Passwords will not be required for submitting an abstract. The URL for the system is [1]http://www.osti.gov/oberabstractsadmin/. Once at the site, enter your username (leave password field empty) and click Logon. Find your project by entering information in one or more of the fields provided and click Search. A results list will be returned. Select the appropriate project from the list and click the Submit Abstract link to the right. Paste the abstract text into the box provided and click on Submit. You will receive a confirmation message that the edit was successful. You may submit abstracts for additional projects, if applicable. Once you have completed the submission, click on Logout. If you encounter technical difficulties with the system, please contact [2]Lorrie Johnson (865-576-1157). Thank you in advance for your cooperation in building this system. For questions relating to this system, please contact the appropriate division program assistant: Climate Change Research - [3]Karen Carlson-Brown (301-903-3338), Life & Medical Sciences - [4]Joanne Corcoran (301-903-6488), or Environmental Remediation Research - [5]Kim Laing (301-903-3026). [] Jerry W. Elwood Acting Associate Director of Science for Biological and Environmental Research Karen Carlson-Brown [6]karen.carlson@science.doe.gov 301-903-3338 fax: 301-903-8519 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded Content: 1b81cd21.gif: 00000001,013b4cee,00000000,7db676ee 824. 2007-09-10 22:02:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: katie.farnsworth@iup.edu, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, kxu@vims.edu date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:02:58 -0400 from: John Milliman subject: Nature manuscript 2007-07-07125 to: j.mossinger@nature.com Dear Dr. Mossinger: After several days of mulling over the two reviews of our paper, "Climatic and anthropogenic factors affecting river discharge to the global ocean, 1951-2000", it becomes increasingly clear that neither you nor my co-authors and I were well-served by one of your reviewers, and that, combined with some points of confusion by the other reviewer, resulted in your decision to reject the paper. We did submit an earlier version of manuscript to Science, which was rejected in part based on the comments of Reviewer #1. Parenthetically, we saw no reason by inform Nature of the manuscript's prior history nor changes we had made to the manuscript based on those reviews. We did, however, take the Science reviews into account as we revised manuscript for Nature. As a single example, Reviewer #1 requested that we compare our trends with those obtained by Milly et al. (Nature, 438, p. 347) for a 100-yr period, something that a second reviewer also suggested. In fact, there were several valid reasons for not initiallyl comparing our results with either Milly et al. or those of Labat et al. (Adv. Water Res., 27, -p. 631), the most obvious being that their "100-yr" records were strongly biased towards North American and northern European rivers, compelling the authors to rely on questionable models to extrapolate long-term records for rivers from the less-developed countries (e.g., Asia, South America, Siberia and Africa). Realizing, however, that other readers might also wonder why we did not refer to the Milly or Labat papers, we added both new words and footnotes to p. 2 of the Nature manuscript; note particularly footnote (8): Although 50- to 100-yr discharge records are desirable, access to globally distributed long-term data remains problematic. Of the ~650 rivers listed in the Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC) database that discharge directly to the ocean, for instance, only 20 records extend back to 1900, only two of which (Karun and Nile, both of whose accessible records cease in the mid-1980s) lie outside northern Europe or the USA. Attempts to compensate for the lack of long-term empirical data include wavelet-based runoff reconstruction (6) and climate models to simulate regional discharge (7). The lack of data (8), however, calls into question such reconstructions (9, 10). 6) Labat, D., Godderis, Y., Probst, J.L. & Guyot, J.L. Evidence for global runoff increase related to climate warming. Adv. Water Res. 27, 631-642 (2004). 7) Milly, P.C.D., Dunne, K.A. & Veccchia, A.V. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438, 347-350 (2005). 8) The 100-yr trends for the 165 rivers in (7), for instance, are based on a median of 59 years of observational data; the median record for Asian, African and South American rivers in that dataset may be closer to 50 years. 9) Legates, D.R., Lins, H.F. & McCabe, G.J. Comments on "Evidence for global runoff increase related to climate warming" by Labat et al. Adv. Water Res. 28, 1310-1315 (2005). 10) Peel, M.C. & McMahon, T.A. A quality-controlled global runoff data set. Nature 444, E14 (2006). That Reviewer #1 did not note these rather significant changes (which appeared in the second paragraph of the Nature manuscript) suggests that he did not read it ("Therefore, my review is the same, and if the authors in fact have made changes, they should indicate specifically what and why to the Nature editor."). In my 40 years of publishing and 23 years editing (Deep-Sea Research) I have never come across a reviewer who submits a review without reading the paper in question. It may be a first for you also. Many points raised by Reviewer #2 seem valid; his insights are greatly appreciated and will be addressed fully in a revised manuscript - no matter where it is eventually published. However, several of his points, we feel, are off-base, four of which I cite below four (in blue), together with our responses in brackets: 1) The reviewer has some problem to understand why the authors discuss the increase and decrease of trends for rivers without statistical significance. In Table S2, only half of the river basins show statistically significant increases or decreases. Therefore the reviewer is puzzled to see a sentence like "local and regional changes were significant" at line 3, page 5. The reviewer recommends discussing the long term trends only for statistically significant river basins. [With the exception of the Yana River all deficit and excess rivers showed a statistically significant change in runoff and/or precipitation. In contrast, 21(out of the 31 normal rivers show no statistically significant change in either runoff or precipitation. But this should not be surprising: if normal rivers are defined as rivers in which DR reflects DP, is it not logical to assume that temporal trends for either both or neither should be statistically significant? To discuss long-term trends based for statistically significant river basins , as suggested by the reviewer, necessarily negates all those rivers (including, for example, the Amazon, Yangtze, Rhine, etc.) for which there was no statistically significant trend in either DP or DR. To that extent we may have added to the reviewer's confusion by using the word "significant" in both a statistical sense and a non-statistical sense; substituting, where appropriate, a word like "relevant" might help eliminate this confusion.] 2) It is also strange to compare the linear relationship between DP and DQ by percentage, as Fig.2 or the text at the middle of page 5. As far as the reviewer knows, there is no geophysical theory that DP and DQ are equal in long term trend under natural condition. Recalling the Budyko's empirical curve of the water balance considering the available radiative energy, the relationship between DP and DQ is non-linear. Of course, any functional relationship may be able to be approximated as linear, the changes discussed here is more than a few tens of percent and applying perturbation concept would not be appropriate. [Nowhere did we infer that DP and DQ are equal (the DP and DQ axes in Fig. 2 are not equal) or that they correlate linearly; the purpose of Fig. 2 is simply to show global and latitudinal similarities in the two trends, the notable exceptions being the deficit and excess rivers identified and discussed in the paper. (Parenthetically, this figure may not be as essential to the paper as the other figures; if space is a problem and if the editor were insistent, we might be "persuaded" to eliminate it.)] 3) Since global river discharge from land to ocean is estimated to be approximately 40,000km3/y or more, the article covers less than half of it. Moreover, most of the findings and discussions in the article are changes in individual river basins, and the title "To The Global Ocean" seems not appropriate. [As Fig. 1a clearly shows, our 135 rivers represent a global distribution of temporal trends. Moreover, global basin areas are more or less equally apportioned, cumulative African, Arctic, Australasian, North American and South American rivers each ranging between 8-11 x 10^6 km^2. With the data at hand, this represents just about the best that one can hope for in terms of a global picture - and the task grows almost exponentially more difficult as one attempts to increase the coverage. To achieve 75% global coverage, for instance, would require long-term temporal trends for >250 rivers, including from at least 25 Indonesia and the Philippines, for which there may be no long-term data.] 4) Secondly, there should be longer river discharge record for Arctic rivers, and the authors will be able to show more robust long term trend and would be able to discuss the reason of negative DP and positive DR. [Extending our record for Arctic rivers further back in time, which Peterson, McCllelland and others have done with Siberian rivers (whose records date back to the 1930s), would compromise our synthetic global approach, as the records for many rivers (e.g., Chinese, Brahmaputra, etc.) only extend back to the early 1950s - the reason that we chose the 1951-2000 interval for this study.] We are somewhat perplexed as to our next step with Nature - if, in fact, there is a next step. Your rejection letter seems to have left the door opened for your re-evaluation of a revised manuscript. Any revision obviously would address the reviewers' points (the manuscript that we submitted to Nature, in fact, already had addressed many of the points raised by Reviewer #1). We must wonder, however, whether Reviewer #1 would/could give us an impartial review; I suspect not. On the other hand, we think that we can respond to all of Reviewer #2's comments to his satisfaction. Assuming that you will need a new reviewer, Des Walling (Exeter) read an early draft of this paper, but would serve as an excellent reviewer in terms of his global perspective on temporal trends in fluvial discharge. I might add that I/we never have nor never would submit a manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. We hope that this manuscript will published in Nature. Sincerely, John Milliman 600. 2007-09-11 12:30:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:30:08 -0400 from: "Thomas.R.Karl" subject: Re: Keenan, China etc to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Well... there will always be some outliers. Would be great to get IDAG and DAARWG on the same timeframe. Although let's hope we don't get the weather we had last Dec and early Jan in Boulder this year! Regards, Tom P.S. We are getting blogged all over for a cover-up of poor global station and US stations we use. They claim NCDC is in a scandal by not providing observer's addresses. In any case Anthony Watts has photographed about 350 stations and finds using our criteria that about 15% are acceptable. I am trying to get some our folks to develop a method to switch over to using the CRN sites, at least in the USA. Phil Jones said the following on 9/11/2007 9:51 AM: Tom, Have thought of you when sending the Wei-Chyung Keenan stuff. Ferris and the DAARWG dates though reminded me of the above again. Making the data available seems to make no difference to Keenan's response ! Hopefully you'll report an update to DAARWG! IDAG is meeting Jan 28-30 in Boulder. You couldn't make the last one at Duke. Have told Ferris about IDAG, as I thought DAARWG might be meeting in Boulder. Jan 31-Feb1 would be very convenient for me - one transatlantic flight, I would feel good about my carbon bootprint and I would save the planet! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D. Director NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Veach-Baley Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Tel: (828) 271-4476 Fax: (828) 271-4246 [2]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov 3056. 2007-09-11 21:43:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: katie.farnsworth@iup.edu, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, kxu@vims.edu date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:43:59 -0400 from: John Milliman subject: RE: Nature manuscript 2007-07-07125 to: "Mossinger, Juliane" Thank you, Dr. Mossinger, for your quick response. As Reviewer #1 never actually read our Nature manuscript, you and I clearly differ in our opinion of his review. As one of my co-authors has said, we were not served well by Nature's review of our paper. As such I see no reasonable way in which we can consider resubmission of our paper to Nature - to our disappointment and (I am sure) your relief. Sincerely, John Milliman Dear Dr Milliman Thank you for your comments regarding our decision on your manuscript. As explained in my letter of 6 September 2007, if you feel that you can address all of the referees' concerns and if a revised manuscripts provides significant and novel insights into our understanding of long-term trends in river discharge to the global ocean, then we would be happy to look at a revised manuscript (unless, of course, something similar has by then been accepted at Nature or appeared elsewhere). For us to be able to reconsider a manuscript we would need you to submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to all of the referees' comments. Having carefully considered referee #1's comments, we have no reason to doubt that the criticisms raised reflect genuine scientific concern. Moreover, we can in general not drop a critical referee simply because authors ask us to do so. In our experience we find that reviewers can be convinced by scientific arguments. However, in the unlikely event that the review process should result in a complete 'deadlock', we may consider consulting an adjudicating referee. I hope these comments explain our position in this matter and help you to decide how to proceed. Yours sincerely Juliane Mossinger ****************************** Dr Juliane C. Mossinger Senior Editor - The Macmillan Building, 4-6 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 (0)207 833 4000; Fax +44 (0)207 843 4596; nature@nature.com ****************************** ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: John Milliman [mailto:milliman@vims.edu] Sent: 11 September 2007 03:03 To: Mossinger, Juliane Cc: katie.farnsworth@iup.edu; lsmith@geog.ucla.edu; P.Jones@uea.ac.uk; kxu@vims.edu Subject: Nature manuscript 2007-07-07125 Dear Dr. Mossinger: After several days of mulling over the two reviews of our paper, "Climatic and anthropogenic factors affecting river discharge to the global ocean, 1951-2000", it becomes increasingly clear that neither you nor my co-authors and I were well-served by one of your reviewers, and that, combined with some points of confusion by the other reviewer, resulted in your decision to reject the paper. We did submit an earlier version of manuscript to Science, which was rejected in part based on the comments of Reviewer #1. Parenthetically, we saw no reason by inform Nature of the manuscript's prior history nor changes we had made to the manuscript based on those reviews. We did, however, take the Science reviews into account as we revised manuscript for Nature. As a single example, Reviewer #1 requested that we compare our trends with those obtained by Milly et al. (Nature, 438, p. 347) for a 100-yr period, something that a second reviewer also suggested. In fact, there were several valid reasons for not initiallyl comparing our results with either Milly et al. or those of Labat et al. (Adv. Water Res., 27, -p. 631), the most obvious being that their "100-yr" records were strongly biased towards North American and northern European rivers, compelling the authors to rely on questionable models to extrapolate long-term records for rivers from the less-developed countries (e.g., Asia, South America, Siberia and Africa). Realizing, however, that other readers might also wonder why we did not refer to the Milly or Labat papers, we added both new words and footnotes to p. 2 of the Nature manuscript; note particularly footnote (8): Although 50- to 100-yr discharge records are desirable, access to globally distributed long-term data remains problematic. Of the ~650 rivers listed in the Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC) database that discharge directly to the ocean, for instance, only 20 records extend back to 1900, only two of which (Karun and Nile, both of whose accessible records cease in the mid-1980s) lie outside northern Europe or the USA. Attempts to compensate for the lack of long-term empirical data include wavelet-based runoff reconstruction (6) and climate models to simulate regional discharge (7). The lack of data (8), however, calls into question such reconstructions (9, 10). 6) Labat, D., Godderis, Y., Probst, J.L. & Guyot, J.L. Evidence for global runoff increase related to climate warming. Adv. Water Res. 27, 631-642 (2004). 7) Milly, P.C.D., Dunne, K.A. & Veccchia, A.V. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438, 347-350 (2005). 8) The 100-yr trends for the 165 rivers in (7), for instance, are based on a median of 59 years of observational data; the median record for Asian, African and South American rivers in that dataset may be closer to 50 years. 9) Legates, D.R., Lins, H.F. & McCabe, G.J. Comments on "Evidence for global runoff increase related to climate warming" by Labat et al. Adv. Water Res. 28, 1310-1315 (2005). 10) Peel, M.C. & McMahon, T.A. A quality-controlled global runoff data set. Nature 444, E14 (2006). That Reviewer #1 did not note these rather significant changes (which appeared in the second paragraph of the Nature manuscript) suggests that he did not read it ("Therefore, my review is the same, and if the authors in fact have made changes, they should indicate specifically what and why to the Nature editor."). In my 40 years of publishing and 23 years editing (Deep-Sea Research) I have never come across a reviewer who submits a review without reading the paper in question. It may be a first for you also. Many points raised by Reviewer #2 seem valid; his insights are greatly appreciated and will be addressed fully in a revised manuscript - no matter where it is eventually published. However, several of his points, we feel, are off-base, four of which I cite below four (in blue), together with our responses in brackets: 1) The reviewer has some problem to understand why the authors discuss the increase and decrease of trends for rivers without statistical significance. In Table S2, only half of the river basins show statistically significant increases or decreases. Therefore the reviewer is puzzled to see a sentence like "local and regional changes were significant" at line 3, page 5. The reviewer recommends discussing the long term trends only for statistically significant river basins. [With the exception of the Yana River all deficit and excess rivers showed a statistically significant change in runoff and/or precipitation. In contrast, 21(out of the 31 normal rivers show no statistically significant change in either runoff or precipitation. But this should not be surprising: if normal rivers are defined as rivers in which DR reflects DP, is it not logical to assume that temporal trends for either both or neither should be statistically significant? To discuss long-term trends based for statistically significant river basins , as suggested by the reviewer, necessarily negates all those rivers (including, for example, the Amazon, Yangtze, Rhine, etc.) for which there was no statistically significant trend in either DP or DR. To that extent we may have added to the reviewer's confusion by using the word "significant" in both a statistical sense and a non-statistical sense; substituting, where appropriate, a word like "relevant" might help eliminate this confusion.] 2) It is also strange to compare the linear relationship between DP and DQ by percentage, as Fig.2 or the text at the middle of page 5. As far as the reviewer knows, there is no geophysical theory that DP and DQ are equal in long term trend under natural condition. Recalling the Budyko's empirical curve of the water balance considering the available radiative energy, the relationship between DP and DQ is non-linear. Of course, any functional relationship may be able to be approximated as linear, the changes discussed here is more than a few tens of percent and applying perturbation concept would not be appropriate. [Nowhere did we infer that DP and DQ are equal (the DP and DQ axes in Fig. 2 are not equal) or that they correlate linearly; the purpose of Fig. 2 is simply to show global and latitudinal similarities in the two trends, the notable exceptions being the deficit and excess rivers identified and discussed in the paper. (Parenthetically, this figure may not be as essential to the paper as the other figures; if space is a problem and if the editor were insistent, we might be "persuaded" to eliminate it.)] 3) Since global river discharge from land to ocean is estimated to be approximately 40,000km3/y or more, the article covers less than half of it. Moreover, most of the findings and discussions in the article are changes in individual river basins, and the title "To The Global Ocean" seems not appropriate. [As Fig. 1a clearly shows, our 135 rivers represent a global distribution of temporal trends. Moreover, global basin areas are more or less equally apportioned, cumulative African, Arctic, Australasian, North American and South American rivers each ranging between 8-11 x 10^6 km^2. With the data at hand, this represents just about the best that one can hope for in terms of a global picture - and the task grows almost exponentially more difficult as one attempts to increase the coverage. To achieve 75% global coverage, for instance, would require long-term temporal trends for >250 rivers, including from at least 25 Indonesia and the Philippines, for which there may be no long-term data.] 4) Secondly, there should be longer river discharge record for Arctic rivers, and the authors will be able to show more robust long term trend and would be able to discuss the reason of negative DP and positive DR. [Extending our record for Arctic rivers further back in time, which Peterson, McCllelland and others have done with Siberian rivers (whose records date back to the 1930s), would compromise our synthetic global approach, as the records for many rivers (e.g., Chinese, Brahmaputra, etc.) only extend back to the early 1950s - the reason that we chose the 1951-2000 interval for this study.] We are somewhat perplexed as to our next step with Nature - if, in fact, there is a next step. Your rejection letter seems to have left the door opened for your re-evaluation of a revised manuscript. Any revision obviously would address the reviewers' points (the manuscript that we submitted to Nature, in fact, already had addressed many of the points raised by Reviewer #1). We must wonder, however, whether Reviewer #1 would/could give us an impartial review; I suspect not. On the other hand, we think that we can respond to all of Reviewer #2's comments to his satisfaction. Assuming that you will need a new reviewer, Des Walling (Exeter) read an early draft of this paper, but would serve as an excellent reviewer in terms of his global perspective on temporal trends in fluvial discharge. I might add that I/we never have nor never would submit a manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. We hope that this manuscript will published in Nature. Sincerely, John Milliman ******************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS ******************************************************************************** 1348. 2007-09-12 16:19:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:19:18 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Wahl/Ammann to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\ammannwahl2007.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\wahlammann2007.pdf" 2789. 2007-09-12 18:44:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:44:13 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann to: "Phil Jones" , "Caspar Ammann" Hi Phil: There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other very minor grammatical/structural things. I tried to keep all of this to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference structure. I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a good job of contextualizing the whole matter. Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite welcome. Peace, Gene -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann Subject: Wahl/Ammann Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. And 2 more things 1. Caspar - remember WENGEN !!!! 2. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 290. 2007-09-13 09:52:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:52:37 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= subject: Re:Re: response to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Prof. Jones, Glad to see that you have received my emial at last, which provide us chances of communicate with each other in the future. I am attending the AMS meeting in San Diego during these days, and will come back t Beijing on this weekend, then I can send you my data by that time. Best regards Qingxiang Li Deputy Director, Senior Engineer Operation Coordination Office National Meteorological Information Center,CMA 46 Zhongguancun South Avennue, Haidian, Beijing,China tel: +86-10-68409810 Fax:+86-10-62173225 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn >, < guoyoo@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-09-12 15:59:28 +0800 Subject: Re: response > Dear Qingxiang, > This email has got to me! So if you can use this one in future. I see > it is not your one from CMA. > I have got an email from Guoyo Ren back in August when I sent the CRU > data and then to you when he reminded me of your address. > I've cc'd this email to the CMA email addresses, but send replies > from your .net address as this seems to work. Once we have working > email contact, we can discuss possible work with the data. > Hopefully you'll get this reply. > Best Regards > Phil > > >At 18:14 11/09/2007, you wrote: >>Dear Dr. Jones, >> >>This is Qingxiang Li from China Meteorological >>Administration. I have received your emails, and >>I have responsed to you. But every time the >>email I sent to you was retruned back. >>I think I can help you with the China historical >>temperature dataset and its homogenization, so I >>am writing you with another email address to >>check if I can get contact with you. >>Best regards >>Qingxiang Li >> >> >> >> >> >> >>=======================263죵¨µ======================= > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > =======================263天信======================= 4698. 2007-09-13 18:34:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Eystein Jansen" , , "Keith Briffa" date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:34:11 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Peck, Eystein, Tim, Keith: Please find attached the e-versions of the WA and AW papers re: the "hockey-stick". These are now available as "to-come-in-print" articles from Climatic Change. I believe the WA one was just loaded yesterday. As I understand it, official "print" publication will be this November. These versions HAVE gone through the author proof process, and thus I anticipate no possibility of them being further changed before print publication. Note brief correspondence yesterday with Phil Jones re: proof-level changes that were made to WA (copied below). Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Division of Environmental Studies and Geology Alfred University One Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 607.871.2604 ************************************************************************ ******* From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:44 PM To: 'Phil Jones'; Caspar Ammann Subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann Hi Phil: There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other very minor grammatical/structural things. I tried to keep all of this to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference structure. I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a good job of contextualizing the whole matter. Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite welcome. Peace, Gene -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann Subject: Wahl/Ammann Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. Cheers Phil Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf" 5053. 2007-09-13 18:34:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Eystein Jansen" , , "Keith Briffa" date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:34:11 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Peck, Eystein, Tim, Keith: Please find attached the e-versions of the WA and AW papers re: the "hockey-stick". These are now available as "to-come-in-print" articles from Climatic Change. I believe the WA one was just loaded yesterday. As I understand it, official "print" publication will be this November. These versions HAVE gone through the author proof process, and thus I anticipate no possibility of them being further changed before print publication. Note brief correspondence yesterday with Phil Jones re: proof-level changes that were made to WA (copied below). Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Division of Environmental Studies and Geology Alfred University One Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 607.871.2604 ************************************************************************ ******* From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:44 PM To: 'Phil Jones'; Caspar Ammann Subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann Hi Phil: There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other very minor grammatical/structural things. I tried to keep all of this to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference structure. I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a good job of contextualizing the whole matter. Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite welcome. Peace, Gene -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann Subject: Wahl/Ammann Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. Cheers Phil Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf" 4345. 2007-09-14 11:57:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:57:28 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: Re: new version of ms. to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks for the updates, and thanks for going through the ms. Hopefully it won't take as long as the CC ms....... It is available via: http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/?Content+Status=Accepted I'll contact Harry for the precip and temp. data. Have a good time in the US! Cheers, Gerard > > Gerard, > Off to the US next week, so have printed off and will read on the > flight. > I'll get back to you the week after next. > > By the way, Harry has almost finished v3 of the dataset. Dimitrios > has the Penman > PET working, so Harry just needs to run the data through this once > he's finished vapour pressure. > > So, if you want you could ask Harry for the precip and mean T fields > for PDSI > work. > > I looked at the CC web site the other day and didn't see the paper. > Thanks > for alerting me to it. > > By the way (also!), if you're interested look at papers 14 and 17 > in the online first > list of Climatic Change. These are the Wahl/Ammann and Ammann/Wahl > papers > that show that MBH98 is essentially right. > > Finally, Albert should have got a hard copy of the volume with the > WG1 report - > or he should be soon! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 09:47 14/09/2007, you wrote: >> Dear Phil, >> >> Quite some time ago you had a look at a ms. in which we looked at >> storminess and cold air outbreaks over Massachusetts at the end of >> the 18th-beginning 19th century. This ms. is a follow-up of the >> digitization work which is now in press with Climatic Change (finally!). >> >> Initially, I included a bit of an analysis on possible increase in >> storminess or cold air outbreaks in relation to the volcanic >> eruptions of the period (like the 1809 and 1815 eruptions). This >> analysis has been removed from the present version; it was not very >> convincing. >> >> I'd like to submit this study to GRL. Would you like to have a look >> at it? >> >> What could be nice, is that cold air outbreaks affect the >> ocean-atmosphere heat flux very strongly, and these outbreaks have a >> definite impact on strength and position of the Gulf Stream. Perhaps >> this all says something about the Gulf Stream in that period via the >> boundary conditions. I've added a brief discussion on this in the ms. >> >> Cheers, Gerard >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Gerard van der Schrier >> Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) >> dept. KS/KA >> PO Box 201 >> 3730 AE De Bilt >> The Netherlands >> schrier@knmi.nl >> +31-30-2206597 >> www.knmi.nl/~schrier >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 997. 2007-09-14 15:26:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Richard Somerville date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:26:13 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: recent WSJ article to: Kevin Trenberth Kevin, can you send me the link once its up? thanks, Mike Kevin Trenberth wrote: Mike You should have seen the first version. I drafted that yesterday and then today toned it down. I did add a couple of points, including the link you suggested. Will try to send off later today but just to nature.com Thanks Kevin Michael E. Mann wrote: guys, I've got a few minutes before I have to head out again. Kevin--thanks for helping return the Nature blog to respectability after a dubious start...I'd like to direct RealClimate readers to your piece as soon as it is up, so please let me know when that happens... Looks like Phil has hit several of the key points, but here are a few more: 1. The 'discrediting' that Akasofu cites has been discredited. IPCC Chapter 6 rejected the McIntyre and McKitrick's claims in no uncertain terms, referencing the Wahl and Ammann work (reprints attached) who show that (a) the reconstruction is readily reproducible and (b) McIntyre and McKitrick only failed to reproduce the reconstruction because of multiple errors on their part. This is true in addition to the more general point that Kevin has made (that multiple independent studies confirm and in fact now extend the previous conclusions, rather than contradict them). 2. To the extent that the "LIA" and "MWP" can be meaningfully defined, there has been much work (published in Nature, Science, etc.) showing that the main variations (both in terms of hemispheric mean changes and spatial patterns) can indeed be explained in terms of the response of the climate system to natural radiative forcing changes (solar and volcanism). Only someone completely unfamiliar with the advances of the past ten years in climate science would claim that there are no explanations for these. 3. Continuing in this theme, to claim that the modern warming is some sort of 'rebound' reflects a thorough apparent lack of understanding of how the climate system works. The climate doesn't rebound. It responds (with some lag) to changes in radiative forcing. The main patterns of variation of past centuries have been explained in terms of such responses to natural radiative forcing changes. As shown in countless studies, the late 20th century warming can only be explained in terms of the response to anthropogenic changes in radiative forcing. Kevin has more or less already made this point, in different words, in the current draft. 4. The bogus talking point that co2 lagging the warming in the ice cores has been debunked countless times before, and its an embarassment that it continues to be raised by one who ostensibly considers himself a scientist. This is total nonsense, and a nice refutation has been provided by Eric Steig on RealClimate here: [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ Perhaps worth just linking to that explanation? Kevin, perhaps you're too gentle in attributing this simply to some 'confusion' about the facts. Either Mr. Akasofu has literally no familiarity whatsoever with the advances in climate science of the past two decades, or he has intentionally sought to deceive. In either case, his piece is embarassment. Finally, let me withdraw my initial suggestion. For strategic reasons, it might make sense to submit this as letter to editor to WSJ (easy and quick to do online), and then publish it on the Nature blog in short order. I sea that as win-win because you can either call the WSJ for refusing to run your letter (which is very likely what will happen), or use the Nature blog piece to draw attention to your letter, should WSJ actually choose to publish your letter... please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any further help here. Will be back online a bit later today, mike Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, A few quick thoughts. Article is awful as we all know. It is important to learn about past climate change, especially over the past 1000 years, but it is even important to use new and improved evidence from proxy sources (i.e. not to cling to outdated concepts of the past such as the MWP and LIA). How can we ever hope to progress if we have conform to incorrect concepts? On the early mid-20th century warming - look at the figures in Ch 9. The decrease from 1940-75 didn't happen if you look at global records. MBH was published in 1998 and wasn't just a tree-ring study. The Thames doesn't and never did freeze solid. It did so 25 times between 1400 and 1820. Only about 5-6 of these were frost fairs. Most of these have CET data, so what is the use of the freeze dates! He plucks various figures out of the air! I think the reductions in Arctic sea ice this summer/September are alarming. They are 20% below the 2005 record. He comes from Alaska. Has he not seen the effects on the coast there? Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [5]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [7]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [8]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1596. 2007-09-14 17:08:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Myles Allen , Tim Barnett , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , knutti@ucar.edu, Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , Francis Zwiers , hvonstorch@web.de, "Amthor, Jeff" , Chris Miller date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:08:40 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: near term climate change to: JKenyon Hi all, I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced predictions. I think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on various techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed edits by me but those are still subject to Tims ok) - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial value trail for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities able to do some form of prediction. Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so having a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good Gabi -- Dr Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences The University of Edinburgh Grant Institute, The King's Buildings West Mains Road EDINBURGH EH9 3JW Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\near-term climate change.3_gh.doc" 1571. 2007-09-17 00:58:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bamzai, Anjuli" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , , "Tom Knutson" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Daithi Stone" , "Stott, Peter" , "Michael Wehner" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Francis Zwiers" , , "Amthor, Jeff" , "Chris Miller" date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:58:30 +0100 from: "Myles Allen" subject: RE: near term climate change to: "Gabi Hegerl" , "JKenyon" Hi Gabi, I know this is what the modelers want to do, but I'm still not clear what relevance these experiments have either for attribution or for predicting trends in extremes. The ensembles are too small, the resolution is too low and there is no provision for systematically removing the impact of different forcings (apart from a nod towards GHGs, but it is unclear to me how uncertainty in current attributable warming is to be dealt with, particularly in the runs initialized from observations). I totally appreciate the community interest in the design you describe, and I don't blame you in the slightest. There is a lot of inertia here. But if we want to attribute current risks or predict trends in risk over the next couple of decades, then the best design still looks to me like large ensemble time-slice experiments with SSTs either prescribed or relaxed with a time-constant of only a few weeks. This way you get the signal-to-noise up, you benchmark against a good simulation of the present day and you can run high enough resolution and large enough ensembles actually to simulate the events people care about. What can they say about 100-year return-time events with 10-member ensembles? Wouldn't the best strategy just to say straight out that, while we support these runs being done, they aren't particularly interesting for attribution and certainly not for attribution of changes in extremes, nor for the very closely related problem of near-term prediction of trends in extremes. For that we need a different set of experiments. If people care about understanding and predicting changes in extremes, they can allocate time accordingly. My concern is that if we let people think of these runs (which will be very expensive) as "the attribution experiments", they will (a) expect us to generate results from them and (b) object to us asking for other experiments. Myles -----Original Message----- From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:09 PM To: JKenyon Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; David Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Amthor, Jeff; Chris Miller Subject: near term climate change Hi all, I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced predictions. I think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on various techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed edits by me but those are still subject to Tims ok) - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial value trail for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities able to do some form of prediction. Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so having a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good Gabi -- Dr Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences The University of Edinburgh Grant Institute, The King's Buildings West Mains Road EDINBURGH EH9 3JW Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk 2148. 2007-09-17 09:11:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dith Stone , "Gabi Hegerl" , "Myles Allen" , "JKenyon" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , knutti@ucar.edu, "Tom Knutson" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Stott, Peter" , "Michael Wehner" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Francis Zwiers" , hvonstorch@web.de, "Amthor, Jeff" , "Chris Miller" date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT) from: "Tim Barnett" subject: Re: near term climate change to: "Doug Nychka" hi all...this is exactly what happens with shorter term prediction work. the 'shock' can be substantial. but in the runs we are discussing here the shock can propagate into the mid depths of the oceans and cause what appears tom be a long term drift. that will kill any serious D&A effort. When we did this we were lucky because the model ocean and the ocean i.c. from obs were virtually identical.....no shock and we looked for one. but had the i.c. and model ocean been in different states..... best, tim ps. i endorse Myle's idea. btw we are working with Miroc and the 10 realizations are not really adequate. We tried GFDL CM2 but the internal variability was huge, several times obs. This realization noise was so big that the 5 realizations from the model were not nearly enough to make the model useful for any D&A analysis. > Maybe I missed this point but does it make sense initializing the > models based on reanalysis type > products? The mismatch and imbalance between models and reanalysis > introduces additional errors that I > think would be difficult to quantify. > > Doug > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----- > Doug Nychka, > > Institute for Mathematics Applied to Geosciences > National Center for Atmospheric Research > Boulder, CO > Email: nychka "AT" ucar "DOT" edu Web: www.image.ucar.edu/~nychka > Voice: 303-497-1711 FAX: 303-497-1298 Business Cell: 303-725-3199 > > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Dith Stone wrote: > >> Gabi and co., >> >> In my view there is little more than academic interest in doing high >> resolution initial condition runs for the next couple of decades >> unless >> they include volcanic aerosols. The big volcanic eruptions appear (in >> models at least) to be quite influential. The initial condition >> ensemble >> *may* (as you say in the attachment) have a more precise prediction >> than >> what has been produced so far, but this will be misleading because a >> potentially big factor is being included. When there is ~50% >> chance of a >> big eruption in the next couple of decades, saying "we didn't know >> when >> exactly" is a lame excuse if you are going to all the trouble of >> including >> initial conditions. >> >> From the attribution point of view, these initial condition >> ensembles will >> be pretty useless I think in the form that they will be done. What we >> would need is a series of historical initial condition forecasts, like >> they have for seasonal forecasts, to determine drifts and skill. >> I'm sure >> data from ARGO floats, etc. will be going into the current >> forecasts, but >> that sub-surface ocean data does not exist for the past which I expect >> means past forecasts will have very little skill. So are past >> forecasts >> useful for evaluating the current forecast? The point is I'm not >> sure how >> useful current forecasts will be (beyond academic) if we have no >> way of >> evaluating them. >> >> My 2p, >> DA >> >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> >>> Well, I tried to suggest the SST forcing experiments but got very >>> little enthusiasm. Many were interested in only talking about and >>> synchronizing the coupled carbon cycle scenarios, and so having >>> anything systematically done and stored targeted to shorter >>> timescales >>> sounded better than just letting each group do whatever they wnt and >>> wind up with no comparability at all and no data available outside >>> the >>> respectitve modelling groups >>> I am hoping (but couldnt get anybody to be willing to discuss >>> details) >>> taht 20th century runs will be collected also from the models used to >>> 2100. >>> >>> We could try two things: Add that we need the runs from 1960 >>> starttime >>> also with ghg only also rather than complete forcing (I admit I >>> assumed that but its nowhere said directly - I just missed that), or >>> add a caution/pull out... >>> >>> Gabi >>> >>> Quoting Myles Allen : >>> >>>> Hi Gabi, >>>> >>>> I know this is what the modelers want to do, but I'm still not clear >>>> what relevance these experiments have either for attribution or for >>>> predicting trends in extremes. The ensembles are too small, the >>>> resolution is too low and there is no provision for systematically >>>> removing the impact of different forcings (apart from a nod towards >>>> GHGs, but it is unclear to me how uncertainty in current >>>> attributable >>>> warming is to be dealt with, particularly in the runs initialized >>>> from >>>> observations). >>>> >>>> I totally appreciate the community interest in the design you >>>> describe, >>>> and I don't blame you in the slightest. There is a lot of inertia >>>> here. >>>> But if we want to attribute current risks or predict trends in >>>> risk over >>>> the next couple of decades, then the best design still looks to >>>> me like >>>> large ensemble time-slice experiments with SSTs either prescribed or >>>> relaxed with a time-constant of only a few weeks. This way you >>>> get the >>>> signal-to-noise up, you benchmark against a good simulation of the >>>> present day and you can run high enough resolution and large enough >>>> ensembles actually to simulate the events people care about. What >>>> can >>>> they say about 100-year return-time events with 10-member ensembles? >>>> >>>> Wouldn't the best strategy just to say straight out that, while we >>>> support these runs being done, they aren't particularly >>>> interesting for >>>> attribution and certainly not for attribution of changes in >>>> extremes, >>>> nor for the very closely related problem of near-term prediction of >>>> trends in extremes. For that we need a different set of >>>> experiments. If >>>> people care about understanding and predicting changes in >>>> extremes, they >>>> can allocate time accordingly. My concern is that if we let >>>> people think >>>> of these runs (which will be very expensive) as "the attribution >>>> experiments", they will (a) expect us to generate results from >>>> them and >>>> (b) object to us asking for other experiments. >>>> >>>> Myles >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk] >>>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:09 PM >>>> To: JKenyon >>>> Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; >>>> David >>>> Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; >>>> Claudia >>>> Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; >>>> Michael >>>> Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Amthor, >>>> Jeff; >>>> Chris Miller >>>> Subject: near term climate change >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th >>>> century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally >>>> among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there >>>> seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced >>>> predictions. I >>>> think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on >>>> various >>>> techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm >>>> Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed >>>> edits by >>>> >>>> me but those are still subject to Tims ok) >>>> - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial >>>> value trail >>>> >>>> for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities >>>> able >>>> to do some form of prediction. >>>> Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the >>>> Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so >>>> having >>>> >>>> a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good >>>> >>>> Gabi >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr Gabriele Hegerl >>>> School of GeoSciences >>>> The University of Edinburgh >>>> Grant Institute, The King's Buildings >>>> West Mains Road >>>> EDINBURGH EH9 3JW >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 >>>> Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gabriele Hegerl >>> School of GeoSciences >>> University of Edinburgh >>> IN TRANSIT FROM DUKE, BOTH EMAILS WORK. Physically in Edinburgh >>> Aug 10 >>> >>> -- >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> =-=-=- >> AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. >> Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. >> MAIL: Dith Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of >> Oxford, >> Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United >> Kingdom >> TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923 >> E-MAIL: stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk >> WEBPAGE: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/stoned/ >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> =-=-=- >> > > 1212. 2007-09-17 10:07:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 17 10:07:46 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Subject: RE: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:34:11 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers thread-index: AcZ9XVnGmRo/mcXeQ+an5Be9wUab+V49zQeQ From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Cc: "Eystein Jansen" , , "Keith Briffa" Hello Peck, Eystein, Tim, Keith: Please find attached the e-versions of the WA and AW papers re: the "hockey-stick". These are now available as "to-come-in-print" articles from Climatic Change. I believe the WA one was just loaded yesterday. As I understand it, official "print" publication will be this November. These versions HAVE gone through the author proof process, and thus I anticipate no possibility of them being further changed before print publication. Note brief correspondence yesterday with Phil Jones re: proof-level changes that were made to WA (copied below). Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Division of Environmental Studies and Geology Alfred University One Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 607.871.2604 ************************************************************************ ******* From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:44 PM To: 'Phil Jones'; Caspar Ammann Subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann Hi Phil: There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other very minor grammatical/structural things. I tried to keep all of this to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference structure. I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a good job of contextualizing the whole matter. Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite welcome. Peace, Gene -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann Subject: Wahl/Ammann Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. Cheers Phil 3665. 2007-09-17 11:35:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: Myles Allen , JKenyon , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Tim Barnett , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , , Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , Francis Zwiers , , "Amthor, Jeff" , Chris Miller date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:35:35 +0100 (BST) from: Dith Stone subject: RE: near term climate change to: Gabi Hegerl Gabi and co., In my view there is little more than academic interest in doing high resolution initial condition runs for the next couple of decades unless they include volcanic aerosols. The big volcanic eruptions appear (in models at least) to be quite influential. The initial condition ensemble *may* (as you say in the attachment) have a more precise prediction than what has been produced so far, but this will be misleading because a potentially big factor is being included. When there is ~50% chance of a big eruption in the next couple of decades, saying "we didn't know when exactly" is a lame excuse if you are going to all the trouble of including initial conditions. >From the attribution point of view, these initial condition ensembles will be pretty useless I think in the form that they will be done. What we would need is a series of historical initial condition forecasts, like they have for seasonal forecasts, to determine drifts and skill. I'm sure data from ARGO floats, etc. will be going into the current forecasts, but that sub-surface ocean data does not exist for the past which I expect means past forecasts will have very little skill. So are past forecasts useful for evaluating the current forecast? The point is I'm not sure how useful current forecasts will be (beyond academic) if we have no way of evaluating them. My 2p, DA On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Well, I tried to suggest the SST forcing experiments but got very > little enthusiasm. Many were interested in only talking about and > synchronizing the coupled carbon cycle scenarios, and so having > anything systematically done and stored targeted to shorter timescales > sounded better than just letting each group do whatever they wnt and > wind up with no comparability at all and no data available outside the > respectitve modelling groups > I am hoping (but couldnt get anybody to be willing to discuss details) > taht 20th century runs will be collected also from the models used to > 2100. > > We could try two things: Add that we need the runs from 1960 starttime > also with ghg only also rather than complete forcing (I admit I > assumed that but its nowhere said directly - I just missed that), or > add a caution/pull out... > > Gabi > > Quoting Myles Allen : > > > Hi Gabi, > > > > I know this is what the modelers want to do, but I'm still not clear > > what relevance these experiments have either for attribution or for > > predicting trends in extremes. The ensembles are too small, the > > resolution is too low and there is no provision for systematically > > removing the impact of different forcings (apart from a nod towards > > GHGs, but it is unclear to me how uncertainty in current attributable > > warming is to be dealt with, particularly in the runs initialized from > > observations). > > > > I totally appreciate the community interest in the design you describe, > > and I don't blame you in the slightest. There is a lot of inertia here. > > But if we want to attribute current risks or predict trends in risk over > > the next couple of decades, then the best design still looks to me like > > large ensemble time-slice experiments with SSTs either prescribed or > > relaxed with a time-constant of only a few weeks. This way you get the > > signal-to-noise up, you benchmark against a good simulation of the > > present day and you can run high enough resolution and large enough > > ensembles actually to simulate the events people care about. What can > > they say about 100-year return-time events with 10-member ensembles? > > > > Wouldn't the best strategy just to say straight out that, while we > > support these runs being done, they aren't particularly interesting for > > attribution and certainly not for attribution of changes in extremes, > > nor for the very closely related problem of near-term prediction of > > trends in extremes. For that we need a different set of experiments. If > > people care about understanding and predicting changes in extremes, they > > can allocate time accordingly. My concern is that if we let people think > > of these runs (which will be very expensive) as "the attribution > > experiments", they will (a) expect us to generate results from them and > > (b) object to us asking for other experiments. > > > > Myles > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk] > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:09 PM > > To: JKenyon > > Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; David > > Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia > > Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael > > Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Amthor, Jeff; > > Chris Miller > > Subject: near term climate change > > > > Hi all, > > > > I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th > > century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally > > among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there > > seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced predictions. I > > think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on various > > techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm > > Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed edits by > > > > me but those are still subject to Tims ok) > > - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial value trail > > > > for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities able > > to do some form of prediction. > > Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the > > Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so having > > > > a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good > > > > Gabi > > > > -- > > Dr Gabriele Hegerl > > School of GeoSciences > > The University of Edinburgh > > Grant Institute, The King's Buildings > > West Mains Road > > EDINBURGH EH9 3JW > > Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 > > Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gabriele Hegerl > School of GeoSciences > University of Edinburgh > IN TRANSIT FROM DUKE, BOTH EMAILS WORK. Physically in Edinburgh Aug 10 > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. MAIL: Dith Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923 E-MAIL: stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk WEBPAGE: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/stoned/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 1863. 2007-09-17 14:29:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Myles Allen , JKenyon , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Tim Barnett , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , knutti@ucar.edu, Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , Francis Zwiers , hvonstorch@web.de, "Amthor, Jeff" , Chris Miller date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:29:03 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: near term climate change to: Dith Stone Hi Myles, Daithi et al., Well the program calls exactly for these historic initial condition runs, starting 1960, 1980 etc - so they are planning to take a critical look at the way the model performs, and my understanding is that this call for runs is suggesting to groups to decide (over the near future) if their best bet for good nearterm predictions is using ICs or using BCs, and they are all called to do both if at all possible. I think having the runs available to our community would allow us to assess if they predict the right change in 'moderate extremes' (I know weird term, things like exceedance of 90th etc) - I agree with Myles hopes are small that we can get decent statistics of the rare extremes, and even smaller that we can diagnose their changes. I agree about the volcanoes, and thats what the proposal is still a bit murky about - we need to worry about it some, and doing at least some testruns repeating the 60-90s volcanism into the future might be very useful (as a high case). I am less pessimistic about the usefulness of these runs, but maybe I am being naive? Myles' suggestion is still a great one, but I think if we can get only a few modelling centres to do something like that (without the WGCM seal since that would be real hard to come by) then they would be wonderful to compare aginst this set of runs. I just couldnt get the modellers at all excited about this....(Myles, but you are more than welcome to try talk JOhn Mitchell into this - if you win over JOhn you've won it but I would bet that there is no hope) Gabi Dith Stone wrote: > Gabi and co., > > In my view there is little more than academic interest in doing high > resolution initial condition runs for the next couple of decades unless > they include volcanic aerosols. The big volcanic eruptions appear (in > models at least) to be quite influential. The initial condition ensemble > *may* (as you say in the attachment) have a more precise prediction than > what has been produced so far, but this will be misleading because a > potentially big factor is being included. When there is ~50% chance of a > big eruption in the next couple of decades, saying "we didn't know when > exactly" is a lame excuse if you are going to all the trouble of including > initial conditions. > > From the attribution point of view, these initial condition ensembles will > be pretty useless I think in the form that they will be done. What we > would need is a series of historical initial condition forecasts, like > they have for seasonal forecasts, to determine drifts and skill. I'm sure > data from ARGO floats, etc. will be going into the current forecasts, but > that sub-surface ocean data does not exist for the past which I expect > means past forecasts will have very little skill. So are past forecasts > useful for evaluating the current forecast? The point is I'm not sure how > useful current forecasts will be (beyond academic) if we have no way of > evaluating them. > > My 2p, > DA > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > > >> Well, I tried to suggest the SST forcing experiments but got very >> little enthusiasm. Many were interested in only talking about and >> synchronizing the coupled carbon cycle scenarios, and so having >> anything systematically done and stored targeted to shorter timescales >> sounded better than just letting each group do whatever they wnt and >> wind up with no comparability at all and no data available outside the >> respectitve modelling groups >> I am hoping (but couldnt get anybody to be willing to discuss details) >> taht 20th century runs will be collected also from the models used to >> 2100. >> >> We could try two things: Add that we need the runs from 1960 starttime >> also with ghg only also rather than complete forcing (I admit I >> assumed that but its nowhere said directly - I just missed that), or >> add a caution/pull out... >> >> Gabi >> >> Quoting Myles Allen : >> >> >>> Hi Gabi, >>> >>> I know this is what the modelers want to do, but I'm still not clear >>> what relevance these experiments have either for attribution or for >>> predicting trends in extremes. The ensembles are too small, the >>> resolution is too low and there is no provision for systematically >>> removing the impact of different forcings (apart from a nod towards >>> GHGs, but it is unclear to me how uncertainty in current attributable >>> warming is to be dealt with, particularly in the runs initialized from >>> observations). >>> >>> I totally appreciate the community interest in the design you describe, >>> and I don't blame you in the slightest. There is a lot of inertia here. >>> But if we want to attribute current risks or predict trends in risk over >>> the next couple of decades, then the best design still looks to me like >>> large ensemble time-slice experiments with SSTs either prescribed or >>> relaxed with a time-constant of only a few weeks. This way you get the >>> signal-to-noise up, you benchmark against a good simulation of the >>> present day and you can run high enough resolution and large enough >>> ensembles actually to simulate the events people care about. What can >>> they say about 100-year return-time events with 10-member ensembles? >>> >>> Wouldn't the best strategy just to say straight out that, while we >>> support these runs being done, they aren't particularly interesting for >>> attribution and certainly not for attribution of changes in extremes, >>> nor for the very closely related problem of near-term prediction of >>> trends in extremes. For that we need a different set of experiments. If >>> people care about understanding and predicting changes in extremes, they >>> can allocate time accordingly. My concern is that if we let people think >>> of these runs (which will be very expensive) as "the attribution >>> experiments", they will (a) expect us to generate results from them and >>> (b) object to us asking for other experiments. >>> >>> Myles >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk] >>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:09 PM >>> To: JKenyon >>> Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; David >>> Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia >>> Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael >>> Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Amthor, Jeff; >>> Chris Miller >>> Subject: near term climate change >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th >>> century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally >>> among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there >>> seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced predictions. I >>> think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on various >>> techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm >>> Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed edits by >>> >>> me but those are still subject to Tims ok) >>> - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial value trail >>> >>> for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities able >>> to do some form of prediction. >>> Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the >>> Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so having >>> >>> a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good >>> >>> Gabi >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Gabriele Hegerl >>> School of GeoSciences >>> The University of Edinburgh >>> Grant Institute, The King's Buildings >>> West Mains Road >>> EDINBURGH EH9 3JW >>> Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 >>> Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Gabriele Hegerl >> School of GeoSciences >> University of Edinburgh >> IN TRANSIT FROM DUKE, BOTH EMAILS WORK. Physically in Edinburgh Aug 10 >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. > MAIL: Dith Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, > Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom > TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923 > E-MAIL: stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk > WEBPAGE: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/stoned/ > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > -- Dr Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences The University of Edinburgh Grant Institute, The King's Buildings West Mains Road EDINBURGH EH9 3JW Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk 3942. 2007-09-17 15:05:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:05:07 +0100 from: "Quaternary Science Reviews" subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision to: Ref: JQSR-D-07-00060 Title: Imprints of Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe Article Type: Research and Review Paper Dear Prof Keith R Briffa, Thank you once again for reviewing the above-referenced paper. With your help the following final decision has now been reached: Reject We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this paper and greatly value your assistance as a reviewer for Quaternary Science Reviews. If you have not yet activated or completed your 30 days of access to Scopus, you can still access Scopus via this link: http://scopees.elsevier.com/ees_login.asp?journalacronym=JQSR&username=KBriffa-255 You can use your EES password to access Scopus via the URL above. You can save your 30 days access period, but access will expire 6 months after you accepted to review. Yours sincerely, Neil Roberts Editor Quaternary Science Reviews 1226. 2007-09-17 16:48:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dith Stone , Myles Allen , JKenyon , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Tim Barnett , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , knutti@ucar.edu, Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , Francis Zwiers , hvonstorch@web.de, "Amthor, Jeff" , Chris Miller date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:48:10 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: near term climate change to: Gabi Hegerl Hi Gabi, I think it would be good somewhere to get on the table the importance of bcs and tcr, although maybe this is already there. The sweet spot paper of Cox and Stephenson seems to have got everybody's attention to the idea that initial condition uncertainty dominates over the 30yr timescale of these runs, whereas the conclusion of our 2000 paper as nicely summarised in Myles's University of Pennsylvania Law Review article (see www.penumbra.com/issues) was that external forcings control multi- decadal scale temperatures on large scales for temperature - it would be interesting to see somewhere a more detailed analysis of how the sweet point breaks down and by scale although we could do more on this on the existing database. If we go for advocating SST forced timeslice experiments, I think we need to systematically explore sensitivity of results to the attributable SST component, which implies we need to expand our attributable SST database from the 4 we currently have (AR4 Fig 9.9). Probably because I've not been paying enough attention, I'm not clear where AR5 is going with systematically exploring modelling uncertainty, as opposed to concentrating on initial condition uncertainty and carbon cycle inversion uncertainty. The issue of interpretation of how the initialisation error evolves in time that Doug points out was also identified at an internal Hadley Centre discussion as being a critical point. Peter On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 14:29 +0100, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi Myles, Daithi et al., > > Well the program calls exactly for these historic initial condition > runs, starting 1960, 1980 etc - > so they are planning to take a critical look at the way the model > performs, and my understanding is that this call for runs is suggesting > to groups to decide (over the near future) if their best bet for good > nearterm predictions is using ICs or using BCs, and they are all called > to do both if at all possible. > I think having the runs available to our community would allow us to > assess if they predict the right > change in 'moderate extremes' (I know weird term, things like exceedance > of 90th etc) - I agree with Myles hopes are small that we can get decent > statistics of the rare extremes, and even smaller that we can diagnose > their changes. > > I agree about the volcanoes, and thats what the proposal is still a bit > murky about - we need to worry about it some, and doing at least some > testruns repeating the 60-90s volcanism into the future might be very > useful (as a high case). > > I am less pessimistic about the usefulness of these runs, but maybe I am > being naive? Myles' suggestion is still a great one, but I think if we > can get only a few modelling centres to do something like that (without > the WGCM seal since that would be real hard to come by) then they would > be wonderful to compare aginst this set of runs. I just couldnt get the > modellers at all excited about this....(Myles, but you are more > than welcome to try talk JOhn Mitchell into this - if you win over JOhn > you've won it but I would bet that there is no hope) > > Gabi > > > > Dith Stone wrote: > > Gabi and co., > > > > In my view there is little more than academic interest in doing high > > resolution initial condition runs for the next couple of decades unless > > they include volcanic aerosols. The big volcanic eruptions appear (in > > models at least) to be quite influential. The initial condition ensemble > > *may* (as you say in the attachment) have a more precise prediction than > > what has been produced so far, but this will be misleading because a > > potentially big factor is being included. When there is ~50% chance of a > > big eruption in the next couple of decades, saying "we didn't know when > > exactly" is a lame excuse if you are going to all the trouble of including > > initial conditions. > > > > From the attribution point of view, these initial condition ensembles will > > be pretty useless I think in the form that they will be done. What we > > would need is a series of historical initial condition forecasts, like > > they have for seasonal forecasts, to determine drifts and skill. I'm sure > > data from ARGO floats, etc. will be going into the current forecasts, but > > that sub-surface ocean data does not exist for the past which I expect > > means past forecasts will have very little skill. So are past forecasts > > useful for evaluating the current forecast? The point is I'm not sure how > > useful current forecasts will be (beyond academic) if we have no way of > > evaluating them. > > > > My 2p, > > DA > > > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > > > > > >> Well, I tried to suggest the SST forcing experiments but got very > >> little enthusiasm. Many were interested in only talking about and > >> synchronizing the coupled carbon cycle scenarios, and so having > >> anything systematically done and stored targeted to shorter timescales > >> sounded better than just letting each group do whatever they wnt and > >> wind up with no comparability at all and no data available outside the > >> respectitve modelling groups > >> I am hoping (but couldnt get anybody to be willing to discuss details) > >> taht 20th century runs will be collected also from the models used to > >> 2100. > >> > >> We could try two things: Add that we need the runs from 1960 starttime > >> also with ghg only also rather than complete forcing (I admit I > >> assumed that but its nowhere said directly - I just missed that), or > >> add a caution/pull out... > >> > >> Gabi > >> > >> Quoting Myles Allen : > >> > >> > >>> Hi Gabi, > >>> > >>> I know this is what the modelers want to do, but I'm still not clear > >>> what relevance these experiments have either for attribution or for > >>> predicting trends in extremes. The ensembles are too small, the > >>> resolution is too low and there is no provision for systematically > >>> removing the impact of different forcings (apart from a nod towards > >>> GHGs, but it is unclear to me how uncertainty in current attributable > >>> warming is to be dealt with, particularly in the runs initialized from > >>> observations). > >>> > >>> I totally appreciate the community interest in the design you describe, > >>> and I don't blame you in the slightest. There is a lot of inertia here. > >>> But if we want to attribute current risks or predict trends in risk over > >>> the next couple of decades, then the best design still looks to me like > >>> large ensemble time-slice experiments with SSTs either prescribed or > >>> relaxed with a time-constant of only a few weeks. This way you get the > >>> signal-to-noise up, you benchmark against a good simulation of the > >>> present day and you can run high enough resolution and large enough > >>> ensembles actually to simulate the events people care about. What can > >>> they say about 100-year return-time events with 10-member ensembles? > >>> > >>> Wouldn't the best strategy just to say straight out that, while we > >>> support these runs being done, they aren't particularly interesting for > >>> attribution and certainly not for attribution of changes in extremes, > >>> nor for the very closely related problem of near-term prediction of > >>> trends in extremes. For that we need a different set of experiments. If > >>> people care about understanding and predicting changes in extremes, they > >>> can allocate time accordingly. My concern is that if we let people think > >>> of these runs (which will be very expensive) as "the attribution > >>> experiments", they will (a) expect us to generate results from them and > >>> (b) object to us asking for other experiments. > >>> > >>> Myles > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk] > >>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:09 PM > >>> To: JKenyon > >>> Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; David > >>> Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia > >>> Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael > >>> Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Amthor, Jeff; > >>> Chris Miller > >>> Subject: near term climate change > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th > >>> century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally > >>> among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there > >>> seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced predictions. I > >>> think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on various > >>> techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm > >>> Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed edits by > >>> > >>> me but those are still subject to Tims ok) > >>> - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial value trail > >>> > >>> for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities able > >>> to do some form of prediction. > >>> Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the > >>> Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so having > >>> > >>> a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good > >>> > >>> Gabi > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr Gabriele Hegerl > >>> School of GeoSciences > >>> The University of Edinburgh > >>> Grant Institute, The King's Buildings > >>> West Mains Road > >>> EDINBURGH EH9 3JW > >>> Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 > >>> Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Gabriele Hegerl > >> School of GeoSciences > >> University of Edinburgh > >> IN TRANSIT FROM DUKE, BOTH EMAILS WORK. Physically in Edinburgh Aug 10 > >> > >> -- > >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. > > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. > > MAIL: Dith Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, > > Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom > > TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923 > > E-MAIL: stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk > > WEBPAGE: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/stoned/ > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > > > > > > 987. 2007-09-17 21:12:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dith Stone , Myles Allen , JKenyon , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Tim Barnett , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , knutti@ucar.edu, Tom Knutson , Toru Nozawa , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Michael Wehner , Xuebin Zhang , Francis Zwiers , hvonstorch@web.de, "Amthor, Jeff" , Chris Miller date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:12:34 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: near term climate change to: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk Thanks everybody for all your interest in this! Some of what Peter says are the reasons I thought that collecting these runs and synchronizing them (the ones with BC only forcing and the ones with IC forcingts) would be a good thing, to evaluate which techniques provides what results, if the IC runs drift, so I am worried about Doug's and Tims concern (would be indicated by IC and BC runs splitting) and what the model uncertainty does. I personally thought that the next AR or whatever happens next will be very important to be able to discuss near term change extensively, and allow comparison of techniques and rsults and a full discussion of who gets what and why. Having synchronized results and collected data rather than just the publications would make that SO much easier..... Thats why I wanted to do this. But I am getting worried that if you guys are so unhappy with the proposal (not IC predictions per so, the proposal tried to accommodate multiple techniques - right??) I am no longer sure what to do... Gabi Quoting peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk: > Hi Gabi, > > I think it would be good somewhere to get on the table the importance of > bcs and tcr, although maybe this is already there. The sweet spot paper > of Cox and Stephenson seems to have got everybody's attention to the > idea that initial condition uncertainty dominates over the 30yr > timescale of these runs, whereas the conclusion of our 2000 paper as > nicely summarised in > Myles's University of Pennsylvania Law Review article (see > www.penumbra.com/issues) was that external forcings control multi- > decadal scale temperatures on large scales for temperature - it would be > interesting to see somewhere a more detailed analysis of how the sweet > point breaks down and by scale although we could do more on this on the > existing database. > If we go for advocating SST forced timeslice experiments, I think we > need to systematically explore sensitivity of results to the > attributable SST component, which implies we need to expand our > attributable SST database from the 4 we currently have (AR4 Fig 9.9). > Probably because I've not been paying enough attention, I'm not clear > where AR5 is going with systematically exploring modelling uncertainty, > as opposed to concentrating on initial condition uncertainty and carbon > cycle inversion uncertainty. The issue of interpretation of how the > initialisation error evolves in time that Doug points out was also > identified at an internal Hadley Centre discussion as being a critical > point. > > Peter > > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 14:29 +0100, Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> Hi Myles, Daithi et al., >> >> Well the program calls exactly for these historic initial condition >> runs, starting 1960, 1980 etc - >> so they are planning to take a critical look at the way the model >> performs, and my understanding is that this call for runs is suggesting >> to groups to decide (over the near future) if their best bet for good >> nearterm predictions is using ICs or using BCs, and they are all called >> to do both if at all possible. >> I think having the runs available to our community would allow us to >> assess if they predict the right >> change in 'moderate extremes' (I know weird term, things like exceedance >> of 90th etc) - I agree with Myles hopes are small that we can get decent >> statistics of the rare extremes, and even smaller that we can diagnose >> their changes. >> >> I agree about the volcanoes, and thats what the proposal is still a bit >> murky about - we need to worry about it some, and doing at least some >> testruns repeating the 60-90s volcanism into the future might be very >> useful (as a high case). >> >> I am less pessimistic about the usefulness of these runs, but maybe I am >> being naive? Myles' suggestion is still a great one, but I think if we >> can get only a few modelling centres to do something like that (without >> the WGCM seal since that would be real hard to come by) then they would >> be wonderful to compare aginst this set of runs. I just couldnt get the >> modellers at all excited about this....(Myles, but you are more >> than welcome to try talk JOhn Mitchell into this - if you win over JOhn >> you've won it but I would bet that there is no hope) >> >> Gabi >> >> >> >> Dith Stone wrote: >> > Gabi and co., >> > >> > In my view there is little more than academic interest in doing high >> > resolution initial condition runs for the next couple of decades unless >> > they include volcanic aerosols. The big volcanic eruptions appear (in >> > models at least) to be quite influential. The initial condition ensemble >> > *may* (as you say in the attachment) have a more precise prediction than >> > what has been produced so far, but this will be misleading because a >> > potentially big factor is being included. When there is ~50% chance of a >> > big eruption in the next couple of decades, saying "we didn't know when >> > exactly" is a lame excuse if you are going to all the trouble of including >> > initial conditions. >> > >> > From the attribution point of view, these initial condition ensembles will >> > be pretty useless I think in the form that they will be done. What we >> > would need is a series of historical initial condition forecasts, like >> > they have for seasonal forecasts, to determine drifts and skill. I'm sure >> > data from ARGO floats, etc. will be going into the current forecasts, but >> > that sub-surface ocean data does not exist for the past which I expect >> > means past forecasts will have very little skill. So are past forecasts >> > useful for evaluating the current forecast? The point is I'm not sure how >> > useful current forecasts will be (beyond academic) if we have no way of >> > evaluating them. >> > >> > My 2p, >> > DA >> > >> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Well, I tried to suggest the SST forcing experiments but got very >> >> little enthusiasm. Many were interested in only talking about and >> >> synchronizing the coupled carbon cycle scenarios, and so having >> >> anything systematically done and stored targeted to shorter timescales >> >> sounded better than just letting each group do whatever they wnt and >> >> wind up with no comparability at all and no data available outside the >> >> respectitve modelling groups >> >> I am hoping (but couldnt get anybody to be willing to discuss details) >> >> taht 20th century runs will be collected also from the models used to >> >> 2100. >> >> >> >> We could try two things: Add that we need the runs from 1960 starttime >> >> also with ghg only also rather than complete forcing (I admit I >> >> assumed that but its nowhere said directly - I just missed that), or >> >> add a caution/pull out... >> >> >> >> Gabi >> >> >> >> Quoting Myles Allen : >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi Gabi, >> >>> >> >>> I know this is what the modelers want to do, but I'm still not clear >> >>> what relevance these experiments have either for attribution or for >> >>> predicting trends in extremes. The ensembles are too small, the >> >>> resolution is too low and there is no provision for systematically >> >>> removing the impact of different forcings (apart from a nod towards >> >>> GHGs, but it is unclear to me how uncertainty in current attributable >> >>> warming is to be dealt with, particularly in the runs initialized from >> >>> observations). >> >>> >> >>> I totally appreciate the community interest in the design you describe, >> >>> and I don't blame you in the slightest. There is a lot of inertia here. >> >>> But if we want to attribute current risks or predict trends in risk over >> >>> the next couple of decades, then the best design still looks to me like >> >>> large ensemble time-slice experiments with SSTs either prescribed or >> >>> relaxed with a time-constant of only a few weeks. This way you get the >> >>> signal-to-noise up, you benchmark against a good simulation of the >> >>> present day and you can run high enough resolution and large enough >> >>> ensembles actually to simulate the events people care about. What can >> >>> they say about 100-year return-time events with 10-member ensembles? >> >>> >> >>> Wouldn't the best strategy just to say straight out that, while we >> >>> support these runs being done, they aren't particularly interesting for >> >>> attribution and certainly not for attribution of changes in extremes, >> >>> nor for the very closely related problem of near-term prediction of >> >>> trends in extremes. For that we need a different set of experiments. If >> >>> people care about understanding and predicting changes in extremes, they >> >>> can allocate time accordingly. My concern is that if we let people think >> >>> of these runs (which will be very expensive) as "the attribution >> >>> experiments", they will (a) expect us to generate results from them and >> >>> (b) object to us asking for other experiments. >> >>> >> >>> Myles >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk] >> >>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:09 PM >> >>> To: JKenyon >> >>> Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli; Myles Allen; Tim Barnett; Nathan; Phil Jones; David >> >>> Karoly; knutti@ucar.edu; Tom Knutson; Toru Nozawa; Doug Nychka; Claudia >> >>> Tebaldi; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Daithi Stone; Stott, Peter; Michael >> >>> Wehner; Xuebin Zhang; Francis Zwiers; hvonstorch@web.de; Amthor, Jeff; >> >>> Chris Miller >> >>> Subject: near term climate change >> >>> >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> I was at the WGCM meeting last week, and the issue of saving 20th >> >>> century runs and high resolution runs was only discussed marginally >> >>> among the big worry about scenarios and carbon cycle. However, there >> >>> seems to be a lot of momentum to do initial value forced predictions. I >> >>> think it would be very good to get for AR5 predictions based on various >> >>> techniques including attributable ghg and initial values. So TIm >> >>> Stockdale and I hammered out this proposal (with some suggetsed edits by >> >>> >> >>> me but those are still subject to Tims ok) >> >>> - this may sound like its going down way to far the initial value trail >> >>> >> >>> for our interests, but it tries to serve all kinds of communities able >> >>> to do some form of prediction. >> >>> Comments welcome, Peter has a collegue going to a meeting in the >> >>> Netherlands next week where this issue will be more discussed, so having >> >>> >> >>> a view say this weekend or monday would be particularly good >> >>> >> >>> Gabi >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Dr Gabriele Hegerl >> >>> School of GeoSciences >> >>> The University of Edinburgh >> >>> Grant Institute, The King's Buildings >> >>> West Mains Road >> >>> EDINBURGH EH9 3JW >> >>> Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 >> >>> Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Gabriele Hegerl >> >> School of GeoSciences >> >> University of Edinburgh >> >> IN TRANSIT FROM DUKE, BOTH EMAILS WORK. Physically in Edinburgh Aug 10 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> > AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. >> > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. >> > MAIL: Dith Stone, AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, >> > Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom >> > TELEPHONE: 44-1865-272342 FACSIMILE: 44-1865-272923 >> > E-MAIL: stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk >> > WEBPAGE: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/stoned/ >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > -- Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences University of Edinburgh IN TRANSIT FROM DUKE, BOTH EMAILS WORK. Physically in Edinburgh Aug 10 -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 166. 2007-09-19 12:52:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:52:29 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: late review to: mark.new@ouce.ox.ac.uk Hi Mark, sorry for lateness, hope it is useful nevertheless. Submitted via online system, but copied here too: ---------- Review of Semenov, Latif and Jungclaus: "Is the observed NAO variability during the instrumental record unusual?" This paper compares the observed NAO variability with that simulated during a 1500-year simulations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Others have reported related comparisons in the past, finding that at least some recent periods are outside the likely range of internal variability (whether that range is estimated via empirical methods or numerical climate models) and typically concluding that there is probably a contribution from some (natural or anthropogenic or combined) external forcing in explaining recent observations. Here Semenov et al. obtain similar results, namely that the observations slightly exceed the range of internally-generated climate variability (perhaps the exceedance is less than from other studies/models), yet they interpret their results to mean that they "suggest that the observed NAO variability...including the recent increase can be explained solely by internal variability". I don't think criticism of their interpretation should preclude publication, even though I would interpret them differently. If the observations are outside the 95% range of variability, or, as here, outside the range of the full 1500-yr sample of variability, but are not far outside that range, then some would simply conclude that unusual (i.e. externally-forced) variability had been confidently detected, while others (such as Semenov et al.) might conclude that there may be very little role for external forcing because internal variability *might* explain almost all of the observed variations. Really, however, it might be better to take into account the likelihood that strong changes occurred purely by chance during a strongly-forced period of time. We might then conclude that internal variability might explain some, or even a very large part, but not likely all (unless our models are deficient), of the observed increase in the NAO from the 1960s to the 1990s, and that there is probably some contribution from external forcings, though this contribution might be only a small fraction of the changes. My recommendation, therefore, is that the manuscript should be published in GRL, but that it should first be modified to indicate that it isn't really in any disagreement with previous work -- if should be possible to do this, while still accommodating the authors' tendency to focus on the possibility that external forcing may have a limited role to play. Certainly, however, the statements that are inconsistent with the results should be removed, such as the final sentence of the abstract which was quoted above. The results are rather difficult to see in Figure 3b, but the accompanying text states that the observed trend exceeds the range of simulated trends (and anyway we never do statistical tests on the extremes of a range, given that they are more sensitive to sampling variability and if distributions are asymptoting towards infinity then they may not be bounded, but higher values have vanishingly smaller likelihood). Readers who are not familiar with all the work in this area should not go away with the false impression that the observations are "well within the model variability" when they actually exceed model variability. Specific comments: (1) abstract: "observed multi-decadal NAO variations are well within the model variability" and also final sentence are misleading since the observed 1960s-1990s trend is bigger than any 30-yr trend in the model. (2) abstract: "highly non-stationary behaviour" is wrong, the authors have not tested to see if the variations are bigger than expected by sampling variability, so cannot be said to be non-stationary. Even if autocorrelated, doesn't mean they are non-stationary: a stationary autoregressive process still exhibits centennial variability. Either remove, reword or do a test to prove it! (3) abstract: any conclusions regarding contribution of internal variability and external forcing should have the attached caveat or condition that they depend on this single model (other studies have used multiple models). (4) overall: I couldn't see anywhere a statement regarding the season being analysed. Surely it isn't annual-means? I expect winter-means, but it must make this clear (e.g. Dec-Jan-Feb, Dec-Jan-Feb-Mar)? Some studies use the latter 4-month season and perhaps the strong contribution of March trends in the NAO would increase the unusualness of the trend if the current work used only DJF? (5) Page 6-7: although no signficant differences in *local* SLP variability are found (via the F-test), the authors have chosen (top of page 7) to compare the observations version (from HadSLP) that have the lowest interannual variability (s.d. 5.6 hPa) with the model (s.d. 7.1 hPa) and this difference is statistically significant using the F-test. The authors should note this significant difference and consider whether it affects the results, or whether the observed and simulated NAO series are normalised using their own standard deviations and hence whether this significant over-estimation of interannual SLP gradient variability by the model affects the overall findings? (6) Page 7, lines 13-16: inconsistent to say that the observed trend slightly exceeds all trends simulated during 1500 years yet at the same to say it is "not unusual". Also this would be the ideal place to give quantitative values to (a) the strongest observed trend and (b) the maximum, the 99th and 95th percentiles of the simulated trend distribution. How far above the 95th percentile the observations lie will help to interpret it's unusualness! (7) Page 8, line 2: see comment (2) above regarding use of "non-stationary" without an appropriate statistical test. (8) Page 8, line 10-11: the authors seem to imply that because the "observed variability is rather similar to the simulated", the previous rejection of an internally-generated trend at the 95% confidence level should be rejected. Not so. But the authors can of course choose to focus on the fact that some, or even most, of the trend may be internally-generated. (9) Page 8, line 21-22: terminology seems strange here. Usually it is the null hypothesis that is rejected, yet surely the null hypothesis was not that the PDFs are different (as implied here), but that they were the same. Is there 85% confidence that the PDFs are not different, or *only* 85% confidence that they the PDFs are different? I don't believe the former is correct. ---------- 4276. 2007-09-19 15:25:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:25:12 -0400 from: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" subject: Wengen paper to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil I spent some time recently while travelling thinking about the Wengen paper. I was also at the CLIVAR SSG meeting in Geneva last week, and somehow was under the impression that you would be there, so I was hoping we would be able to talk about it. The difficulty I have is that I don't quite know where our work on the intercomparison of methods would fit into the paper, given that there is already quite a lot of material on the evaluation of techniques from Caspar and colleagues that comes at this from a different angle. Their conclusion seems to be that the specific MBH reconstruction is fine. On the other hand, our conclusion, and that of others I think, is that the technique itself is not so fine - it does lose variability relative to other techniques in repeated testing when evaluated in a model environment. How do we deal with the apparent incongruity between (a) a method with problems, (b) analyses that suggest that nevertheless, the particular reconstruction in question seems to be ok, and (c) evidence that indicates that there are substantial differences between the available reconstructions, with many other reconstructions suggesting a more variable past than indicated by the MBH reconstruction. So I'm just not sure where our material (perhaps a couple of pages) would fit in. The section that we might have contributed (3.3) seems to have been occupied. Cheers, Francis PS - Thorstein was at the CLIVAR meeting, and I spoke to him indicating that I hadn't forgotten about the paper, but that I was a bit confused about what my contribution might be. At least he understands that I haven't forgotten about this. PPS - We submitted our paper to Climate Dynamics on July 3, but still haven't received a decision despite the fact that three people have told me that they are reviewers of the paper - sigh. Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 1963. 2007-09-19 16:59:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:44 -0700 (PDT) from: Rean Guoyoo subject: Re: thank you to: Phil Jones The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang. Regards, Guoyu Dear Phil, Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change. In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change. We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center. I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor. Best regards, Guoyu NCC, Beijing ______________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today! 4371. 2007-09-21 13:38:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Sep 21 13:38:42 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Question about module M593 The Science of Climate Change to: Alice.E.Mitchell@uea.ac.uk Alice It is not (this year) a formal requirement to do M535 , prior to taking M594. However, it is STRONGLY advised (by Mike Hulme who convenes the latter). In future years it is likely to become a formal rpre-requisit but it was not officially listed as such. M535 coves the basics of the evidence for the reality of Global Warming (with the anthropogenic cause implied here). There are lectures on the past , current and future climate, and on the evidence for forcings , the tools used to estimate and the uncertainty associated with , future climate . Much of this is assumed before M594 then procedes to focus on the issues of perception, adaption and climate change mitigation. If you feel strongly that the latter is what you want , it is possible to read and catch up on much of the basic work in M535 yourself. Your background will help this - but is unlikely to be up to date with the focus on the variability of climate on the last 1000 years and the latest IPCC results. These of course can be gleaned from the IPCC publications (Working Group 1). When you refer to M593 , I assume you mean M535. I hope the above helps Keith At 10:40 21/09/2007, you wrote: Dear Prof. Briffa, I am a new MSc Environmental Science student and was wondering if you could advise me about the course M535 The Science of Climate Change. My course director (Dr Carlos Peres) advised me that I needed to take this course in order to do the subsequent course M594 Climate Change: Impacts and Policy. Dr Peres told me that you would be the person to ask any questions about the M593 course. I have taken an 4th year undergraduate course at the University of Alberta, Canada called Global Change taught by Prof Alexander Wolfe. This course covered anthropogenic climate change, glaciation and interglaciation cycles, Milankovitch cycles, Snowball Earth, the Ozone layer, Acid Rain and Banded Iron Formations amongst other things. I was wondering if this course is similar to M593 offered here and if there would be a lot of repitition. In which case would I be able to do the M594 Climate Change: Impacts and Policy without doing the course M593 before hand? Thank you for your help, Alice Mitchell 1310. 2007-09-21 21:01:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa, env (School of Environmental Sciences) " date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:01:21 +0200 from: Bo Vinther subject: HadCM3 SO2 forcing... to: t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Dear Thomas Just wanted to mail you this paper I found concerning the forcings applied specifically to HadCM3 model projections. The sulphate-aerosol burden is seen in figure 5 - and is clearly completely out of touch with reality after 1975 (wrong trend even)....so there should be ample room for improvement :-) Have a nice weekend.... Cheers.......Bo Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\HadCM3_projections.pdf" 44. 2007-09-25 11:16:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= subject: Re:Re: thank you to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you. From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations. I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren's. But I think different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale and in China. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "Rean Guoyoo" < guoyoo@yahoo.com > Cc: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net >, < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800 Subject: Re: thank you Dear Guoyu, I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week, but here this week. I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am quite busy the next few weeks. Best Regards Phil At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote: The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang. Regards, Guoyu Dear Phil, Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change. In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change. We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center. I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor. Best regards, Guoyu NCC, Beijing Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today! Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263ʣרҵ======================= Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\To Jones.rar" 763. 2007-09-25 14:03:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders Moberg , Martin Juckes , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:03:03 +0000 from: Nanne Weber subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Manuscript will be published (M38) to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith and others, To me it seems that the lesson is more not to write a paper about the hockeystick - this subject is completely politicised and there is nothing but antagonism on all sides. See also the mail by Tim. My other experiences with Climate of the Past are all positive, good reviews, fast review process, etc. Most journals seem to make a mess of it as soon as 'hockeystick' is involved. Best, Nanne Keith Briffa wrote: >> ditto Ander's remark - but it is a lesson to me at least not to >> submit here again! > > At 13:44 24/09/2007, Anders Moberg wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> That's good news! Thanks for all your efforts. >> >> cheers, >> Anders >> >> >> Martin Juckes wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > Our paper has been accepted at last! Thanks for all your >> contributions and >> > patience. Hughes Goosse has added the final editorial comment to >> the CPD we >> > site, saying that our outstanding differences with the reviewer >> (i.e. Gerd >> > Burger) are reasonable and expressed in a balanced way: >> > http://www.cosis.net/link.php?ts=jeav&ms_id=5220&uid=38478 >> > >> > There was, long ago, discussion of a press release -- does anyone >> think this >> > is a good idea now? >> > >> > cheers, >> > Martin >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >> > >> > Subject: cp-2006-0049 - Manuscript will be published (M38) >> > Date: Friday 21 September 2007 12:22 >> > From: publishing@cosis.net >> > To: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk >> > >> > Dear Dr. Martin Juckes, >> > >> > We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript cp-2006-0049 is >> acceptable >> > as it is for publication. >> > >> > You will receive further information directly from the Production >> Office. >> > >> > For this manuscript please use your COSIS-ID: 38478 >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Natascha Otto >> > Copernicus Editorial Office >> > http://www.climate-of-the-past.net >> > >> > PS: If you have any questions/suggestions please contact me >> directly at >> > editorial@copernicus.org. >> > >> > Please do not directly reply to the sender of this automated message. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >> -- >> > 3496. 2007-09-25 15:16:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:16:02 +0000 from: Nanne Weber subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Manuscript will be published (M38) to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, and something completely different: would it be possible to send me this letter of recommendation for the doctorate honoris causa for Buisman? I send Tim a draft some time ago, but did not hear from him since then. I did make some progress within the university hierarchy and am now in the stage where I have to compile a folder with such letters, CV etc. I can send more information if you need it. Thanks, Nanne PS the replacement for Gerard has started and is making good progress on the model runs, but has to fix her working permit now so there is always trouble somewhere Keith Briffa wrote: > points taken..... > > At 15:03 25/09/2007, Nanne Weber wrote: >> Hi Keith and others, >> >> To me it seems that the lesson is more not to write a paper about the >> hockeystick - this subject is >> completely politicised and there is nothing but antagonism on all >> sides. See also the mail >> by Tim. >> My other experiences with Climate of the Past are all positive, good >> reviews, fast review process, etc. >> Most journals seem to make a mess of it as soon as 'hockeystick' is >> involved. >> Best, >> Nanne >> >> >> Keith Briffa wrote: >>>> ditto Ander's remark - but it is a lesson to me at least not to >>>> submit here again! >>> >>> At 13:44 24/09/2007, Anders Moberg wrote: >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> That's good news! Thanks for all your efforts. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Anders >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin Juckes wrote: >>>> > Hello, >>>> > >>>> > Our paper has been accepted at last! Thanks for all your >>>> contributions and >>>> > patience. Hughes Goosse has added the final editorial comment to >>>> the CPD we >>>> > site, saying that our outstanding differences with the reviewer >>>> (i.e. Gerd >>>> > Burger) are reasonable and expressed in a balanced way: >>>> > http://www.cosis.net/link.php?ts=jeav&ms_id=5220&uid=38478 >>>> > >>>> > There was, long ago, discussion of a press release -- does anyone >>>> think this >>>> > is a good idea now? >>>> > >>>> > cheers, >>>> > Martin >>>> > >>>> > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >>>> > >>>> > Subject: cp-2006-0049 - Manuscript will be published (M38) >>>> > Date: Friday 21 September 2007 12:22 >>>> > From: publishing@cosis.net >>>> > To: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk >>>> > >>>> > Dear Dr. Martin Juckes, >>>> > >>>> > We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript cp-2006-0049 is >>>> acceptable >>>> > as it is for publication. >>>> > >>>> > You will receive further information directly from the Production >>>> Office. >>>> > >>>> > For this manuscript please use your COSIS-ID: 38478 >>>> > >>>> > Kind regards, >>>> > Natascha Otto >>>> > Copernicus Editorial Office >>>> > http://www.climate-of-the-past.net >>>> > >>>> > PS: If you have any questions/suggestions please contact me >>>> directly at >>>> > editorial@copernicus.org. >>>> > >>>> > Please do not directly reply to the sender of this automated >>>> message. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4062. 2007-09-25 22:23:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Melvin , Matti.Eronen@helsinki.fi, Kurt Nicolussi , hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se, Bjorn.Gunnarson@natgeo.su.se, mukhtar@forest.akadem.ru, rashit@ipae.uran.ru, Keith , Phil Jones , "Henrik B. Clausen" , Lars Berg Larsen , cuh@gfy.ku.dk, Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:23:45 +0200 from: Claus Hammer subject: Re: AD 536 paper - Not accepted. to: Bo Vinther Dear Bo This a typical answer from a Journal like Science (or Nature) .My experience tells me, that had the first author been american you might have got it published in Science.I am not sure, that Nature will accept the paper, because they are very focused on items, which are more general, than our paper. My advice is , that you should prepare the paper for GRL instead of using the effort on a Nature paper.Whatever you do , I do of course hope, that the paper will soon be published. Sincerely Claus Hammer > Dear All > > Our paper on the 536-event has unfortunately not been accepted for > publication in Science..... > The decision was already made two months ago - but for some reason I > did not receive the decision letter e-mail from Science. > Today I lost patience and asked for an update on the paper - and hence > got the bad news. > > I have just had a chat with Keith and, if you don't have any > objections, then we plan to give Nature a try - as it wont be too much > work converting the draft into paper for Nature. > If Nature also turns it down - then we will move to something quick, > but less ambitious, such as GRL > > The decision letter is attached below.... > > Cheers.........Bo > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dr. Bo Mllese Vinther >> >> Centre for Ice and Climate >> >> University of Copenhagen >> >> Juliane Maries Vej 30 >> >> Copenhagen 2100 >> >> DENMARK >> >> >> >> Ref: 1147584 >> >> >> >> Dear Dr. Vinther: >> >> >> >> Thank you for submitting your manuscript "New Ice Core Evidence for a >> Volcanic Cause of the A.D. 536 Dust-veil" to /Science/. Because >> your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the >> initial screening process, we will not be able to send it out for >> in-depth review. Although your analysis is interesting, we feel that >> the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more >> specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can >> seek publication elsewhere. >> >> >> >> We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We >> therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to >> be ultimately published in /Science/. Papers are selected on the >> basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition >> to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. >> Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the >> quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations. >> >> >> >> We wish you every success when you submit the paper elsewhere. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jesse Smith, Ph.D. >> >> Senior Editor >> >> >> 3625. 2007-09-26 12:29:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:29:42 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Temperature Database to: dave lister The temperature database used to create CRU TS 3.0 is: /cru/cruts/version_3_0/db/tmp/tmp.0705101334.dtb The preceding version contains the same data but has longitudes with West negative: /cru/cruts/version_3_0/db/tmp/tmp.0704300053.dtb The data is a combination of several disjointed databases (as you know) but I doubt we'll ever get this close again so please build on this where possible. I also recommend the file naming structure (year,month,day,hour,minute). In fact I'd put in stronger than that! Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 8. 2007-09-26 21:58:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:58:27 -0400 from: V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Sydney - the week after this! to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Yes, Peter would be excellent. I have worked with him on CCSP 1.1 (you know that of course as you were one of the NRC Reviewers) where he did wonderful stuff. Hope he accepts. Cheers, Ram ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:00 am Subject: Fwd: Re: Sydney - the week after this! > > Ram, > Any more thoughts then? I could try one of the Hadley people. > Any others though? Away tomorrow in Oxford. > Peter Thorne would now be my choice. > > Cheers > Phil > > >Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:58:48 +1000 (EST) > >From: David Karoly > >Subject: Re: Sydney - the week after this! > >To: Phil Jones > >Cc: v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov > >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > >Hi Phil and Ram, > > > >Unfortunately, I don't think that I can accept being rapporteur > for Task > >Group 2, as I have to leave on Friday night and will not be at the > WCRP>workshop on Saturday at all. > > > >Earlier in the week, I have to split my time between Greenhouse > 2007 and > >the WCRP workshop. I will spend as much time as possible at the WCRP > >workshop, but also have commitments at Greenhouse 2007. > > > >Sorry that I can't help, David > >-- > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Prof David Karoly > >School of Earth Sciences > >University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA > >ph: +61 3 8344 4698 > >fax: +61 3 8344 7761 > >email: dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >On Mon, September 24, 2007 11:07 pm, Phil Jones wrote: > > > David, > > > Ram and I are the chair and co-chair of Task Group # 2. > > > We've been asked to look through the list of people coming > > > and to choose a Reapporteur. Independently, we have both > > > put you at the top of our list. Our ideas were similar, to > > > try and find someone who could look across both WG1 and > > > WG2 of AR4. > > > Hoping you will be willing to take on this task! > > > > > > I can send more background if you're willing. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > > > 4566. 2007-09-27 11:19:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:19:28 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Science paper to: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" Annie, We were both away yesterday. Keith is still. I'm back though and will be here tomorrow. Away all next week, by the way. I can see how the sentences in the abstract will be easily misused. Article has nothing to do with the present though - lots of features 18,000 years ago were quite different! Cheers Phil At 14:59 26/09/2007, Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\) wrote: Dear Phil and Keith, Please see message below re attached a paper from Science which Chemistry World is asking if you would comment on. I gather you are both out of the office today so have told the journalist that you are unlikely to pick this up in time - but, on the offchance that you do, please feel free to send your comment to Simon direct. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [1]http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press ............................................ ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Simon Hadlington [[2] mailto:simon@hadlington.plus.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:08 PM To: Press Office Subject: fao Annie Importance: High Annie re Chemistry World. here is the embargoed paper that is due to appear on the science website on friday and below is the press blurb that came with it. Chemistry World will be running a piece on the work and it would be very nice to have a few sentences from an independent third party - ie hopefully someone from your climate change research centre - to say why the work is significant. I'm happy to speak with someone or else equally happy to receive four or five sentences in an email. Presumably the work could be grist to the mill of the global warming sceptics - is there any reason why it shouldn't be? Chemistry World wants to get something out to coincide with the embargo being lifted, so really I'd need something by 10am at the latest tomorrow morning. If you could let me know within the next couple of hours if you've found anyone that would be great. thanks best wishes Simon Simon Hadlington freelance science journalist Derwent House Main Street Thorganby York YO19 6DA [3]http://www.eurekalert.org/emb_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences, University of Southern California Click here for more information. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change, said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages. Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown but was not its main cause. The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate. Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California, examines a sediment core. Click here for more information. I dont want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesnt affect climate, Stott cautioned. It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change. While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea. The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago. What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2, Stott said. But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward. Waters salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote. This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence. In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemispheres ice retreat began. Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source. As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day. In addition, the authors model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming. The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earths orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size. However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemispheres spring rather than the northern hemispheres summer. The conclusions also underscore the importance of regional climate dynamics, Stott said. Here is an example of how a regional climate response translated into a global climate change, he explained. Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms. These organisms foraminifera incorporate different isotopes of oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the temperature. By measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and surface ocean temperatures changed through time. If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead. The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms, Stott said. The complexities have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future. ### Stotts collaborators were Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii and Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina. Stott was supported by the National Science Foundation and Timmerman by the International Pacific Research Center. Stott is an expert in paleoclimatology and was a reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also recently co-authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tracing a 900-year history of monsoon variability in India. The study, which analyzed isotopes in cave stalagmites, found correlations between recorded famines and monsoon failures, and found that some past monsoon failures appear to have lasted much longer than those that occurred during recorded history. The ongoing research is aimed at shedding light on the monsoons poorly understood but vital role in Earths climate. Sciences press release Warming >From High to Low: Analysis of a new sea-sediment core in the Pacific suggests that the warming that followed the last glacial period began in the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere before sweeping into the tropics. The findings could help sort out the sequence of climate changes underlying the dramatic switch that turned an ice age into today's interglacial climate, say Lowell Stott and colleagues. Carbon-14 dating of organic material in the core suggests that deep tropical waters in the western Pacific warmed up by about 2 degrees Celsius between 19,000 and 17,000 years ago, 1,500 years earlier than comparable warming in the tropical surface waters and 1,000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide began to rise. The source of the tropical deep heat may have been an even earlier heat wave in surface waters closer to the South Pole, warmed by an increase in solar radiation at the hemisphere's higher latitudes. ARTICLE #23: "Southern Hemisphere and Deep Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming," by L. Stott at University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA; A. Timmermann at University of Hawaii in Honolulu, HI; R. Thunell at University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. CONTACT: Lowell Stott at +1-213-740-5120 (phone), or stott@usc.edu (email) Ananyo Bhattacharya PhD Acting Deputy Editor, Chemistry World Tel: +44 (0)1223 432 184 Mob: +44 (0)7766 257 642 Fax: +44 (0)1223 426 017 Email: [4]bhattacharyaa@rsc.org Royal Society of Chemistry Science Park: Thomas Graham House Milton Road, Cambridge, UK CB4 0WF DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35. 2007-09-27 14:13:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:13:32 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: [Fwd: Re: Irritating science queries] to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith -- some minor query Mike wanted to let us know about, re Burger's comment on our paper. Hopefully he's already dealt with it by pointing the enquirer to our published response. -- Tim ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [Fwd: Re: Irritating science queries] From: "Michael E. Mann" Date: Wed, September 26, 2007 6:11 pm To: "Tim Osborn" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim, I hope all is well w/ you.  Just wanted to give you a heads up on this, mike -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Irritating science queries
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:10:49 -0400
From: Michael E. Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
Reply-To: mann@psu.edu
Organization: Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University
To: quotable@telus.net
References: <001101c80054$c6f818a0$6400a8c0@Littlemore>


Hey Richard,

Thanks for the heads up on this. This is cherry-picking at its worst, the sort of thing we have of course learned to expect from charlatans like McIntyre. I guess its the flavor of the day in their desperate ongoing disinformation campaign.

Gerd Burger did indeed publish a comment criticizing the process by which proxy data were selected in the paper by Osborn and Briffa '06 reinforcing the conclusion that late 20th century warmth was anomalous in the context of the past 1000 years.  But the Burger criticism was definitively rebutted in the response by Osborn and Briffa, which I have attached, which was published back-to-back w/ the criticism. The rebuttal, in my view, settles the matter. The Osborn and Briffa '06 conclusions stand without modification.

You might get in touch w/ Tim Osborn for more information, feel free to use my name. His email is: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

I hope that's helpful,

mike

Richard Littlemore wrote:
Hi Michael,
I'm a DeSmogBlog writer (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by "smoothing," "correcting" or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we're all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger's intervention in Science.
I'd be delighted for any response, no matter how brief, or for directions to any existing critique.
Thx,
r
 
ps
(My apologies if I have missed it, but the search function on your site is down - the server says you're probably being too successful).
 
Richard Littlemore
250-753-5065 vox
250-753-5026 fax
quotable@telus.net
DeSmogBlog.com
 
 


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
2063. 2007-09-27 14:46:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:46:44 +0100 from: "Bob Ward" subject: RE: Lamb to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, Many thanks for this, it's very helpful to see this - I will of course keep it confidential. I was interested to see that the graph appeared at the Wegman hearings - presumably from McKittrick? I think this is how Durkin got his hands on the graph (McKittrick is acknowledged in the credits as a contributor to the programme). What would be interesting to know is at what stage the figure became labelled as temperature record for the world rather than just Central England - presumably Lamb's 1982 figure still refers to Central England? I have copied below the relevant section from my most recent exchange with Durkin - I'm not sure I need to go any further. You may also be interested to know that the Overview of the NRC report last year on 'Surface temperature reconstructions' also reproduced the figure and stated that it represents global temperature up to 1975 - but does not refer to the 1975 NRC report from which it was reproduced, according to the Wikipedia entry. Also, the figure in my copy of Lamb's collection appears in a paper that is apparently based on a lecture he gave at the British Association for the Advancement of Science on 2 September 1964 - he may have shown a copy of the figure during his lecture. Best wishes, Bob Misrepresentation 1: Global average temperature today is not as high as it was during other times in recent history, such as the Medieval Warm Period, indicating that the recent warming trend is a natural phenomenon. The DVD version of the programme presents a graph that is labelled "Temp - 1000 Years", which is attributed to the "IPCC" [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. This graph purports to show global average temperature between 900 AD and "now", with the highest values recorded between about 1100 and 1300 (labelled as "Medieval Warm Period"). The label "now" on the far right side gives the impression that the graph shows temperature up to the present day. As Martin Durkin, the programme's producer, admitted in an exchange of e-mail messages in April (the text of which are accessible at [1]www.climateofdenial.net), the graph appearing in the DVD version of the programme is based on a figure that was originally published by Hubert Lamb in 1966, and which was subsequently reproduced in a 1975 report by the United States National Research Council (NRC), and in the First Assessment Report of the IPCC in 1990. It is obvious that a schematic diagram that was originally published in 1966 cannot possibly show global average temperature over the last 40 years, and so the label "now" appearing on the graph in the DVD version of the programme is a false and inaccurate modification. The figure produced by Lamb also pre-dates all of the research on the global temperature record that has taken place since 1966. It has been superseded by a number of more up-to-date temperature reconstructions for the last millennium, which were reviewed in a report published last year by the NRC for the United States Congress, in response to the so-called `hockey stick' controversy. The report concluded that "none of the large-scale surface temperature reconstructions show medieval temperatures as warm as the last few decades of the 20^th century". It acknowledged that parts of the Earth may have been warmer at points over the past 1000 years, but that these regional trends were not global in extent. The report also included a reproduction of Lamb's 1966 figure as it appears in the IPCC First Assessment Report, and noted that "[t]he pronounced warming trend that began around 1975 was not indicated in the graphic". The NRC report also pointed out: "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence". In summary, the DVD version misrepresents an out-of-date figure, published originally in 1966, to make it appear as if it records global average temperature up to the present day. The claim made in the DVD version of the programme that the recent warming of the Earth is a natural trend that has been seen before in the last 1000 years is not supported by the scientific evidence. Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [2]www.rms.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 27 September 2007 09:46 To: Bob Ward Subject: Re: Lamb Bob, I'm not the author of the helpful wikipedia entry. I'm attaching the draft paper that many of us are planning to submit at some stage fairly soon. It is terribly late, but we will submit it. So the attached is just for you !! I know you'll respect this plea. All you need to look at is the abstract, the Appendix and the final Figure. This text has chapter and verse of where it comes from and where IPCC got it from (very likley the UK DETR document from around 1989). I've a good idea who used it in the 1990 IPCC Report, but this isn't that important. As Durkin is an idiot, the easiest thing for you to do is just point to the caption with the original IPCC diagram from 1990 - the word schematic is the first in the caption! The pre-instrumental part of Ch 7 of the 1990 report was added at the very last minute. There were hardly any paleo people involved in the chapter writing team. I was but I didn't know as much now as I did then! Maybe you could add that the first 'true' NH average (to the extent of the data available then) was the paper by Bradley and Jones (1993). Everything else up to that time was just based on 'scientific understanding of the time' and curves were free drawn (not based on any numbers). The NRC publication from 1975 does have a curve, but I think that is based on a Greenland Ice Core. I do have the 1989 DETR publication. It doesn't say much more. I'm away next week. Just for my own piece of mind, if you could send me any text you plan to send to Durkin that would be useful. By the way, it didn't take a few of us long to find out where the diagram came from. There were only about 4 possibilities in 1990. We just scanned the plots and hey presto. We have all Lamb publications here and scanned the other versions, which are essentially the same - so the 1990 diagram wasn't even the 'view' in 1989/90, but it goes back to the early 1960s. Also, even for Central England it is wrong the years before 1659 (when the Manley record starts). There is a new Dutch winter and summer record which shows what CET might have been like - and this isn't what Lamb thought! Cheers Phil At 13:12 26/09/2007, you wrote: Dear Phil, In a previous correspondence, I think you mentioned that you were planning to publish something about the provenance of the figure in the IPCC First Assessment Report showing global temperature over the last 1000 years (and which featured in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'). I assume you must also be the author of the helpful Wikipedia entry on this, which suggests it was taken from the 1975 NRC report, which in turn references Lamb 1966. I've managed to get hold of a copy of Lamb's 1966 volume of selected papers and have found a similar figure (on page 186) - except it shows 50-year averages of "prevailing" temperatures in central England. I was wondering whether you know if this is the original source of the IPCC figure, and if so, how it became transformed into a graph of global temperature? The reason that I am interested is that I am planning to tackle martin Durkin again about his use of the graph. Any light you might be able to shed on this issue would be very helpful. Best wishes, Bob Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [3]www.rms.com This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. 889. 2007-09-28 15:00:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Inglis Kitty Ms \(LIB\)" date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:00:08 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: FOI appeal response to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Phil, Many thanks for this - I will ensure that Mr. Eschenbach is made aware of the location of this material. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:00 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: FW: FOI appeal response Dave, The information that Eschenbach agreed to has been on the CRU site since Monday. The page is [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ No-one seems to have found the page yet, but the skeptics seem to have many things on the go at the moment. Anyway, if you want, you could email Eschenbach. The text was very carefully crafted! Cheers Phil At 09:14 30/08/2007, you wrote: Phil, I am off to a meeting shortly but will get back to you today regarding Keenan's claim.... seems that this group has turned it's attention to us again (see below).... Has the information that we told Eschenbach would be on the CRU website made it there? If not, could we get it there asap and give him a url to placate him? Many thanks... I attach a copy of Kitty's letter of 7 July on this matter Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:19 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: FOI appeal response Dave: Can you follow up on this please? Phil Jones probably needs reminding to update the website. Thanks, Kitty ============================================ Kitty Inglis Library & Learning Resources Director University of East Anglia Library Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Email k.inglis@uea.ac.uk Telephone (01603)592430 Fax (01603)591010 UEA Web Site [2]http://www.lib.uea.ac.uk/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Willis Eschenbach [[3] mailto:willis@taunovobay.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:27 AM To: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB) Subject: Re: FOI appeal response Dear Ms. Inglis: Thank you for your letter of May 21, 2007, headed FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_07-04), in which you stated: I confirm that we are able to make available on the Climatic Research Unit website a list of stations, including name, latitude, longitude, elevation and WMO number (where available). I have recently consulted the CRU website and have been unable to locate the promised information. If it has been made available, please let me know where it is located. If you were waiting for an acknowledgement from me to carry out this long overdue and minimal provision of information, this is to notify you that I would like you to make this information available. In doing so, please insure that the authors state clearly that the list is a complete list of all stations used in their calculations and that no stations in the list are not used. I also acknowledge your refusal to provide the requested station data in the form used by CRU and will consider further options in this respect available to me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours truly, Willis Eschenbach on 5/21/07 10:40 PM, Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB) at K.Inglis@uea.ac.uk wrote: Dear Mr Eschenbach, Please find attached my response to your appeal in regard to your FOI request to UEA of 25th January 2007 and subsequent correspondence. Best wishes, Kitty Inglis ============================================ Kitty Inglis Library & Learning Resources Director University of East Anglia Library Norwich NR4 7TJ UK mail k.inglis@uea.ac.uk Telephone (01603)592430 Fax (01603)591010 UEA Web Site [4]http://www.lib.uea.ac.uk/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3789. 2007-09-28 16:58:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:58:51 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: Fwd: Science paper to: Phil Jones Hi Phil Thanks. The whole issue of what leads what in CO2 and temperature and whether this debunks the idea that current increases in CO2 is causing warming was part of an interesting day I spent at the High Court of Justice yesterday. The judge and barristers were interpreting WGI SPM Table SPM.2 would you believe amongst other things. (There is other IPCC material that has been entered as evidence including WGII material). I am an expert witness in a case concerning An Inconvenient Truth and have provided written evidence but was not called to give evidence in person. My evidence says that Overall the Claimant's suggestion that the Film seriously misrepresents the causes and likely effects of climate change is not well founded. Although there are some areas where further context and clarification is required these are, in my view provided by the Guidance [provided by the government to schools]. [One of the areas where further context is required is the CO2/temperature relationship on glacial interglacial cycles] The claimant's expert witness is Professor Robert Merlin Carter of Australia. I'm now back at work and the case continues. See eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7015723.stm if you're interested. Peter On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:26 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Peter, > I was away yesterday - fortunately! This came via the UEA > press office > from a media outlet. It will be in tomorrow's Science express. So > don't > pass on till then! > > I thought of you reading the author's name! Another non > relation! > > The summary in the email by this Stott is awful. Ice Ages need > Milankovitch - everyone knows that ! CO2 just helps out and > it is feedback, not the forcing it is now. > > This paper is likely to get quite a bit of media hype. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > From: Simon Hadlington [mailto:simon@hadlington.plus.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:08 PM > > To: Press Office > > Subject: fao Annie > > Importance: High > > > > Annie > > > > > > re Chemistry World. > > > > here is the embargoed paper that is due to appear on the science > > website on friday and below is the press blurb that came with it. > > Chemistry World will be running a piece on the work and it would be > > very nice to have a few sentences from an independent third party - > > ie hopefully someone from your climate change research centre - to > > say why the work is significant. I'm happy to speak with someone or > > else equally happy to receive four or five sentences in an email. > > Presumably the work could be grist to the mill of the global warming > > sceptics - is there any reason why it shouldn't be? > > > > Chemistry World wants to get something out to coincide with the > > embargo being lifted, so really I'd need something by 10am at the > > latest tomorrow morning. If you could let me know within the next > > couple of hours if you've found anyone that would be great. > > > > thanks > > > > best wishes > > > > Simon > > > > Simon Hadlington > > freelance science journalist > > Derwent House > > Main Street > > Thorganby > > York YO19 6DA > > > > > > > > > > http://www.eurekalert.org/emb_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php > > > > > > > > Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age > > > > Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, > > ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in > > Science. > > > > Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences, University of Southern > > California > > > > Click here for more information. > > > > > > > > Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new > > study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core > > records. > > > > > > > > There has been this continual reference to the correspondence > > between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as > > justification for the role of CO2 in climate change, said USC > > geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance > > online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. > > > > > > > > You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice > > ages. > > > > > > > > Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical > > surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study > > found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a > > result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown but was > > not its main cause. > > > > > > > > The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in > > climate. > > > > Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences at the University of > > Southern California, examines a sediment core. > > > > Click here for more information. > > > > > > > > I dont want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that > > CO2 doesnt affect climate, Stott cautioned. It does, but the > > important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate > > change. > > > > > > > > While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages > > occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether > > CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming > > sea. > > > > > > > > The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no > > earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep > > sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming > > about 19,000 years ago. > > > > > > > > What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long > > before the rise in atmospheric CO2, Stott said. > > > > > > > > But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward. > > > > > > > > Waters salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to > > trace its origin and the warming deep water appeared to come from > > the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote. > > > > > > > > This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well- > > known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating > > evidence. > > > > > > > > In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature > > increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both > > occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemispheres ice > > retreat began. > > > > > > > > Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting > > Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over > > Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source. > > > > > > > > As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea- > > ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water > > that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T- > > shirt on a hot day. > > > > > > > > In addition, the authors model showed how changed ocean conditions > > may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into > > the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming. > > > > > > > > The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory > > of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earths orbit > > cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, > > which controls ice size. > > > > > > > > However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet > > growth and retreat lies in the southern hemispheres spring rather > > than the northern hemispheres summer. > > > > > > > > The conclusions also underscore the importance of regional climate > > dynamics, Stott said. Here is an example of how a regional climate > > response translated into a global climate change, he explained. > > > > > > > > Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique > > sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized > > surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) > > organisms. > > > > > > > > These organisms foraminifera incorporate different isotopes of > > oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the > > temperature. By measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of > > different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and > > surface ocean temperatures changed through time. > > > > > > > > If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to > > increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would > > spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the > > water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about > > 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, > > suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead. > > > > > > > > The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that > > CO2 rises and the temperature warms, Stott said. The complexities > > have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system > > has changed in the past and how it will change in the future. > > > > > > > > ### > > > > > > > > Stotts collaborators were Axel Timmermann of the University of > > Hawaii and Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina. Stott > > was supported by the National Science Foundation and Timmerman by > > the International Pacific Research Center. > > > > > > > > Stott is an expert in paleoclimatology and was a reviewer for the > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also recently co- > > authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tracing a 900-year > > history of monsoon variability in India. > > > > > > > > The study, which analyzed isotopes in cave stalagmites, found > > correlations between recorded famines and monsoon failures, and > > found that some past monsoon failures appear to have lasted much > > longer than those that occurred during recorded history. The ongoing > > research is aimed at shedding light on the monsoons poorly > > understood but vital role in Earths climate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sciences press release > > > > > > > > Warming >From High to Low: > > > > Analysis of a new sea-sediment core in the Pacific suggests that the > > warming that followed the last glacial period began in the high > > latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere before sweeping into the > > tropics. The findings could help sort out the sequence of climate > > changes underlying the dramatic switch that turned an ice age into > > today's interglacial climate, say Lowell Stott and colleagues. > > Carbon-14 dating of organic material in the core suggests that deep > > tropical waters in the western Pacific warmed up by about 2 degrees > > Celsius between 19,000 and 17,000 years ago, 1,500 years earlier > > than comparable warming in the tropical surface waters and 1,000 > > years before atmospheric carbon dioxide began to rise. The source of > > the tropical deep heat may have been an even earlier heat wave in > > surface waters closer to the South Pole, warmed by an increase in > > solar radiation at the hemisphere's higher latitudes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ARTICLE #23: "Southern Hemisphere and Deep Sea Warming Led Deglacial > > Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming," by L. Stott at > > University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA; A. Timmermann > > at University of Hawaii in Honolulu, HI; R. Thunell at University of > > South Carolina in Columbia, SC. > > > > > > > > CONTACT: Lowell Stott at +1-213-740-5120 (phone), or stott@usc.edu > > (email) > > > > > > > > > > > > Ananyo Bhattacharya PhD > > > > Acting Deputy Editor,Chemistry World > > > > Tel: +44 (0)1223 432 184 > > > > Mob: +44 (0)7766 257 642 > > > > Fax: +44 (0)1223 426 017 > > > > Email: bhattacharyaa@rsc.org > > > > > > > > Royal Society of Chemistry > > > > Science Park: Thomas Graham House > > > > Milton Road, Cambridge, UK > > > > CB4 0WF > > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > > > > This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the > > use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged > > or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any > > other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it > > in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC > > has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the > > information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for > > accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of > > care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The > > RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law > > for personal injury or death arising through a finding of > > negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments > > are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 3251. 2007-10-01 02:29:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:29:01 +0200 from: Bo Vinther subject: Re: 20th century to: t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Hi Thomas Just looked a bit more into the SO2-emissions.... Based on fig. 1 in the attached paper on European/Russian SO2-emissions we might consider to reverse the forcing as late as 1975. Especially since modeling efforts suggest that Arctic sulphate comes mostly from Europe and Russia (see fig. 3 in the second attached paper). Greenland - being quite close to North America probably gets more of the North American SO2-emissions than does most of the Arctic (North American emissions peaked in the period 1965-75 - as seen in Greenland). Cheers.....Bo Thomas Kleinen wrote: Hi Bo. Thanks for sending that Greenland data. The volcanic aerosols are independent from the anthropogenic. Therefore it's no problem at all to keep them. I'll look into creating a suitable aerosol forcing timeseries during the next couple of days. Cheers, Thomas On Thursday 27 September 2007, Bo Vinther wrote: Hi Thomas I really like the idea of mirroring the sulphate - based on the Greenland data (see attached), I would go for reversing the forcing in 1970 (without reversing the sulphate from volcanoes - if we can avoid it?). If feasible, I do think it would be interesting to run the model a bit longer than 2007 - maybe to 2020 - to see what is ahead of us.... Cheers........Bo Thomas Kleinen wrote: Hi Tim. Well, control run is done with fixed orbital conditions (supposedly late 20th century), so I guess we can leave that. I have volcanic & solar timeseries until 1999/2000, and my original idea was to include those for as long as we have them to get the historical forcings right, and then not worry about the few years afterwards (doesn't matter in the volcanic case anyway). We can still update them later if we decide we need solar variability after 2000 (the volcano code assumes 0 aerosol optical depth after 2000). Since it will take a fortnight to reach 1990 anyway, we need to decide on the forcings for the earlier part now, though. I have Sulphate emissions / albedo change patterns until 2100 for the SRES A2 (the ozone file for some reason is for the B2, but that shouldn't make a big difference in those first years). So my idea was to run one experiment with the SRES forcings, and one with the forcings changed in the N Atlantic / Arctic area, just as you suggested. I'll have to look at the scenario data to decide on the best time for the switchover to reductions, though, I haven't quite made up my mind there yet. (As I indicated earlier, we still have time to decide on that). Cheers, Thomas On Thursday 27 September 2007, Tim Osborn wrote: Hmm. I think orbital doesn't matter either way, so whatever is easiest and also consistent with the initial conditions (i.e. if control run is NOT set up with 1860 orbital forcing, you would have an unwanted step in forcing if you began from that and suddenly switched to 1860 orbital forcing; on the other hand, if it has been run with 1860 orbital conditions, then clearly the orbital option becomes possible and the decision is yours!). Solar also probably won't have a large influence, though volcanoes might. But are you running up to 2000 or 2007 and do you have solar/volanic forcing up to that point? Of course, with little activity since Pinatubo, the volcanic forcing that you do have -- perhaps to 1999? -- might already have returned to low constant aerosol optical depth values which could be continued on at a constant level to 2007? Solar, if used, would need to be updated too, assuming you are running through to 2007. GHGs you will hopefully get from Sarah. Aerosols, did you think my suggestion of running with existing forcing through to ~1965 and then running reverse forcing (for N. Atlantic/Arctic region only?) 1965..1925 for 1966-2007 is workable? Would need some careful consideration, but since we cannot redo the sulphur transport and indirect effect modelling, we will do better with potential referees if we do something deliberately idealised rather than a poor attempt at a more realistic forcing. Also, presumably we will want to do 2 runs, one with all these forcings and the OLD too high aerosols, and then a second with all forcings identical except for the NEW lower aerosols in N. Atl. and Arctic. So, if running as far as 2007, we need OLD too high aerosols up to 2007 as well. Not sure how to get/extrapolate these? You might want to forward this to Bo & Keith in case they have different suggestions. Cheers Tim On Thu, September 27, 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas Kleinen wrote: Hi Tim. I still need to do a more detailed check, but right now it looks like the modern climate run might actually be working. Therefore I am wondering how to set it up exactly - should I include orbital, solar and volcanic forcing as well? I guess it might be best to do as realistic a run as possible. GHG I would start from control run levels - doing it from the Nat run would also involve adjusting the vegetation fields (and running from 1750, right now I am planning on running from 1860), and I'd prefer not to do that. What do you think? Cheers, Thomas Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SO2transport.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Europe_emissionsSO2.pdf" 2024. 2007-10-02 18:08:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:08:51 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: [Fwd: CRU Station Lists] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi From my project notes: Summary of Station Changes This was effected with the program 'findchanges.for', which identifies three categories of station - those added, those changed, and those deleted. Testing the entire process (ie comparing the original station file with the rev10 one) yielded the following counts: 28 orig_vs_rev10.add.dat 483 orig_vs_rev10.chg.dat 53 orig_vs_rev10.del.dat This agrees with the operations performed. I'm attaching the first and third of these. I think the 55 (rather than 53) comes from two stations having their normals zeroed? Again, from my notes: newbigfile90x.rev10.dat ** this version locked and sent to Philip Brohan ** This revision incorporates the changes made as a result of gridding, and attempting to get the 1961-1990 mean normalised data to nudge 0. The following stations were deleted in the sense that their normals were set to missing: 606070 292 -2 -999 TIMIMOUN ALGERIA 19691974 101969 814010 55 540 4 SAINT LAURENT MARONI FRENCH GUIANA 19611990 101961 ..this was because the first only has a few values, with high variability, and the second consists of two decades of temperatures with one of missing values in between, and the earlier decade is significantly warmer than the second. Sorry - I don't even remember WRITING this never mind the context! I would note that the final sentence could easily be misinterpreted; what I should have said is that it indicated that the data was from two disparate stations. I can't locate a 4349 list.. Cheers Harry Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\orig_vs_rev10.add.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\orig_vs_rev10.del.dat" On 2 Oct 2007, at 17:43, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > Harry, Philip, > Well the arch skeptic McIntyre has found the page Mike put > up and it wasn't enough! I expected that, but not his use of > nice language in this email! > Anyway, I've said I would try and do something in when > back from Australia - not next week (as that is busy as well), > but the week after that. > In the meantime, can you Harry send me a list of the 4349 > stations and the 55? I've emailed Philip in case Harry > doesn't have the 4349 list. I know Harry has the 55. > When I get back, I can then check the 4349 and 4138 and > find what additional stations were extracted in the 2006 > paper. I know that I took out about 35 US sites as these > had crept back despite being deemed 'urban' in work in > the 1980s. > I think the rest relate to changes in Australia, Canada > and NZ wrt station number changing and newer series. > > No rush on this. > > It is warm and sunny in Sydney. Woke at 2am, but did get 12hrs > sleep, now have to co-ordinate this with the night-time here! > > Cheers > Phil > > > ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- > Subject: CRU Station Lists > From: "Steve McIntyre" > Date: Tue, October 2, 2007 5:05 pm > To: "'Phil Jones'" > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Dear Phil, thank you for placing the list of CRU stations online. In > the webpage, I think that you will find that this is a good idea and > will go some way to removing a pointless cause of criticism. > > You refer to "a look-up Table which associates some current WMO > station > numbers with the earlier values we are using." This is necessary for > the use of the list and I would appreciate it if you would either send > me a copy of it or place this online. The online listing shows 4138 > stations (as you observe), while Brohan et al listed 4349 stations > (as > you also observe.) Brohan et al 2006 refers to 55 stations being > remove > for duplication while the current list shows a larger number. I would > appreciate a list of the 4349 stations referred to in Brohan as > well as > the 55 stations then removed. > > The webpage also states: "Additional updates in near-real time (either > monthly or annually) come directly from Australia, Canada, New > Zealand, > Austria, the Nordic countries and a few others." It would be > helpful if > the "few others" were specifically listed or alternately could you > email > me the names of these few others. > > Concurrent with the information on stations, I think that you should > provide as complete a documentation as possible for your calculations, > including the provision of source code, as otherwiie you will > undoubtedly continue to have piecemeal inquiries resulting from the > presently incomplete documentation. > > Regards, Steve McIntyre > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 519. 2007-10-02 18:12:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Keith Briffa" , "Clare Goodess" , "Nathan Gillett" date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:12:08 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: M535 1st coursework to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Here are a few thoughts from 3am here in Sydney. Have had 12 hours sleep, just not at the right time! I can elaborate on the issues more when I present this on Weds next week - a week today I see! I must try and not give them all the answers when I do present things! I have elaborated on a few of the examples to restrict the hurricanes to the N. Atlantic, for example. Also they shouldn't get into the date(s) of the MWP, although noting that it is very variable would be a good thing. The text with all the questions/issues is fine. For each question, I can come up with an initial reference or two for them to start with. This will be the AR4 report of WG1 for most, the CCSP report for the LT, but ocean pH is hardly covered at all by the AR4 - WG1 and WG2. Anyway, a good start - not much more for me to do, except present it on the day. Cheers Phil > Hi -- this is URGENT as Phil is due to set this on Wednesday next week! > > Please see attached outline/description of the coursework to be set > on M535 and (1) carefully check it for errors or ambiguities; and (2) > see if the controversial statements need to be improved. Please use > tracked changes if possible and email back to me and Phil. > > Cheers and thanks for your help with this! > > Tim > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\M535_2007-8_cw1_ver011.doc" 4299. 2007-10-03 15:18:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:18:49 -0400 from: "Kate Willett" subject: Re: Scheduling your Nature paper to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil, do I need to do anything over here or just be aware that someone might contact me? I've just come accross something interesting in my data - it looks like the land T and dewpoint T data is recorded only to whole numbers prior to 1982 too. I've only looked at a few stations so far but these have been in completely different countries but show the same thing. I don't think/hope this affects any results so far too much. I remember noticing this to some extent in the early stages of dataset building but didn't notice a pattern. I've only noticed it just now because I'm looking at max and min supremums of pentads. In HadCRUH there is no apparent shift comparable to that in the Marine data at least. Did you notice anything like this with your hourly temperature data and if so what did you do about it? I've coming back to the UK for the Met Office interview at the beginning of November so will be around Norfolk for a bit too seeing friends/famliy. I'll pop into CRU at somepoint and say Hello. Kate 2772. 2007-10-03 17:35:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:35:38 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: Re: China Average series from our current gridded data to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I attach two plots - one is rural series and the other urban. I felt the need to include a guide as to the numbers of station series that are going into the new (homogenized) areal anomalies, since these vary with time - in contrast to those based on your old annual series. You may think that the station numbers information is not required - let me know what your opinion is on this. In your original listing of ideas for plots, you suggested a colour plot of: "My" rural "Their" rural "My" urban "Their" urban Now that we have included the gridded anomaly series, it provides a kind of datum line to both of the attached plots. Do you still think that there is a need for the colour comparison just listed? It is no big job if it is still required. Finer points: You will see that the station numbers line in the rural stations plot starts before the plot of areal anoms. - based on the new (homogenized) series. This is because I imposed a minimum threshold of 20 station values for there to be an areal average produced. If there are no more changes to these analyses for the moment, I will look at the Armagh job tomorrow. Cheers David On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> > David, > Looks OK and much as I expected. > > You have three lines plotted > > - annual as I had in 1990, so 42 sites 1954-83 > - annual from the Chinese for 1951-2004 > - annual from the current CRU grid > > The first 2 of these come from the 'urban' sets, 42 > originally and a few less from the Chinese. > > Just need to do the same now for the above first two, > but for the rural network(s) of 42 (or a few less). > > I suspect these two will agree, but then the Chinese > rural may not show so much warming as the gridded series > since the mid-1980s. > > > The only other thing to do is to get HadSST2 from > Hadobs.org and then to compute and average for the > Chinese coastal seas. I can do this when back though as > I have the data and the dataset. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Phil, >> >> I have produced a draft plot - looking at the rural station anomalies. I >> still have some checks to do so there may be changes ....... >> >> Cheers >> >> David >> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> David, >>> This looks OK from 1951. Ignore the stuff before, >>> but it is since 1951 that you want. >>> >>> Year , 12 months then annual >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\comp_ann_anoms_urban.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\comp_ann_anoms_rural.doc" 769. 2007-10-04 22:08:49 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:08:49 +0000 (GMT) from: Peter Thorne subject: Re: URGENT: Press office ... to: "Smith, Fiona" Thanks Fiona, I am cc'ing in Phil who will let relevant people at UEA know. Please can you get press office to advise if I will have to be in during next week or whether solely being on my mobile will suffice. I am flexible on the TOIL next week Tuesday onwards (land Monday at 06.00) but would like to know by the time I leave if poss. Just to remind that my mobile is 07834034418. Cheers Peter ----- Original Message ---- From: "Smith, Fiona" To: Peter Thorne Cc: "Gromett, Barry" Sent: Friday, 5 October, 2007 1:40:04 AM Subject: RE: URGENT: Press office ... Peter, Sorry for the delay. The head of the press office was off sick for a few days and they have been incredibly busy. Yes, the Press Office will go ahead with a press release and we will contact UEA to make sure we have a consistent message. Will let you see any relevant communication. Fiona Fiona Smith Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1392 884240 E-mail: fiona.smith@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Peter Thorne [mailto:peterwthorne@btinternet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:26 AM To: Smith, Fiona Subject: URGENT: Press office ... intentional silence? I need a decision ASAP to plan next week and let Phil Jones and UEA know. Please request resolution on whether we will run something or not so wheels can be set rolling if necessary. Thanks Peter 1904. 2007-10-05 09:51:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:51:52 +0200 from: Edouard BARD subject: Leroux to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Edouard, Fine with me. I had the misfortune to review a paper for the Geojournal of Comptes Rendus by Leroux. Not a pleasant experience as the paper was awful. Maybe it was fortunate I did review it! He has no idea whatsoever how to write a paper! I pity his students - if he does do any teaching. Cheers Phil Eduoard, It was Marcel Leroux from a Univeristy in Lyon, so he probably does teach ! Cheers Phil Phil, Leroux is "famous" in France for being a climate skeptic able to use the most ridiculous arguments (e.g. the Beck CO2 curve). He also pretend that his concept of mobile polar highs should replace the polar front theory and should be used for operational meteorology. I recently wrote to Courtillot to complain about the fact that he was invited to write a paper in the special issue (see below in French). Several other authors also decided not to submit anything. I attach a recent special issue of the "Lettre de l'Academie". I'm curious about what you think about it. Edouard Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:21:02 +0200 To: Vincent Courtillot From: Edouard BARD Subject: Re: Numro Thmatique : Evolution du Climat Cc: letreut@lmd.ens.fr, Jean-Claude.Andre@cerfacs.fr, ghil@lmd.ens.fr, Anny.Cazenave@cnes.fr, lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr, allegre@ipgp.jussieu.fr, Jean-Claude.Duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, hauglustaine@cea.fr, fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr, B.Tissot.cne@wanadoo.fr, michel.petit@m4x.org, jean.dercourt@academie-sciences.fr, J.Hoffmann@ibmc.u-strasbg.fr, jean-francois.bach@academie-sciences.fr, edouard.brezin@physique.ens.fr, jean.dercourt@wanadoo.fr, lorius@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, jacques.blamont@cnes.fr, chanin@aerov.jussieu.fr, labeyrie@obs-hp.fr, laskar@imcce.fr, pierre.encrenaz@obspm.fr, pierre.lena@obspm.fr, roger.balian@cea.fr, lepichon@cdf.u-3mrs.fr, berger@astr.ucl.ac.be, ssolomon@al.noaa.gov Cher Vincent, Comme je te l'ai dit, il y a eu un malentendu, probablement de ma part, concernant un ventuel article pour ce numro spcial des CRAS (j'avais compris que celui-ci serait constitu exclusivement par les articles dtaills relatifs la journe spcialise du 5 mars). En outre, j'ai t surcharg de travail cet t pour faire avancer les programmes de mon labo, ainsi que pour les nombreuses runions de l'AERES et surtout du "Grenelle" de l'environnement. Je n'ai donc pas trouv le temps ncessaire pour contribuer ton volume spcial. J'en suis vraiment dsol, d'autant plus que le thme de ma contribution incluait le rle du gaz carbonique aux diffrentes chelles de temps. Ceci m'aurait permis de rectifier certaines erreurs releves ici ou l: Par exemple, dans le dernier numro de La Lettre de l'Acadmie (n21), tu nous dis que les paloclimatologues n'ont vraiment rien compris la relation entre le CO2 et le climat pendant les glaciations et que l'explication de la corrlation est, "tout simplement", lie l'effet de la temprature sur la dissolution du gaz carbonique. Je cite ton texte de la page 27: "Les rsultats les plus rcents montrent que les variations du gaz carbonique mesures dans les bulles d'air trouves dans les carottes de glace se produisent quelques sicles aprs les variations de temprature, et traduisent donc tout simplement le rchauffement (ou le refroidissement) des ocans par le Soleil qui provoque un dgazage (ou une redissolution) du gaz carbonique. Pour ces priodes, c'est principalement la temprature qui contrle le gaz carbonique". Cela fait plus de vingt ans que la variation de CO2 en priode glaciaire est un fait dmontr et cela fait aussi vingt ans que nous savons que l'effet direct du refroidissement ocanique est totalement insuffisant pour expliquer l'amplitude du phnomne. Il y a une littrature abondante sur ce sujet pour comprendre et quantifier les rles respectifs du stockage du carbone dans l'ocan profond, les sdiments et la biosphre (Wally Broecker de Columbia vient d'ailleurs d'obtenir le Prix Crafoord en grande partie pour cela). Pour prparer les dbats de mars l'Acadmie, tu avais diffus un "document de travail" rdig par M. Marcel Leroux que tu as aussi invit rdiger un article pour ton numro spcial des CRAS. Je suis un peu inquiet car cet auteur reprend son compte la courbe et la thse de Beck, selon laquelle il y aurait un complot organis par le laboratoire de la Scripps de San Diego pour faire en sorte que tous les laboratoires mesurant le CO2 atmosphrique retrouvent la mme augmentation l'chelle du sicle (en particulier les mesures de Dave Keeling pour le site de Mauna Loa). La courbe de Beck figure prcisment en page 3 du document de travail que tu nous as diffus avant le 5 mars. Celle-ci indique des teneurs en CO2 allant jusqu' plus de 440 ppm au dbut du 19e et au milieu du 20e sicle ( comparer la valeur actuelle de 385 ppm). Il s'agit en fait de mesures trs peu prcises ralises dans des villes europennes pollues par l'utilisation du charbon. Cette courbe que M. Leroux ainsi que de nombreux "sceptiques" prsentent maintenant comme la vrit l'chelle mondiale est en fait une escroquerie organise par un prof des coles en Allemagne. Pour plus de dtails, tu peux lire par exemple la page web suivante : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/ J'espre qu'en tant qu'diteur et acadmicien, tu veilleras ce que cette fameuse courbe de Beck ne soit pas publie dans les Comptes Rendus de la noble Acadmie laquelle tu appartiens. Bien cordialement, Edouard ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collge de France Chaire de l'volution du climat et de l'ocan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80 13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4 Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.) Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email bard@cerege.fr http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Chers amis et auteurs, Bernard Tissot et moi-mme nous permettons de vous rappeler que votre article pour le numro thmatique de GEOSCIENCES etait d pour le 15 juin. Nous ne voyons pas de problemes pour tendre la date limite au 30 juin, mais aprs se poseront de serieux problemes: Bernard Tissot et moi meme ne serons pas disponibles en juillet ni aout, et les dosssiers arrives apres le 30 juin ne pourront etre traites (envoi aux rapporteurs) que debut septembre. L'ensemble du numero en sera retard de 2 mois. Vous ne serez pas surpris d'apprendre que j'ai deja recu, a la date limite d'origine, le manuscrit d'Ilya Usoskin (plus on est loin...). Deux autres m'ont t promis pour cette semaine. J'espere une reponse par retour de mail des autres. Merci de votre aide et de votre contribution (n"oubliez pas de proposer au moins 5 "reviewers" avec leurs adresses email si possible; vous pouvez aussi vous proposer comme reviewer d'un article autre que le votre le cas echeant...). Tres amicalement, VC et BT Liste des articles attendus (les titres ne sont qu'indicatifs et non contraignants) Herv Le Treut: Fondement disciplinaire des tudes climatiques Jean-Claude Andr: La modlisation mathmatique du climat l'chelle centenaire Michael Ghil: Modlisation du climat: les aspects non linaires Anny Cazenave: Evolution rcente du niveau de la mer Jean-Louis Le Moul et Vincent Courtillot: La temprature depuis un sicle : influence du Soleil et variabilit spatiale Jean-Claude Duplessy: Reconstitutions de l'volution du climat l'chelle du million d'annes Claude Allgre: intervention Didier Hauglustaine: Les mcanismes de l'effet de serre Frdric Fluteau: Le rle du volcanisme I.G. Usoskin: Le rle des rayons cosmiques Edouard Bard: Rle du CO2 et des facteurs d'origine terrestre Plus deux articles sollicits de Leroux et de Michard. -- Vincent Courtillot Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Universit Paris 7, et Institut Universitaire de France -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collge de France Chaire de l'volution du climat et de l'ocan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80 13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4 Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.) Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email bard@cerege.fr http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Lettre Academie 21.pdf" 4041. 2007-10-05 15:34:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 5 15:34:21 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Polar bear paper revision to: S.O-neill@uea.ac.uk At 11:19 28/09/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim Andrew has been looking over the polar bear article before we submit and has suggested a fair few changes to get the paper to fit in an ecology journal. You may want to see this version before we submit. You'll also notice that Peter has withdrawn from being an author - he seemed unable to distinguish an expert elicitation reporting other expert views from his own views on polar bear management - and so felt a bit uneasy with some of the results (something I don't see should have any bearing as we're just reporting results, not our own opinions, but no matter). He's now acknowledged instead and so you are now 2nd author. Andrew is keen that I make more of a comparison between the IPCC risk statement and our own results on polar bear decline, see pp 19 'magnitude of the losses' (The discussion subheadings are there for editing only and will be removed before submission). I have 2 questions before I rewrite this paragraph, which I am hoping you can help with: 1. The IPCC statement states a 'high risk of extinction with a warming of 2.8degC' (It's in box 4.3 of the ecosystems chp in the 4AR). Do you know where this 2.8 figure comes from? Importantly, do we know what the sea ice decline % is? (and what does this figure if it is known relate to, is it summer sea ice? or what? - is it comparable to ours?) 2. Following on from that, what was the mean sea ice decline in the simulation you carried out (hopefully the same as IPCC i.e. both summer sea ice decline or whatever so we can compare the statements). Basically, I may not be explaining this well, but I want to be able to compare the sea ice decline under both the IPCC statement and our scenario, so we can draw conclusions about both the IPCC and our expert elicitations. I'm not on campus at all these days but let me know if you would like to meet to discuss this and I'll come in. Cheers Saffron 2955. 2007-10-08 16:45:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ian Harris date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:45:56 +0100 from: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: [Fwd: CRU Station Lists] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, Harry. I'm sorry to admit that I can't find the 4349 list, or the program I used to find that number. Attempting to reproduce it now, I get the same count as you: 4138 stations provide at least 1 observation to CRUTEM3. I can't think of any set of 4349 stations that I might have got by mistake, so I suspect that it's a typo - It's certainly an error, and (unless you object) I'll write to Steve McIntyre to say so (and add a note to the CRUTEM3 web page). On McIntyre's other points: He can get all the near-real-time updates from the CRUTEM3 web page ( http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates ) We could also put the source code online - I've copied the internal software and documentation to a temporary site so you can see it ( http://brohan.org/philip/job/crutem3/docs/ - please keep this URL secret) - this could be added to http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3 if that would help to damp the conspiracy theories. What do you think? Regards, Philip On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 18:15 +0100, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Harry, > Thanks. Hopefully Philip has the 4349 list. > > Just looked at Climate Audit. There is a thread on this. > McIntyre not so nice.... > > Cheers > Phil > > > > Hi > > > > From my project notes: > > > > > > Summary of Station Changes > > This was effected with the program 'findchanges.for', which > > identifies three > > categories of station - those added, those changed, and those > > deleted. Testing > > the entire process (ie comparing the original station file with the > > rev10 one) > > yielded the following counts: > > > > 28 orig_vs_rev10.add.dat > > 483 orig_vs_rev10.chg.dat > > 53 orig_vs_rev10.del.dat > > > > This agrees with the operations performed. > > > > > > I'm attaching the first and third of these. > > > > I think the 55 (rather than 53) comes from two stations having their > > normals zeroed? Again, from my notes: > > > > > > newbigfile90x.rev10.dat ** this version locked and sent to Philip > > Brohan ** > > This revision incorporates the changes made as a result of gridding, and > > attempting to get the 1961-1990 mean normalised data to nudge 0. The > > following > > stations were deleted in the sense that their normals were set to > > missing: > > 606070 292 -2 -999 TIMIMOUN ALGERIA 19691974 101969 > > 814010 55 540 4 SAINT LAURENT MARONI FRENCH GUIANA 19611990 101961 > > ..this was because the first only has a few values, with high > > variability, and > > the second consists of two decades of temperatures with one of missing > > values in between, and the earlier decade is significantly warmer > > than the > > second. > > > > > > Sorry - I don't even remember WRITING this never mind the context! I > > would note that the final sentence could easily be misinterpreted; > > what I should have said is that it indicated that the data was from > > two disparate stations. > > > > I can't locate a 4349 list.. > > > > Cheers > > > > Harry > > > > On 2 Oct 2007, at 17:43, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > > >> > >> Harry, Philip, > >> Well the arch skeptic McIntyre has found the page Mike put > >> up and it wasn't enough! I expected that, but not his use of > >> nice language in this email! > >> Anyway, I've said I would try and do something in when > >> back from Australia - not next week (as that is busy as well), > >> but the week after that. > >> In the meantime, can you Harry send me a list of the 4349 > >> stations and the 55? I've emailed Philip in case Harry > >> doesn't have the 4349 list. I know Harry has the 55. > >> When I get back, I can then check the 4349 and 4138 and > >> find what additional stations were extracted in the 2006 > >> paper. I know that I took out about 35 US sites as these > >> had crept back despite being deemed 'urban' in work in > >> the 1980s. > >> I think the rest relate to changes in Australia, Canada > >> and NZ wrt station number changing and newer series. > >> > >> No rush on this. > >> > >> It is warm and sunny in Sydney. Woke at 2am, but did get 12hrs > >> sleep, now have to co-ordinate this with the night-time here! > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------- Original Message > >> ---------------------------- > >> Subject: CRU Station Lists > >> From: "Steve McIntyre" > >> Date: Tue, October 2, 2007 5:05 pm > >> To: "'Phil Jones'" > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ---- > >> > >> Dear Phil, thank you for placing the list of CRU stations online. In > >> the webpage, I think that you will find that this is a good idea and > >> will go some way to removing a pointless cause of criticism. > >> > >> You refer to "a look-up Table which associates some current WMO > >> station > >> numbers with the earlier values we are using." This is necessary for > >> the use of the list and I would appreciate it if you would either send > >> me a copy of it or place this online. The online listing shows 4138 > >> stations (as you observe), while Brohan et al listed 4349 stations > >> (as > >> you also observe.) Brohan et al 2006 refers to 55 stations being > >> remove > >> for duplication while the current list shows a larger number. I would > >> appreciate a list of the 4349 stations referred to in Brohan as > >> well as > >> the 55 stations then removed. > >> > >> The webpage also states: "Additional updates in near-real time (either > >> monthly or annually) come directly from Australia, Canada, New > >> Zealand, > >> Austria, the Nordic countries and a few others." It would be > >> helpful if > >> the "few others" were specifically listed or alternately could you > >> email > >> me the names of these few others. > >> > >> Concurrent with the information on stations, I think that you should > >> provide as complete a documentation as possible for your calculations, > >> including the provision of source code, as otherwiie you will > >> undoubtedly continue to have piecemeal inquiries resulting from the > >> presently incomplete documentation. > >> > >> Regards, Steve McIntyre > >> > >> > > > > Ian "Harry" Harris > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich NR4 7TJ > > United Kingdom > > > > > > > -- Philip Brohan, Palaeoclimate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 253. 2007-10-09 08:03:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:03:21 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: RAE - esteem to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, The H-index is quite a neat idea. For you, I did it two different ways. It is possible to select institutions, although this is limited to selecting 50. So I went down the list (which is in order of numbers of papers) and simply did not select ones that I thought could not be you (e.g. medical places) until I hit 50. This still left a number that were probably you, so the implied index would be based on an incomplete set of papers (although it would have got almost all). This gave me the same number as a "raw" estimate. I did check that dividing the number of cites by the number of papers gives the same average as ISI. I've not looked at Scholar -- but I did look at this a few years ago and thought it was incomplete. It is possible to include reports and book chapters, but I can't remember how to do this. I found out that the Santer et al. MPI report where we were the first to use multi-model averages has been cited quite a lot. I did this because I think that this report does not get the credit it deserves -- which I still think is the case. Ben feels a bit guilty about being first author on this, but it really was a joint effort. I need to write down my steps when I use Web of Science so I can remember how to get non-standard results. Anyhow, I think your estimate of your H-index is too low -- but it is tricky. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: > > Tom, > Back from Sydney yesterday. I have been playing with the H-index > program on the Web of Science. It is difficult with me and my common > name.I tried to get rid of the other PD Jones' by restricting the > journals, but it was a pain to set up. Did you come up > with a better way? > > I got an H-index of about 50-55. I tried it twice. > > I do have about 200 papers, as I was updating my CV the other week. > I know that some of these have never been referred to (conf proc. > etc), so > I guess I need to come up with a definitive list from my CV. Would this > help? > > Also the Web of Science has more refs per paper (20-30% more) > than Google Scholar. Have you come across anything as to why this > should be? > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:33 08/10/2007, you wrote: > >> Andy, >> >> I'm attaching my CV which gives some documentation about this. >> >> Also, someone recently told me about a thing called the H-index >> that ISI compiles. This is the number of publications (n) that a >> person has >> that have been cited 'n' or more times. Data on this can be accessed >> on ISI's Web of Science. I made up a Table of people I know or >> who are in my field, also attached. The bottom part of this is people >> in my >> field who are Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science -- I was >> curious >> about my fellow countrymen. >> >> Getting these data is sometimes tricky when there is more than one >> person with the same name and initials. Phil Jones is an example -- >> my numbers for him try to account for this. At UEA, I think Phil may >> be the only person with a better "record" than me. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++++ >> >> Andrew Jordan wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I am just editing all the esteems and noted this in yours: >>> >>> "He is one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline." >>> >>> Do you have any chapter and verse that you could send me? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Professor Andrew J. Jordan >>> School of Environmental Sciences >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich >>> NR4 7TJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> Tel: (00) (44) (0)1603 592552 >>> Fax: (00) (44) (0)1603 593739 >>> >>> CSERGE website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/ >>> >>> Personal website: >>> http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/env/people/facstaff/Dr+Andrew+Jordan >>> >>> >>> Environment and Planning C website: http://www.envplan.com >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 3604. 2007-10-09 10:54:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:54:29 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: I'll get to this as soon as I can. I'm somewhat overloaded right now, both from the work and personal sides, and these both will increase in the short run ahead (due to teaching obligations increasing for the second half of the term and other personal obligations that are not in my control). Is it OK to just forward the message -- being very sure to omit the parenthetical part about Caspar in line 5, and the entire last paragraph about him, Tim, and Keith? That would make it easiest for me. I relate about slow partners, as Caspar put myself and another colleague in a real tight spot on a grant submission 2.5 weeks ago. That also was a nightmare. It is real food for thought. However, right now the key thing is to see how deep the difference between Francis' results and ours goes, and go from there. Let me know what you think. Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tue 10/9/2007 7:33 AM To: Francis Zwiers; Wahl, Eugene R Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder Francis, Gene, Gene, I discussed the paper with Francis last week when we were both together. Francis has a paper based on the work he discussed in Wengen. It comes to different conclusions from yours and Caspar's. It is likely that one of you (probably Caspar - as they have been slow) is one of the reviewer's. Anyway can you discuss the contribution Francis will make to the paper from the Wengen meeting amongst yourselves. Francis' contribution was to have been in section 5, while what you've sent Gene is in section 3. I'm sure Francis would be happy to send you the paper, Gene, if you don't yet have it. Taking on putting this paper together has been a real nightmare. I still can't seem to get any response from Keith, Tim and Caspar - and I know two of them are in rooms less than 5m from me! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4165. 2007-10-09 12:41:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:41:46 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder - to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,Caspar Ammann Keith, Tim and Caspar, I'm getting a bit tired of keeping on emailing you three about your contribution from the excellent Wengen meeting!!!! I hope you're also getting tired of getting emails from me! There is a way to stop these - and that is write your contribution. I think there is some good stuff in the paper, but the longer it gets, the more out of date things get. I've just emailed Peck who I saw last week - about adding to what I have in section 2.5, not much text to add. I've also emailed Francis and Gene about Francis' contribution. The latter wants to contribute, but thinks what he has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording. I've asked Francis and Gene to sort this out if they can. Finally Peck told me that plans for the next PAGES/CLIVAR intersection meeting in Trieste are getting advanced. I don't think you're going to get invited without this paper being submitted. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_july05_20073.doc" 235. 2007-10-09 13:33:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:33:22 +0100 from: "Jo Carlowe" subject: Fw: BBC Focus Magazine to: "Phil Jones" Sorry, just to clarify: I'm assuming that 1740 could be billed as the worst year to be living in the UK? But which year/or decade would be considered to be a good time? Thanks once again. Best wishes Jo Jo Carlowe Freelance journalist 020 8882 8987 [1]jocarlowe@blueyonder.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Jo Carlowe To: [3]Phil Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:18 PM Subject: Re: BBC Focus Magazine Thanks Phil, Can you let me know the best title to use for you? Do you mind also giving a view (just a subjective one) as to when (in terms of climate and weather) was the best decade/s to be around and when the worst (that can include the present or future). Thanks very much. Best regards Jo Jo Carlowe Freelance journalist 020 8882 8987 [4]jocarlowe@blueyonder.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: [5]Phil Jones To: [6]Jo Carlowe Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:06 PM Subject: Re: BBC Focus Magazine Jo, I was away all last week, so apologies for being slow. Here are a few thoughts. 1. You and other may feel more insecure now, but this is coming from the knowledge you now have. This knowledge was quite different from earlier centuries, so this affects how earlier events were perceived then as opposed to now. So, any comparisons with the past are not that relevant to what is happening now or what will happen in the future. 2. There have been good/bad times for humans in the past (and I'm thinking here purely of those related to the environment). The impacts of such events, that I know of, though are only related to the effects across Europe. Agricultural crises DID NOT trigger the Little Ice Age - even if such an event took place. Europe WAS not gripped by a chill that lasted 300 years. Your view here is completely wrong. There were more cold years, but there were also some very warm periods. 3. The clearest impacts of climate in the historical past that I'm aware of took place when the climate of western Europe warmed from the early 1700s to about 1739. There were a number of good harvests in Britain and Ireland and our population increased dramatically as more children survived. You should now see why your premise about the Little Ice Age is completely wrong. The 1730s temperatures in the UK are exceeded by two decades - the 1990s and the 2000s. In the late 1730s the population of Ireland was about twice what it is now! In 1740 the coldest year in the Central England Temperature record occurred. This led of famine across western Europe, especially Ireland. As many people left Ireland then as did from the potato famine a century later. Probably as many died, but it is a forgotten famine because of the later on in 1845/6. The latter was due to the potato blight (and a one crop agricultural system), but the one in 1740 was purely to the weather. I'm attaching an article about this - the book to look at is by Dickson - in the references. There is something in the paper about the effects of the very cold year in different regions of Europe. The important thing in all this is the exceptional cold of the year occurred after exceptional warmth of an entire decade, so the effects were likely much worse as the population had got used to a better climate. The conclusion of the paper is that the event was natural (with no known cause) so it could occur again! The follow on influence of this is that people are not affected much by climate or climate change. What effects them is the Weather! Cheers Phil At 11:17 02/10/2007, you wrote: To: Professor Phil Jones From: Jo Carlowe (BBC Focus Magazine) Dear Professor Jones, I've been given your name by the press officers at the Met Office. I was asking them for experts who may be able to contribute their thoughts to a feature that I've been commissioned to write for Focus magazine and they thought you may be able to help. The feature will attempt to answer/explore the following: Given climate change and the war in Iraq many of us have come to feel increasingly insecure - but is this time worse than any other? Some would argue that that isn't the case. They say the 14th century was the worst time in history: re: health - there was a black death pandemic, re: conflict: The Hundred Years War convulsed northern Europe for almost all of the 14th century, re: prosperity - it was a time of flux with the Peasants Revolt, plus the black death caused an agricultural crisis, climate: there are theories that the agricultural crisis actually triggered the Little Ice Age that ensued at the end of the 14th century (moving into 1500s) causing Europe to be gripped by a chill lasting some 300 years. This article, divided into four categories: climate, health (morbidity and mortality), conflict (wars) and prosperity (standard of living), will canvass the views of historians, meteorologists, economists and health experts to answer the question posed in the title. The idea will be to give a historic overview focusing on these areas, discussing which key events stand out in history, what events (be it conflicts, natural disasters, economic change, health pandemics or innovations, peace resolutions etc) were particularly bleak/catastrophic and which a positive force for change? It would be most helpful if you could give your thoughts on this. In essence it would be good to hear which events in relation to climate and the environment have had the greatest impact on us in either a positive or negative way. So for example, it would be useful to get some sense of the impact of the little Ice Age on the population (in terms of impact on agriculture, prosperity, knock on health implications etc). I've been told that the eruption of Tambora in 1816 which triggered the 'year without a summer' may also be worth a mention (killing 10,000 people directly but a further 66,000 due to starvation and disease). I am sure there are many more events of this kind that stand out. It would be good too, to also mention periods in which climate/weather/nature conditions were favourable, and to give some idea of any future threats that are worth a mention. Finally, it would be helpful to get a 'verdict' from you on when in history (or modern times) would have been the most favourable time to live (given the environmental/climatic conditions of the time), and perhaps when would have been the worst time (although this can include the present or future). I appreciate that this is a vast area - so the idea is really just to give a snap-shot/overview, together with a few subjective ideas/opinions from experts who are in a position to give their take on this. Would you be happy to give your thoughts on this for quotation in the article talking about the significant developments in history, giving some sense of the best and worse centuries/decades to be living in? Of course all quotes used will be correctly cited to their source and I'd be more than happy to include any relevant links or publications. I do hope you can help. In the first instance it might be easiest to reply by email and I can then follow this up with a phone call. I look forward to hearing from you. With best regards Jo Carlowe Jo Carlowe Freelance journalist 020 8882 8987 [7]jocarlowe@blueyonder.co.uk . ___________________________________________________________________________________ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 531 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try [8]SPAMfighter for free now! Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________________________ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 570 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try [9]SPAMfighter for free now! 2114. 2007-10-09 16:41:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: Henry Diaz , elena.xoplaki@giub.unibe.ch, Ricardo Garcia Herrera , Malcolm Hughes , Ercan Kayha date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:41:56 +0200 from: Juerg Luterbacher subject: Re: meeting in Turkey to: Phil Jones dear all thanks very much for the update. There are already a couple of PDSI recons for the Mediterranean going back a few centuries in time. In our recent paper by Esper et al. (GRL) we used 1000 yr tree ring data from Morocco to reconstruct PDSI back in time and found some nice evidence for teleconnections and possibly external forcing. So definitely, drought is a hot topic. Fine with us so, though we might not forget other topics such as heat waves, etc. apart from drought as well with strong impacts. I talked to Thorsten from Pages, he would be happy to join the consortium and told us that he will try to support us with a couple of thousands of Euros. For Pages a broader focus would be welcome as well. He sent me a few comments on Henrys draft. I will send them to you once I am back from Poland best wishes from both of us Juerg and Elena of Phil Jones : > > Henry, > Fine with me. I assumed it would be more about drought anyway. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 17:22 08/10/2007, Henry Diaz wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > After some discussions here with Malcolm and with Roger > > Pulwarty, I believe that we should consider modifying the scope of > > the meeting to highlight the role that severe and sustained drought > > has had in the Med. Basin. > > > > What I'm proposing is to include as a major focus of the meeting > > the impacts of major drought episodes/regimes in the Mediterranean > > for the period that is the focus of this meeting---namely, the last > > approx. 1,200 years---and to consider explicitly global climate > > change impacts in the future. > > > > Our present title includes the words "extreme climate events", so > > I think that shifting the focus somewhat to include a more > > hydroclimatological perspective, would not be much of a stretch. > > > > The adavantage is that drought is likely to be at the top of > > political agendas in the future (it is already...viz., Greece this > > summer!), and it might even enable additional funding support to be > offered. > > > > If you all agree, I can work that theme into the workshop > > prospectus and send it to you for review. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Henry > > > > > >==================================================================== > >>Dear all > >> > >>I hope you are very well. > >> > >>We just submitted a proposal (with the information given by Henrys > >>draft) to the ESF (MedClivar) for funding of our workshop in 2008. > >>There is not much money to expect, depending on the number of > >>applications. In any case, I have asked for 6000.- Euros. We hope > >>that ESF will support us. > >> > >>Best wishes from Bern > >> > >>Elena > > > > > >-- > > > >Dr. Henry F. Diaz > >NOAA ESRL > >325 Broadway > >Boulder, CO 80305 > >Henry.F.Diaz@noaa.gov > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ This mail was sent through IMP at http://mail.unibe.ch 4991. 2007-10-10 08:16:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:16:25 -0700 from: Michael Wehner subject: Re: Fwd: data and source code request to: Phil Jones Phil The supervisor is this guy: http://alice.berkeley.edu/content/carlos.php Does not make much sense, Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Jones Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:37 am Subject: Fwd: data and source code request To: Michael Wehner Cc: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk > > Hi Mike, > Can you do a bit of discrete looking at UC Berkeley to see if > this student really is a student in Physics? > I'm planning to ignore the request, but am a little curious > as to > who the supervisor may be. I don't think I would have had the > nerve to > send a request like this when I was a student. I don't think I'd > have the > nerve to send one this blunt even now. > It seems a pointless PhD. I would have thought that Berkeley > would be above this sort of thing. > > No rush if you're weighed under with proper work! > > Cheers > Phil > > >DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; > > d=gmail.com; s=beta; > > > >h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message- > id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content- > transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; > > bh=c/HihNgRMjULf+/nnucFCR9qV6ePMzkdY9k0CwBDSr8=; > > > >b=FWinghETCZ/zWdBBaB/Zm85ElPLB802PQbcmcxteznhW3FeazipGajh1WccuOAV1/ElgE3wvU7ffkJwDcHbGAefZ05YZF0FZh17HQ6X8s1O+zkmJ3UC1szz0EkvdB91oBxm9qxJXDf1yniOP4M4ZzPfXZ6Ni+wK8/B3EKjMm70Q= > >DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; > > d=gmail.com; s=beta; > > > >h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime- > version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content- > disposition:x-google-sender-auth; > > > >b=pVg/yGiBVjOrmyrLWpMjUMRe+/FLH3rC+u+IjStcVgWZd8NohJbt8H1Yg9v138Rp7tuCInZ/f8lsuk2tiebQr2rKTZR/c3O34vhBCPYFFjXyFK5mS1qqMo0NByoVLevuVqA/XCjR6MO4CeJxg5EblsqZXxZjZtMLfQ5H2lPpO/Y= > >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:27:37 -0700 > >From: "Arthur D. Edelstein" > >Sender: arthuredelstein@gmail.com > >To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >Subject: data and source code request > >X-Google-Sender-Auth: b3a981199d43a067 > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > >Dear Prof. Jones, > > > >My name is Arthur Edelstein, and I am a graduate student in > physics at > >UC Berkeley. I am writing to request the complete HadCRUT3 dataset > and>computer source code that you and your coauthors used to adjust > and>analyze the surface temperature data in the following paper: > > > >Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, > 2006:>Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed > temperature>changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical > Research 111, D12106 > >http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/39/14288 > > > >I and others would like to understand all details of your analysis of > >global temperature trends. I am making this request for the surface > >records you have used and the computer programs that analyze them, > >consistent with the American Geophysical Union policies, copied > below,>which apply to the Journal of Geophysical Research. > > > >Thank you very much in advance. > > > >Sincerely, > >Arthur D Edelstein > >edelstei@socrates.berkeley.edu > >510-703-5770 > > > > >From American Geophysical Union Policy on Referencing Data in and > >Archiving Data for AGU Publications > >http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html > > > >Citing Data in Regular AGU Journal Papers > > > >1. Data sets cited in AGU publications must meet the same type of > >standards for public access and long-term availability as are applied > >to citations to the scientific literature. Thus data cited in AGU > >publications must be permanently archived in a data center or centers > >that meet the following conditions: > > > > a) are open to scientists throughout the world. > > b) are committed to archiving data sets indefinitely. > > c) provide services at reasonable costs. > > > >The World and National data centers meet these criteria. Other data > >centers, though chartered for specific lengths of time, may also be > >acceptable as an archive for this material if there is a > commitment to > >migrating data to a permanent archive when the center ceases > >operation. Citing data sets available through these alternative > >centers is subject to approval by AGU. > > > >2. Data sets that are available only from the author, through > >miscellaneous public network services, or academic, government or > >commercial institutions not chartered specifically for archiving > data,>may not be cited in AGU publications. This type of data set > >availability is judged to be equivalent to material in the gray > >literature. If such data sets are essential to the paper and authors > >should treat their mention just as they would a personal > >communication. These mentions will appear in the body of the paper > but>not in the reference list. > > > >3. To assist scientists in accessing the data sets, authors are > >encouraged to include a brief data section in their papers. This > >section should contain the key information needed to obtain the data > >set being cited. > > > > > > >From American Geophysical Union Guidelines to Publication of > >Geophysical Research > >http://www.agu.org/pubs/pubs_guidelines.html > > > >B. Obligations of Authors > >1. An author's central obligation is to present a concise, accurate > >account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion > >of its significance. > > > >2. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public > >sources of information to permit the author's peers to repeat the > >work. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > > 3428. 2007-10-10 09:21:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:21:37 +0100 from: Philip Brohan subject: Re: [Fwd: CRU Station Lists] to: Phil Jones Phil That figure is made from the same master station list I use for everything else (5067 stations, 4138 of which have normals and SDs and contribute to the dataset). Philip On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 08:29 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > Philip, > Just checking. You've not got the file(s) with the co-ordinates of the > stations that produced Figure 1 in the 2006 JGR paper? Or is that > list 4138? > I'm going to find out from someone at UCBerkeley if the student > who requested all the data really is a student. > Tomorrow, I hope to have some time to decide how to respond. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 09:25 09/10/2007, philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > >Phil. > > > > OK - I won't do anything, there's no rush. > > > >Philip > > > >On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 08:20 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Philip, > > > Just back from Australia. Don't do anything just yet - at least > > > for a few days. > > > I've some lecturing today and tomorrow, but will get back soon. I'll also > > > forward something else just arrived. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 16:45 08/10/2007, you wrote: > > > >Phil, Harry. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry to admit that I can't find the 4349 list, or the program I > > > >used to find that number. Attempting to reproduce it now, I get the same > > > >count as you: 4138 stations provide at least 1 observation to CRUTEM3. > > > > I can't think of any set of 4349 stations that I might have got by > > > >mistake, so I suspect that it's a typo - It's certainly an error, and > > > >(unless you object) I'll write to Steve McIntyre to say so (and add a > > > >note to the CRUTEM3 web page). > > > > > > > > On McIntyre's other points: He can get all the near-real-time updates > > > >from the CRUTEM3 web page > > > >( http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates ) > > > > We could also put the source code online - I've copied the internal > > > >software and documentation to a temporary site so you can see it > > > >( http://brohan.org/philip/job/crutem3/docs/ - please keep this URL > > > >secret) - this could be added to http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3 if > > > >that would help to damp the conspiracy theories. What do you think? > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > > > Philip > > > > > > > >On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 18:15 +0100, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > > > > Harry, > > > > > Thanks. Hopefully Philip has the 4349 list. > > > > > > > > > > Just looked at Climate Audit. There is a thread on this. > > > > > McIntyre not so nice.... > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > From my project notes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary of Station Changes > > > > > > This was effected with the program 'findchanges.for', which > > > > > > identifies three > > > > > > categories of station - those added, those changed, and those > > > > > > deleted. Testing > > > > > > the entire process (ie comparing the original station file with the > > > > > > rev10 one) > > > > > > yielded the following counts: > > > > > > > > > > > > 28 orig_vs_rev10.add.dat > > > > > > 483 orig_vs_rev10.chg.dat > > > > > > 53 orig_vs_rev10.del.dat > > > > > > > > > > > > This agrees with the operations performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm attaching the first and third of these. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the 55 (rather than 53) comes from two stations having their > > > > > > normals zeroed? Again, from my notes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > newbigfile90x.rev10.dat ** this version locked and sent to Philip > > > > > > Brohan ** > > > > > > This revision incorporates the changes made as a result of > > gridding, and > > > > > > attempting to get the 1961-1990 mean normalised data to nudge 0. The > > > > > > following > > > > > > stations were deleted in the sense that their normals were set to > > > > > > missing: > > > > > > 606070 292 -2 -999 > > TIMIMOUN ALGERIA 19691974 101969 > > > > > > 814010 55 540 4 SAINT LAURENT MARONI FRENCH GUIANA > > 19611990 101961 > > > > > > ..this was because the first only has a few values, with high > > > > > > variability, and > > > > > > the second consists of two decades of temperatures with one > > of missing > > > > > > values in between, and the earlier decade is significantly warmer > > > > > > than the > > > > > > second. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry - I don't even remember WRITING this never mind the context! I > > > > > > would note that the final sentence could easily be misinterpreted; > > > > > > what I should have said is that it indicated that the data was from > > > > > > two disparate stations. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't locate a 4349 list.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Oct 2007, at 17:43, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Harry, Philip, > > > > > >> Well the arch skeptic McIntyre has found the page Mike put > > > > > >> up and it wasn't enough! I expected that, but not his use of > > > > > >> nice language in this email! > > > > > >> Anyway, I've said I would try and do something in when > > > > > >> back from Australia - not next week (as that is busy as well), > > > > > >> but the week after that. > > > > > >> In the meantime, can you Harry send me a list of the 4349 > > > > > >> stations and the 55? I've emailed Philip in case Harry > > > > > >> doesn't have the 4349 list. I know Harry has the 55. > > > > > >> When I get back, I can then check the 4349 and 4138 and > > > > > >> find what additional stations were extracted in the 2006 > > > > > >> paper. I know that I took out about 35 US sites as these > > > > > >> had crept back despite being deemed 'urban' in work in > > > > > >> the 1980s. > > > > > >> I think the rest relate to changes in Australia, Canada > > > > > >> and NZ wrt station number changing and newer series. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No rush on this. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is warm and sunny in Sydney. Woke at 2am, but did get 12hrs > > > > > >> sleep, now have to co-ordinate this with the night-time here! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Cheers > > > > > >> Phil > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ---------------------------- Original Message > > > > > >> ---------------------------- > > > > > >> Subject: CRU Station Lists > > > > > >> From: "Steve McIntyre" > > > > > >> Date: Tue, October 2, 2007 5:05 pm > > > > > >> To: "'Phil Jones'" > > > > > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >> ---- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear Phil, thank you for placing the list of CRU stations > > online. In > > > > > >> the webpage, I think that you will find that this is a good idea and > > > > > >> will go some way to removing a pointless cause of criticism. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You refer to "a look-up Table which associates some current WMO > > > > > >> station > > > > > >> numbers with the earlier values we are using." This is > > necessary for > > > > > >> the use of the list and I would appreciate it if you would > > either send > > > > > >> me a copy of it or place this online. The online listing shows 4138 > > > > > >> stations (as you observe), while Brohan et al listed 4349 stations > > > > > >> (as > > > > > >> you also observe.) Brohan et al 2006 refers to 55 stations being > > > > > >> remove > > > > > >> for duplication while the current list shows a larger > > number. I would > > > > > >> appreciate a list of the 4349 stations referred to in Brohan as > > > > > >> well as > > > > > >> the 55 stations then removed. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The webpage also states: "Additional updates in near-real > > time (either > > > > > >> monthly or annually) come directly from Australia, Canada, New > > > > > >> Zealand, > > > > > >> Austria, the Nordic countries and a few others." It would be > > > > > >> helpful if > > > > > >> the "few others" were specifically listed or alternately could you > > > > > >> email > > > > > >> me the names of these few others. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concurrent with the information on stations, I think that > > you should > > > > > >> provide as complete a documentation as possible for your > > calculations, > > > > > >> including the provision of source code, as otherwiie you will > > > > > >> undoubtedly continue to have piecemeal inquiries resulting from the > > > > > >> presently incomplete documentation. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, Steve McIntyre > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian "Harry" Harris > > > > > > Climatic Research Unit > > > > > > School of Environmental Sciences > > > > > > University of East Anglia > > > > > > Norwich NR4 7TJ > > > > > > United Kingdom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Philip Brohan, Palaeoclimate Scientist > > > >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research > > > >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >-- > >Philip Brohan, Palaeoclimate Scientist > >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research > >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Palaeoclimate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre 4471. 2007-10-11 09:48:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:48:14 +0100 from: Philip Brohan subject: Re: data and source code request to: Ian Harris So he's a climate sceptic, with some professional expertise in statistical inference. I'd have expected him to go for detection and attribution, rather than basic data, but he's probably just following the ClimateAudit lead. If he wants help from us, he needs to persuade us that helping him would be an effective use of our time - I'm not persuaded. Philip On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 17:31 +0100, Ian Harris wrote: > Yup, we're being duped. > > However, the request is just as _valid_ as if it were from a > Professor of Climate Studies, isn't it? It seems to me that if we > protest about the position of the applicant we are certain to be seen > to be wriggling on the hook, since he's probably been put up to it by > a better-known skeptic? > > I agree we don't have a squeaky-clean story to tell here, but the > potential for embarrassment will rise exponentially if we struggle > first.. > > Harry > > On 10 Oct 2007, at 17:14, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > Click on the link below and you'll see who the student's > > supervisor is at Berkeley. > > > > As Mike says - it doesn't make any sense. > > > > Phil > > > >> X-Ironport-SBRS: None > >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== > >> X-BrightmailFiltered: true > >> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,255,1188802800"; > >> d="scan'208";a="39754003" > >> From: Michael Wehner > >> To: Phil Jones > >> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:16:25 -0700 > >> X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.2-4.03 (built > >> Sep 22 > >> 2005) > >> Subject: Re: Fwd: data and source code request > >> X-Accept-Language: en > >> Priority: normal > >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 > >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >> > >> > >> Phil > >> The supervisor is this guy: > >> http://alice.berkeley.edu/content/carlos.php > >> > >> Does not make much sense, > >> Michael > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > NR4 7TJ > > UK > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------ > > Ian "Harry" Harris > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ > United Kingdom > -- Palaeoclimate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre 427. 2007-10-11 09:54:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)" date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:54:45 +0100 from: Nathan Gillett subject: Re: Nature paper to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Hi Annie, Simon, No problem re the press release. It seems that a lot of the press picked this up anyway. I talked to quite a few print and online journalists, including AP, Reuters and AFP. The only broadcast media interviews I have done were BBC World Service, ABC and CNN radio. Sorry about being hard to contact yesterday afternoon - we had a school board meeting, which we're all obliged to attend. I'm working at home this morning, but my phone is on! Cheers, Nathan Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: > Dear Nathan and Phil, > Sorry about the press release mess. When the Met Office said they were > writing a release we asked if we could make it a joint one - no point in > writing two about the same thing, especially as we are pretty stretched > in the office. As you know, this happened too late to be of any use. > > Christine McGourty rang me last night and said she had been at another > Met Office press conference yesterday where this had not even been > mentioned. Did you get any further calls yesterday, Nathan? You said in > your text you'd spoken to someone at the BBC. What was that for? > > There is a reasonable amount of coverage but, after your early warning > of this, I wish I'd got off the mark sooner. I won't leave it up to the > Met Office in future. > Best, Annie > ------------------------------- > Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, > University of East Anglia, > Norwich, NR4 7TJ. > Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 > http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press > ............................................ > > > > -- **************************************************************************** Dr. Nathan Gillett, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1603 593 647 Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507 784 Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ **************************************************************************** 67. 2007-10-12 08:19:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:19:37 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: FYI: Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work to: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin October 13, 2007 Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work By WALTER GIBBS OSLO, Oct. 12 - The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to Al Gore, the former vice president, and to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its work to alert the world to the threat of global warming. The award is likely to renew calls by some of Mr. Gore's supporters for him to run for president in 2008, joining an already crowed field of Democrats. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, has said he is not interesting in running but has not flatly rejected the notion. Mr. Gore "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the Nobel citation said. The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists, has produced two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," the citation said. Mr. Gore, who was traveling in San Francisco, said in a statement that he was deeply honored to receive the prize and planned to donate his half of the prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit climate group of which Mr. Gore chairs the board. "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level." Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said he received the news with his wife, Tipper, early this morning in San Francisco, where he spoke on Thursday night at a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a fellow Democrat. Ms. Kreider said Mr. Gore will hold strategy meetings with the Alliance for Climate Protection in San Francisco today and return to his home in Nashville over the weekend. In New Delhi, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian scientist who leads the United Nations committee, said he was overwhelmed at the news of the award. "I expect this will bring the subject to the fore," he said. "I'm only a symbol of a much larger organization, the I.P.C.C., and it's really the scientific community that contributed to the work of the I.P.C.C.," Dr. Pachauri said, according to Reuters. "They're the real winners of this award,'" he said. The Nobel award carries political ramifications in the United States, which the Nobel committed tried to minimize after its announcement today. The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, addressed reporters after the awards were announced and tried to dismiss repeated questions asking whether the awards were a criticism - direct or indirect - of the Bush administration. He said the committee was making an appeal to the entire world to unite against the threat of global warming. "We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, to challenge, all of them, to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming," he said. "The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front of this." He said the peace prize is only a message of encouragement, adding, "the Nobel committee has never given a kick in the leg to anyone." In this decade, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to prominent people and agencies who differ on a range of issues with the Bush administration, including former President Jimmy Carter, who won in 2002, and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency in Vienna, in 2005. Global warming has been a powerful issue all this year, attracting more and more public attention. The film documenting Mr. Gore's campaign to increase awareness of climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award this year. The United Nations committee has issued repeated reports and held successive conferences to highlight the growing scientific understanding of the problem. Meanwhile, signs of global warming have become more and more apparent, even in the melting Arctic. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources." "Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries," it said. "There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states." The Bay Area has been the staging area for an online movement to draft Mr. Gore to mount another campaign for the White House. A San Francisco-based Web site, www.Draftgore.com, claims more than 165,000 signatures and comments on an online petition, including several placed early this morning congratulating Mr. Gore on his win. The same group also placed a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Wednesday, pleading with Mr. Gore to rectify his bitter defeat in 2000, when he won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college after the Supreme Court ruled against a recount in Florida. "I'll actually vote for you this time," wrote one signee, Joshua Kadel of Virginia, on the Web site this morning. "Sorry about 2000!" The Gores keep an apartment in San Francisco, where their daughter Kristin lives. The city is also the headquarters of Current TV, Mr. Gore's Emmy-award winning television and online news venture. Others dedicated to the fight against global warming said the winners were at the head of efforts to investigate and draw attention to the issue. Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is based in Bonn, Germany, and oversaw negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol, said recent moves by political leaders around the world to find ways of reducing emissions would have been hard to imagine without the contributions made by both the I.P.C.C. and Mr. Gore. "We can recommend ways for policymakers to move forward, but without the I.P.C.C. data being there, this would be next to impossible," said Mr. de Boer. He said Mr. Gore could use his enhanced stature from winning the Peace Prize to focus on parts of the developing world where politicians need support to spread knowledge about the dangers of climate change. "It's very difficult to advance on these issues without support from the general public," he said. Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former senior United Nations official for humanitarian affairs, called climate change more than an environmental issue. "It is a question of war and peace," Mr. Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo, told the Associated Press. "We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands. Jesse McKinley contributed reporting from San Francisco and James Kanter from Paris. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company * Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map 937. 2007-10-12 09:24:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:24:29 -0400 from: "DOE Survey" subject: DOE-Science Technical Manpower Survey to: DOE Office of Science Dear Professor Jones, We would like to ask for a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey regarding your Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored project or projects. The DOE Technical Manpower survey will provide Congress with accurate information regarding the lasting impact of DOE research and development funding. Your help is crucial to demonstrating the contribution of DOE funding to the training of future generations of scientists and other technical personnel. Your survey will concern the following grant(s): ER62601 - Climate Data Analysis and Models for the Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change If you are currently funded under more than one DOE grant, you will receive one email per grant. We want to assure you that the information will not be used in any way to evaluate your own project, but instead will be aggregated with other respondents' data and used to evaluate the activity of the DOE itself. Therefore, we have retained an outside consulting firm (Summit Consulting LLC) to implement this survey. Summit staff will contact you shortly with instructions for completing this online survey. Summit will also remove your ID number before any analysis or data are transmitted to DOE to ensure confidentiality. This survey will ask questions about the number of graduate students and principal investigators currently funded by your DOE-sponsored project, and the number of hours per week they are employed. This survey will also inquire about the number of students who worked for you last year and completed their degree during that time period. For these questions, you might need to consult with your grants administrator if you are unsure about their answers. Sincerely, Jerry Elwood, PhD Acting Associate Director for Biological and Environmental Research Office of Science Department of Energy Michael Strayer, Associate Director for Advanced Scientific Computing Research Office of Science Department of Energy 4008. 2007-10-12 10:43:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu, wg1-ar4-re@joss.ucar.edu date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:43:01 -0700 from: Ken Denman subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-las] Nobel Peace Prize to IPCC and Albert Gore, Jr to: Susan Solomon Hi Susan, Dahe and Martin, This is very big news here in Canada. It looks like I will be interviewed live on CTV at 6 pm EST. Several people have asked me what IPCC will do with the prize money. I have been telling them that I think IPCC should set up a fund to help developing countries adopt cleaner technologies for energy production. I think that funds could then be levered from many other organizations. Thanks for your very gracious and careful wording below. It has been the work of thousands of scientists. Best regards, Ken Susan Solomon wrote: > > Dear Members of the WG1 AR4 Team, > > You probably already know that the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize for > 2007 announced today are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > and Mr. Albert Gore, Jr. It is clear from the Nobel Committee's press > release (see > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html) that > this is recognition of the nearly twenty years of tireless work by the > climate change science community. In particular we would like to > acknowledge the wisdom and insight of Dr Bert Bolin in establishing the > IPCC and setting its guiding principles, and of Sir John Houghton for > his founding leadership of IPCC WG1. > > The Nobel Committee cited the importance of dissemination of greater > knowledge in making this award, so the honor today is fundamentally to > science and its value to all humankind. The IPCC's role is defined by > its reports which have been the core of our efforts and the primary way > in which we have informed the public. Those reports are your work and > that of previous Lead Authors so this is very much your prize and > recognition of your untiring efforts, dedication to balance, and > teamwork across the continents. > > We would also like to acknowledge co-recipient Al Gore for his enormous > efforts to take the messages of climate change science to the public. > > Congratulations again. > > Susan, Martin, and Dahe > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wg1-ar4-las mailing list > Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu > http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las -- Ken Denman, FRSC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis c/o University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250) 363 8230 FAX: (250) 363 8247 email: ken.denman@ec.gc.ca Room 263 Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3 Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences Fisheries and Oceans Canada tel. 250 363 6335 web page: http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las 2587. 2007-10-12 14:24:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:24:55 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Peace Prize -CONGRATULATIONS to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, Susan Solomon , Martin Manning Dear All, Congratulations with IPCC winning the Nobel Peace Prize together with Al Gore. I think this gives even more authority to science as a main underpinning of policy decisions, and underscores the importance of climate change as a major pressing issue. In particular this is an acknowledgement of the work of the IPCC organisation and structure, and the great work that was done by Susan and the TSU team for the last report. It is fun to have had a slight share in this. Best wishes Eystein _________________________________ Eystein Jansen, prof., Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55 N5007 Bergen phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330 [1]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no www.bjerknes.uib.no _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 4193. 2007-10-12 17:48:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:48:35 -0400 from: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil This is a familiar refrain, but I haven't produced that 1 page yet. The reason is that we received the reviews on Terry's paper this week. It has been accepted with minor revision. The main comment was that we should have a look at the effect of constructing pseudo proxies with red noise, so Terry is quickly looking at that. Indications are that this does not affect conclusions about the relative merits of different methods. In thinking about this, I also realized that we had not properly included the estimated responses to forcing in the kalman filter method (this was subtle, and wasn't picked up by the reviewers either). Doing it right turns out to be difficult. Doing it very close to right is less difficult, and so Terry is looking at that also - and again indications are that it has little effect on our results. So while the revisions probably won't change our conclusions materially - I'm holding off just a bit longer. I haven't heard anything back from Eugene yet - will contact him when the 1-pager is ready. I don't think there is a huge gap between our perspectives - it is not inconsistent that a given method produces a "good" reconstruction given a particular collection of proxies, but that it performs less well than some other methods under general conditions. Cheers, Francis PS - I guess we are writing to each other as Nobel Laureates now - congratulations! Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: October 9, 2007 7:33 AM To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Wahl, Eugene R Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - reminder Francis, Gene, Gene, I discussed the paper with Francis last week when we were both together. Francis has a paper based on the work he discussed in Wengen. It comes to different conclusions from yours and Caspar's. It is likely that one of you (probably Caspar - as they have been slow) is one of the reviewer's. Anyway can you discuss the contribution Francis will make to the paper from the Wengen meeting amongst yourselves. Francis' contribution was to have been in section 5, while what you've sent Gene is in section 3. I'm sure Francis would be happy to send you the paper, Gene, if you don't yet have it. Taking on putting this paper together has been a real nightmare. I still can't seem to get any response from Keith, Tim and Caspar - and I know two of them are in rooms less than 5m from me! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 5022. 2007-10-13 20:28:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:28:21 +0100 from: hilst-epsl@mit.edu subject: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00839 to: Ms. Ref. No.: EPSL-D-07-00839 Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe Authors: Elena Blanter; Jean-Louis Le Moul; Mikhail Shnirman; Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot, PhD Journal: Earth and Planetary Science Letters Dear Phil, This is the second part of my request. I hope you can help. Since the two papers are closely related, I would very much appreciate your views on the merit of two separate papers. If you are available to review this manuscript, please click on the link below: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/l.asp?i=23850&l=9KZXA957 If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would return your review within 21 days. If you are not available to review this manuscript, please click on the link below. We would appreciate receiving suggestions for alternative reviewers: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/l.asp?i=23849&l=9H07Q3SG If you prefer, you may register your response to this invitation online, by accessing the Elsevier Editorial System for Earth and Planetary Science Letters as a REVIEWER: url: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/ Your username is: PJones-929 Your password is: jones26322 Please select the "New Invitations" link on your Main Menu, then choose to "Accept" or "Decline" this invitation, as appropriate. If you accept this invitation, you may submit your completed review online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor and comments for the author. To assist you in the reviewing process, I am delighted to offer you full access to Scopus* for 30 days. With Scopus you can search for related articles, references and papers by the same author. You may also use Scopus for your own purposes at any time during the 30-day period. If you already use Scopus at your institute, having this 30 day full access means that you will also be able to access Scopus from home. Access instructions will follow once you have accepted this invitation to review *Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of research information and quality internet sources. With kind regards, Rob D. van der Hilst Editor Earth and Planetary Science Letters ABSTRACT: We study the solar signature in the temporal evolution of disturbances of European temperature and pressure in the 20th century, using long series of daily data provided by meteorological stations. We use three independent indices of solar activity which exhibit similar evolution after 22-yr running averaging. With the same 22-yr averaging, disturbances of temperature and pressure are found to be dominated by wintertime perturbations. The solar signature in the wintertime disturbances is especially strong throughout the 20-th century and does not weaken in the last decades, contrary to what happens for whole year data. Disturbances of minimal temperature, pressure and wind direction in the wintertime display remarkable similarity: All these meteorological (actually almost climatic, given the 22-yr averaging) characteristics closely follow the solar signature as far as the winter season is concerned, even when little or no correlation is observed for the whole year. We discuss the particular features of European climate and speculate on how solar forcing may manifest itself in other regions. 3090. 2007-10-14 13:45:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:45:58 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: singer etc to: Andrew Revkin Andy: I am delighted that Singer did not make the final cut in your article about the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore. Good on you! Indeed we are living on thin and thinning ice - glaciers, sea ice and ice sheets - and time is running out to do anything useful about it. This is due to the fact that the time required to reach 95% of equilibrium temperature change on Earth is 1000 years, a result of the downward transport of heat by Earth's oceans. On an all-land Earth - a true earth - this time would be only 10 years. On such an Earth we could have afforded to wait-and-see before taking action, as such action would have an almost immediate effect. On our real Earth, however, we do not have the luxury of waiting and seeing, but must instead ACT NOW! Somehow, this should be communicated to the "Great Uniter, not-Divider", who is fiddling while Earth burns, and melts. I do not understand how Singer et al. fail to comprehend this. Perhaps they are living on a different Planet Earth from the one on which you and I live, perhaps on an all-land Earth. Yet, since their (Singer & Avery) argument is all wet, as I can easily demonstrate, this cannot be so. In any case, I am very pleased that you removed Singer's pejorative remark about Mr. Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize. It was a remark one would expect to find on a stall wall of a public toilet. Regards, Michael belated response. been on road 48 hrs nonstop. Singer didn't make final cut. that was an early-day version of story and -- true to type -- he was quick with a pithy remark. thanks for exploring my book (a thin one, about thin ice). i'll track yours down (but won't use as a doorstop). best, andy At 08:23 PM 10/12/2007, you wrote: Andy: Upset with you again am I, as at the beginning of this year. Why quote Fred Singer in your article today about the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC? Otherwise your article was excellent. I have quantitatively evaluated the hypothesis of Fred & Dennis Avery in their book, Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years, http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/104-4387152-0427966?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192201730&sr=8-1 namely, that the observed warming is due to a natural 1500-year cycle, not we humans, hence we humans need do nothing to mitigate it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps you could write an article on my quantitative evaluation and rejection of their hypothesis, which analysis is exceedingly straight-forward, of course giving Singer and Avery the opportunity to counter if they wish. Shall we do so or will you continue to give voice to those who deserve the Ig Nobel Prize for Nonsense? Michael P.S. Since I purchased your book, The North Pole Was Here, wherein you kindly quoted me, http://www.amazon.com/North-Pole-Was-Here-Nyt/dp/0753413299/ref=sr_1_3/104-4387152-0427 966?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192234551&sr=1-3 to give my son, Sam, so should you purchase my book, Human-induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment, ( http://www.amazon.com/Human-Induced-Climate-Change-Interdisciplinary-Assessment/dp/05218 66030/ref=sr_1_1/104-4387152-0427966?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192234378&sr=1-1 ) which can serve not only as an up-to-date tutorial on global warming, but also as a doorstop. Beat that, Thin Man! Michael [1]ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018-1405 phone: 212-556-7326 fax: 509 -357-0965 mobile: 914-441-5556 4973. 2007-10-15 08:49:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:49:05 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Sent on behalf of Jerry Elwood, Acting Associate Director of to: "Phil Jones" Good. I will use the Nature paper for a weekly, Nobel notwithstanding. Please give a read and OK Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:29 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli; Carlson-Brown, Karen Subject: RE: Sent on behalf of Jerry Elwood, Acting Associate Director of Science for BER Anjuli, Was reminded about this by your Technical Manpower Survey. Everything has been resolved now and the grant is through. The new one still yet hasn't been registered, so I can't put the text in I've written. The latest one there is the one that ended end of May last year. Maybe this will get up in due course. The Nature paper got quite a bit of coverage here, but seems to have been swamped now with the Nobel Peace prize award for IPCC and Al Gore. Cheers Phil At 17:22 10/09/2007, Bamzai, Anjuli wrote: Phil, I had no idea Chicago had questions about how UK university staff are paid. I have not been asked to provide any clarifications or additional info. We are getting close to end of FY (sept 30) and I hope everything gets resolved by then... Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:54 AM To: Carlson-Brown, Karen; Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: Sent on behalf of Jerry Elwood, Acting Associate Director of Science for BER Dear Anjuli and Karen, I have written an abstract for what I think of as the current project. I cannot submit this as the renewal is still being dealt with by the Chicago office. There seems to be an inordinate delay in getting it approved. I and someone from the University Registry have been in touch with someone in Chicago, but it is still not settled. It was supposed to start on May 1, 2007, but was delayed by your CR. Discussions now seem to be about how in the UK University system staff are paid - this differs from the US. This hasn't been a problem before, but seems the stumbling block now. The timing hasn't been helped by holiday breaks during July and August. I am still working on the assumption that it will be approved at some point. I will be coming to the meeting in Indianapolis, the week after next, but have had to pay for the flights from somewhere else - which I'll reimburse when it comes through. I have had to move the staff to get paid from elsewhere, which hasn't caused problems yet, but it will soon, if the issue isn't resolved by October. Best Regards Phil At 19:54 28/08/2007, you wrote: Dear BER Investigator, The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) has developed a database system designed to provide a summary of BER's research to the public. The initial content will be descriptions of all projects that are currently active. This initial phase will require your providing an abstract for your current project, and this information will be maintained for the duration of your project period. When the project is renewed or when you receive a new award, you will then be required to provide new information. This system will complement, not replace the RIMS system. You will still be required to submit progress reports via the RIMS system. You have been assigned a user name by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), who is operating the system for BER. Username consists of LastNameFirstInitial (for example, smitha, johnsonb, millerc). Passwords will not be required for submitting an abstract. The URL for the system is [2]http://www.osti.gov/oberabstractsadmin/. Once at the site, enter your username (leave password field empty) and click Logon. Find your project by entering information in one or more of the fields provided and click Search. A results list will be returned. Select the appropriate project from the list and click the Submit Abstract link to the right. Paste the abstract text into the box provided and click on Submit. You will receive a confirmation message that the edit was successful. You may submit abstracts for additional projects, if applicable. Once you have completed the submission, click on Logout. If you encounter technical difficulties with the system, please contact [3]Lorrie Johnson (865-576-1157). Thank you in advance for your cooperation in building this system. For questions relating to this system, please contact the appropriate division program assistant: Climate Change Research - [4]Karen Carlson-Brown (301-903-3338), Life & Medical Sciences - [5]Joanne Corcoran (301-903-6488), or Environmental Remediation Research - [6]Kim Laing (301-903-3026). [] Jerry W. Elwood Acting Associate Director of Science for Biological and Environmental Research Karen Carlson-Brown [7]karen.carlson@science.doe.gov 301-903-3338 fax: 301-903-8519 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded Content: 12dfd151.gif: 00000001,1b5a208c,00000000,5ac71ec0 5215. 2007-10-15 11:01:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:01:04 -0600 (MDT) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: A couple of things to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil I am in DC at NRC mtg. Poor reporting here too, even in Boulder. MOst just mentioned Gore, not IPCC. Be nice to get a nice certificate. Wonder where the $ will go? Kevin > >> Kevin, > Just sent an email to Martin and also Renate suggesting that > when Patchy > collects the prize in Oslo, IPCC gets it scanned and sent to all of us > on > AR4. We can then print it off, frame it and put it on a wall! They > won't > get it for ages. It might be worth a few more of us suggesting > something like this. > I know its for more than just AR4, but for all the Assessments, but > they > will only have these recent email lists. > > Secondly, next time you see Chris Landsea, maybe you can tell him > he > opted out the prize! > > All weekend op-ed pieces here were very begrudging in their praise > for > Al Gore. The award was for IPCC and Al Gore, which most also got wrong > here. > Also, some said it was from Sweden and not Norway. Reporting was quite > poor. > > Finally, that idiot Lord Monckton or Brenchly, is making his own > DVD, based > on that awful Ch 4 program 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' ! > Hopefully soon > Ofcom (the UK group who assesses complaints against programs) will have > ruled > on that program - which had many more errors than Al's DVD. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 2596. 2007-10-16 12:54:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:54:40 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: [Fwd: Re: IPCC shares] to: Phil Jones Phil, This is relevant to quantifying the UEA contribution to IPCC. NCAR contributed a lot to the AR4, but very little to IPCC90. In the back they list people by country and with organization identified. Only 4 NCARs -- Firor, Dickinson, Schneider, Trenberth. But it is important to weight contributions. Clearly, contributing author is much less than (e.g.) lead author. Tom. Message-ID: <4713A31E.8020400@ucar.edu> Disposition-Notification-To: Tom Wigley Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:27:58 -0600 From: Tom Wigley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karl Taylor CC: Ben Santer Subject: Re: IPCC shares References: <47139835.6000902@llnl.gov> In-Reply-To: <47139835.6000902@llnl.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Karl, Wonderful. I have done no more than think of how many points to give for the various contributions. My spread is less ... Contributing: 1 Lead: 4 Convening: 10 Editor: 10 Chair: 25 Note that there are other IPCC reports than just the big WG reports. One would need to use a diff. point system for these. For example, in Harvey et al., 1997, the editors did nothing. I didn't try to figure out my contribution -- I just guessed it at about 1/2000. If Ben told you Mike Wehner's remark, this would allow me to have a parking spot at Berkeley, but only if I rode a unicycle. I'll be at PCMDI on Dec. 6. Ben thought we might have a Nobel (or no bull) celebratory dinner on the 5th. Tom. ++++++++++++++++ Karl Taylor wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Ben told me you were attempting to determine how to divide the prize > money. Here's my quick go at it: > > Assume a contributing author gets 1 share, a lead author 10 shares, a > convening lead author 50 shares, a working group chair 500 shares, and > the IPCC chair 10,000 shares. Taking into account that there have been > 4 assessment reports by each of the 3 working groups, and assuming 1 > IPCC chair, and for each working group 2 chairs, 20 convening lead > authors, 100 lead authors, and 300 contributing authors, this yields a > total of 80,000 shares. My share (1 lead authorship, and ~10 > contributing authorships) gives me 20 shares or about 1/4000 of the > total. Al gets half the $1.5 million prize; we share the other half, > so I get 20 shares x $750,000/(80000 shares) = $187.50. Guess I can > now retire comfortably. > > It is nice to know that as scientists we've made some difference. > > Hope all is well with you. > > Best wishes, > Karl > > > 771. 2007-10-16 13:43:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:43:11 +0100 from: "Jenkins, Geoff" subject: RE: Romans in Britain to: "Stott, Peter" Thanks. I think I will say: "Anecdotal evidence, for example the growing of grapes in the medieval period, has been used to imply that current warm temperatures in England have not been influenced by human activities. However, the popularity of grape growing is related to many other factors apart from temperature, and the longest temperature record in existence (that for the Low Countries (van Engelen, refernce??)) indicates a medieval warm period that was cooler than current temperatures". OK? I am not very convinced by it myself, but it's the best I can think of. Realclimate points out that "attribution doesn't depend on previous climates changes", which I have used myself, but doesnt seem to apply here, does it, because you use the lack of any natural warming from obs/model as the way to rule out natural causes for the last 50 years. van Engelen (Fig 6 in UKCIP02) seems to show sustained warmings as big as 1970-2000 in the 1300s. Change of subject. In K&S you say "....it is likely that there has been a sig human influence on the recent warming of CET...". I is the word "likely" meant to have IPCC connotations ie GT 66%? BTW I didn't think much of the 9 errors article on realclimate, particularly the points on SLR and on Kilimanjaro. Much too defensive of Gore. Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Stott, Peter Sent: 16 October 2007 13:10 To: Jenkins, Geoff Cc: Jones, Gareth S Subject: Re: Romans in Britain Geoff, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=322 has an extensive discussion of English wine growing. Also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards- again/ Socio economic factors are more important than climate. Phil Jones can tell you all about Vine Street in London which isn't anything to do with vineyards I gather. The observed variability on the 200 years we looked at in Karoly and Stott agreed with the modelled variability - in fact the unforced control model had about the same variability as the (presumably naturally forced) observed variability, indicating the model had too much (not too little) variability. If there was greater unforced variability pre 1700 than post 1700 than that could I suppose invalidate our conclusions but I don't know any evidence there was, during the last 2000 years or so. A whole industry of bloggers out there are debating the 9 "errors" and now realclimate has weighed in. http://www.realclimate.org/ Peter On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 11:09 +0100, Jenkins, Geoff wrote: > Peter > > What is the line to take, please, on "It was warmer in England in > Roman times - grapes etc - so the Karoly & Stott attribution of recent > CET warming to man is rubbish". > > Thanks > > Geoff > > Dr Geoff Jenkins > Manager, Climate Change Scenarios > Hadley Centre > Met Office > FitzRoy Road, EXETER, EX1 3PB, UK > tel: +44 (0) 787 966 1136 > geoff.jenkins@metoffice.gov.uk > www.metoffice.gov.uk > 3413. 2007-10-16 14:13:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:13:45 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant to: "Jay, VL ((Victoria))" Hi Jay, What can I say? Still working hard on this. Programs to import Australian, CLIMAT and MCDW bulletins done. Master reference database of WMO-coded stations enabled. Primaries done. Secondaries almost done (attempting to re-run these with updated databases). Remaining: rest of secondaries, checking, NetCDF conversion. Talking of the latter - do you have a working Fortran-NetCDF library there? Otherwise it'll be tricky to get it working! Harry On 15 Oct 2007, at 13:59, Jay, VL ((Victoria)) wrote: > Dear Phil and Ian, > > Please could you let us know progress on this, and when we should > expect > delivery / hand-over? > > Thanks > Victoria > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 19 June 2007 14:34 > To: Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Jay, VL (Victoria) > Cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant > > > Victoria, Bryan, > Can we get a no funds extension to this project to the end of > August? Harry has almost finished. This is just so UEA doesn't > send you back the money when the account gets closed. > UEA wants to close this. > > So can you send an agreement back to me, so I can forward. > > Harry is doing something else now - well from July 1, so needs > to finish. I've put someone else on one aspect. > > I'll leave it with Harry to arrange the dates of a visit to set up > in the > second half of July. August is just some insurance. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 15:46 23/01/2007, Bryan Lawrence wrote: >> Hi Victoria >> >> Can we formally extend the UEA grant so that they can spend their >> last >> travel money when they come down for the final data delivery (it's >> difficult for them otherwise to hang onto the money to spend it)? >> >> Thanks >> Bryan > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ---- > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2327. 2007-10-16 14:58:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Marsh, AKP \(Kevin\) - SSTD" date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:58:09 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant to: "Jay, VL \(Victoria\)" Hi Jay, On 16 Oct 2007, at 14:46, Jay, VL ((Victoria)) wrote: > Harry, > > Thanks for the update, yes we have Fortran-NetCDF libraries on some of > our machines, thanks for warning us. Let us know if you think of any > other requirements before the hand-over so we can make sure everything > is in place, Well the main program(s) require a fair chunk of memory. Other than that, no. > Any guesses on timescale? Damn - I was hoping you wouldn't spot that was missing! ;-) If I leave the NetCDF conversion until I come down - and integrate it directly onto your systems (instead of getting it working here and then finding it needs to be rewritten for your setup) - then a couple of weeks should do it. But please bear in mind that all my time estimates have been completely wrong so far! I do realise you need to plan. An alternative approach would be to set a time and take delivery of the current state. Primary variables are done anyway, secondaries nearly so. Any missing items could be tackeld while I'm there. Is there a good period for you? Harry > > Cheers, > Victoria > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Harris [mailto:i.harris@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 16 October 2007 14:14 > To: Jay, VL (Victoria) > Cc: Phil Jones > Subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant > > Hi Jay, > > What can I say? Still working hard on this. > > Programs to import Australian, CLIMAT and MCDW bulletins done. > Master reference database of WMO-coded stations enabled. > Primaries done. > Secondaries almost done (attempting to re-run these with updated > databases). > > Remaining: rest of secondaries, checking, NetCDF conversion. > > Talking of the latter - do you have a working Fortran-NetCDF library > there? Otherwise it'll be tricky to get it working! > > Harry > > > On 15 Oct 2007, at 13:59, Jay, VL ((Victoria)) wrote: > >> Dear Phil and Ian, >> >> Please could you let us know progress on this, and when we should >> expect delivery / hand-over? >> >> Thanks >> Victoria >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: 19 June 2007 14:34 >> To: Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Jay, VL (Victoria) >> Cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk >> Subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant >> >> >> Victoria, Bryan, >> Can we get a no funds extension to this project to the end of >> August? Harry has almost finished. This is just so UEA doesn't >> send you back the money when the account gets closed. >> UEA wants to close this. >> >> So can you send an agreement back to me, so I can forward. >> >> Harry is doing something else now - well from July 1, so needs >> to finish. I've put someone else on one aspect. >> >> I'll leave it with Harry to arrange the dates of a visit to >> set up > >> in the >> second half of July. August is just some insurance. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> At 15:46 23/01/2007, Bryan Lawrence wrote: >>> Hi Victoria >>> >>> Can we formally extend the UEA grant so that they can spend their >>> last travel money when they come down for the final data delivery >>> (it's difficult for them otherwise to hang onto the money to spend >>> it)? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Bryan >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> -- >> ---- >> >> > > Ian "Harry" Harris > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ > United Kingdom > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 3335. 2007-10-17 10:41:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:41:15 +0100 from: "Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI)" subject: FW: events to: -----Original Message----- From: Peter Lang (Resurgence Magazine) [mailto:peterlang@resurgence.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:18 AM To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: events Dear Friends, Please see below some information about forthcoming events from Resurgence which may be of interest to your members/supporters. Could you help us by publicising them? Many thanks, Peter Lang, Events Director for Resurgence Magazine, Tel: 0208 809 2391 Email: [1]peterlang@resurgence.org Resurgence Magazine - an international forum for ecological and spiritual thinking - promotes the nourishment of Soil, Soul and Society. Described by The Guardian newspaper as "The spiritual and artistic flagship of the Green movement". Website: [2]www.resurgence.org Resurgence Magazine and Friends of the Earth present three events: Climate Stability: Addressing the Root Causes rather than just the Symptoms, with leading thinkers, writers and politicians * Wednesday November 7 2007 The Politics of Climate Change: developing an all party approach to mitigate global warming. With Michael Meacher, former Labour Environment Minister; Peter Ainsworth, Conservative Shadow Secretary for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary; and Sin Berry, Green Party National Speaker. * Wednesday January 16 2008 Food and Climate Change: Food production, distribution and consumption in the context of climate change. Craig Sams, founder of Green & Blacks Chocolate; Jenny Jones, Green Member of the GLA and chair of London Food; Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University; and Patrick Holden, director of The Soil Association. * Wednesday April 2 2008 The Business Response to Climate Change: how corporations and businesses should adapt to the need for sustainability and climate stability. With Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group; Tessa Tennant, co-founder of the UK Social Investment Forum; Nick Robins, Head of the Climate Change Centre of Excellence at HSBC; and Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth. All three events take place from 6.30pm at Cecil Sharpe House, 2 Regents Park Road, Camden, London NW1 7AY Tickets on the door: 15.00 per person per event. 30.00 for all three events, concessions 10.00 per event, 20 for all three. Restaurant and bar facilities are available. Accessible for the disabled. RSVP: Peter Lang, Resurgence Events Director [3]peterlang@resurgence.org or 020 8809 2391. [4]www.resurgence.org Supported by the Royal Mail. 378. 2007-10-17 10:51:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:51:34 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= subject: Re:Re:Re: thank you to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-12 17:20:58 +0800 Subject: Re:Re: thank you Dear Phil, I have told you the difficulties of doing the monthly series during 1910-2006 of average China surface air temperature at present in last email, but I did the series since 1951(attachment). I hope there will be helpful. Best Qingxiang Li Dear Qingxiang, I have been away much of the last 3 weeks, but I have managed to get someone here to produce a few plots of the data you sent. I am attaching 3 of these plots. The first plot is a summary of the 'China' average we have produced from the data you sent (the two sets of 40-42 stations). We also used the data for the same stations we had in 1990. So there are 4 series on the plot Data for 1954-1983 rural and urban sites as we had in 1990 Data for 1951-2004 rural and urban site as you sent All are anomalies from 1954-83 - I need to change this to 1961-90 The other two plots show the 'rural' and 'urban' separately and also plot your unadjusted as well as your adjusted sites. So these have 3 series on. There is also a line with the count of station numbers. What this shows to me is. 1. As I expected - your homogeneity work (whilst good and useful) doesn't really change the average. It improves individual records, but it tends to cancel out when a number of stations are averaged. 2. There is a dramatic warming from mid-1980s - some of which may be urban related? What I still need to do. 1. I will produce a series for SST for the S. and E. China sea from HadSST2. This will not have any 'urban' influence. 2. An average based on some rural stations in Mongolia and the very east of Russia, and any sites I can find in the north of Vietnam, Laos and Myanmmar ( I'm not very hopeful of finding any good sites in these three countries). One other thing I would like from you. Can you send a 'China' average? What I need is an average for the whole of the period from say 1910 to 2006. This would be from your adjusted station dataset and would use many more stations than the 40-42 you have ( and exclude the obvious rural ones as in He et al. 2004 in Theor. Appl. Clim.). Is this possible as a monthly series? I will also send a couple of powerpoint slides to show you why homogeneity adjustments average to approximately zero. Best Regards Phil At 04:16 25/09/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: Dear Phil, Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you. From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations. I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren's. But I think different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale and in China. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "Rean Guoyoo" < guoyoo@yahoo.com > Cc: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net >, < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800 Subject: Re: thank you Dear Guoyu, I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week, but here this week. I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am quite busy the next few weeks. Best Regards Phil At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote: The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang. Regards, Guoyu Dear Phil, Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change. In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change. We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center. I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor. Best regards, Guoyu NCC, Beijing Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1] Join our Network Research Panel today! Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263죵¨µ======================= Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263天信======================= Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\monthly_series_China_1051-2004.doc" 1504. 2007-10-17 14:03:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:03:32 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: CRU TS Secondaries Strategy to: Phil Jones , Tim Osborn Hi, I've been mulling over a strategy issue. CRU TS Secondary parameters are currently derived from: 1. One or more Primary parameters, gridded (to 2.5, for some reason) 2. Normals for the Primary parameter(s) 3. Normals for the Secondary parameter The IDL routines do not allow for genuine observations of the secondary parameter to be incorporated. The problem is that we should be moving towards using secondary observations where available. If we just pick a changeover point, there are likely to be noticeable discontinuities - also we probably don't have enough observations to do that yet! So, what I propose is this: 1. Produce Secondaries as Secondaries (using synthetically-generated data from Primaries) 2. Produce Secondaries as if they were Primaries (ie using direct observations of Secondary values) 3. Let the output from 2 overwrite the output from 1 WHERE the actual station count is >=1. In other words, the synthetic data is replaced with 'genuine' data if there is at least one station reporting within the cell at that timestep. How does that sound? Any better ideas? It has the advantage that it doesn't require a great deal of coding ;-) Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2162. 2007-10-17 16:27:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: 17 Oct 2007 16:27:48 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: [Fwd: CLIVAR/PAGES membership] to: Keith Briffa , "Michael E. Mann" , Juerg Beer Keith, Mike, Juerg, As co-chair for the PAGES-CLIVAR Intersection Panel, I'd like to formally ask you whether you would like to extend your membership of this panel. Technically (as can be seen below), Keith and Mike's term is already up, and Juerg's will be soon. We would be more than delighted if you wanted to carry on since your insight and contributions in the past in helping set the agenda and in organising various workshops has been extremely useful. If you would prefer to let your membership lapse for whatever reasons, please let me know, possibly along with a suggestion for a replacement! Gavin -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Howard Cattle > To: Eystein Jansen , Gavin Schmidt > Cc: Anna Pirani > Subject: CLIVAR/PAGES membership > Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:08:01 +0100 > > Dear Gavin and Eystein > > I note that, from a CLIVAR perspective a number of panel members > terms formally expired at the end of last year (K Briffa, M Mann) and > that the term for one (J Beer) expires at the end of 2007. Do you > wish to extend their terms or seek replacements. If the latter it > would be helpful to have a few lines (no more than 5) on each of the > new nominees providing an outline of expertise and what they bring to > the panel. > > Thanks > > Howard > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Howard Cattle > Director > International CLIVAR Project Office > National Oceanography Centre, Southampton > Empress Dock, > SOUTHAMPTON, SO14 3ZH, > UK. > > Email: hyc@noc.soton.ac.uk > Direct Phone +44 (0) 23 80596208 > Sec'y +44 (0) 23 80596789 > Fax +44 (0) 23 80596204 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CLIVAR - The Climate Variability and Predictability Project > of the > World Climate Research Programme > > http://www.clivar.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public > disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the > information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of > this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. 4508. 2007-10-18 09:39:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:39:20 +0200 from: Andrea Bleyer subject: EGU 2008 and CL division-related topics to: Denis.Rousseau@lmd.ens.fr, thomas.wagner@ncl.ac.uk, f.doblas-reyes@ecmwf.int, tilmes@ucar.edu, p.wadhams@damtp.cam.ac.uk, Denis-Didier Rousseau , jbstuut@marum.de, harz@gfz-potsdam.de, w.hoek@geo.uu.nl, Johann Jungclaus , Heiko Paeth , piero.lionello@unile.it, boc@dmi.dk, helge.drange@nersc.no, chris.d.jones@metoffice.com, martin.claussen@zmaw.de, gottfried.kirchengast@uni-graz.at, matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk, martin.beniston@unige.ch, d.stainforth1@physics.ox.ac.uk, rwarritt@bruce.agron.iastate.edu, Seneviratne Sonia Isabelle , Wild Martin , Nanne Weber , Hubertus.Fischer@awi.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, azakey@ictp.it, mann@psu.edu, steig@u.washington.edu, nalan.koc@npolar.no, florindo@ingv.it, ggd@aber.ac.uk, oromero@ugr.es, v.rath@geophysik.rwth-aachen.de, awinguth@uta.edu, l.haass@mx.uni-saarland.de, Gilles.Ramstein@cea.fr, Andre Paul , lucarini@adgb.df.unibo.it, Martin Trauth , nathalie.fagel@ulg.ac.be, hans.renssen@geo.falw.vu.nl, Xiaolan.Wang@ec.gc.ca, Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, alessandra negri , ferretti@unimore.it, Mark.Liniger@meteoswiss.ch, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh , pjr@ucar.edu, keith@ucalgary.ca, piacsek@nrlssc.navy.mil, kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, hatte@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, icacho@ub.edu, kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, Thomas Felis , olander@gfy.ku.dk, karenluise.knudsen@geo.au.dk, aku@geus.dk, Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, reichart@geo.uu.nl, M.N.Tsimplis@soton.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, r.sutton@reading.ac.uk, valexeev@iarc.uaf.edu, victor.brovkin@pik-potsdam.de, zeng@atmos.umd.edu, Laurent.Terray@cerfacs.fr, dufresne@lmd.jussieu.fr, Burkhardt.Rockel@gkss.de, hurkvd@knmi.nl, philippe.ciais@lsce.ipsl.fr, rolf.philipona@meteoswiss.ch, Masa.Kageyama@lsce.ipsl.fr, jules@jamstec.go.jp, ewwo@bas.ac.uk, raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, omarchal@whoi.edu, claire.waelbroeck@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, Phil Jones , jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, J.J.Blackford@Manchester.ac.uk, gerardv@nioz.nl, dharwood1@unl.edu, lang@liv.ac.uk, Irka Hajdas , x.crosta@epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr, pascal.claquin@unicaen.fr, fidelgr@fis.ucm.es, jsa@ig.cas.cz, dankd@atmos.umd.edu, kbice@whoi.edu, "Brinkhuis, dr. H. (Henk)" , andy@seao2.org, kbillups@udel.edu, anita.roth@uni-tuebingen.de, Gerrit Lohmann , P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk, r.flecker@bristol.ac.uk, strecker@geo.uni-potsdam.de, mmaslin@geog.ucl.ac.uk, marie-france.loutre@uclouvain.be, aurelia.ferrari@oma.be, j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk, Torsten Bickert , chris.d.jones@metmoffice.gov.uk, elsa.cortijo@lsce.ipsl.fr, gerald.ganssen@falw.vu.nl, arne.richter@copernicus.org, Andrea Bleyer Dear collegues, The programme for the climate division at the EGU 2008 is close to ready. [1]http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2008/ then click to programme, then to CL. Until now, there are about 55 CL sessions. If there is something missing (text, co-conveners, etc.), either modify it or send an email to [2]Andrea.Bleyer@awi.de, and we will insert it. Several issues: 1. CL topics I thought it might be a good idea to give the CL division with 55 proposals a structure in order to avoid overlaps and to detect missing topics. Besides the president (myself), the vice-president (Denis-Didier Rousseau: [3]Denis.Rousseau@lmd.ens .fr), and the secretaries, there shall be some persons overlooking each group of sessions. Is it possible to find these persons? I suggest about 2-3 persons for each group. . The preliminary list of the sessions is enclosed. Please feel free to come up with suggestions. I want to implement one additional session about "climate change and tourism" dealing with the challenges of sea level rise, melting ice, and seasonal climate prediction. Until now, I have not been able to find one. May be you have ideas or know persons. 2. Poster awards For our division, we need a person who feels responsible for the young scientist poster award. Sonia Seneviratne ([4]sonia.seneviratne@env.ethz.ch) did it this year and she would be willing to help. My suggestion is that each session will choose the best poster by convener and co-convener. The co-/convener cannot choose a poster on which he/she is co-author. This poster will be sent to us as pdf, we will create a web page with these posters, and a committee of 3-4 persons will select the best ones. For each finally selected poster, a citation of one about sentence will be presented by the committee. 3. Web site for CL For the division, it would be nice to have a web site with important meetings, news etc. Arne Richter has already bought EGU.eu, but it would take a while. If we want, we can use one from our institutes in between and transfer the file to the EGU at a later stage. 4. Sponsoring of the EGU by oil companies There is a discussion about sponsoring of the EGU by oil companies, especially Exxon. For me and for some others, this would be very problematic. There is no financial pressure to do so, and there is a risk to lose independence. Furthermore, the politics of disinformation about climate change of these companies undermine the scientific progress and work we are actually doing. There are more arguments, and the Nobel Peace Price shows that many people recognise the implications of climate change. There may be ways to influence the companies' politics, but it is difficult to trust new ways immediately. Something like that is probably better working on a specific project. For most of the climate community, the oil companies are a critical point. I was astonished to recognise how little acceptance the EGU council gave to these arguments, except ERE and OS (AS and BG left earlier). Therefore, we may think about new structures without the "oil fraction". My suggestion is to fathom several ways, and we definitely need more discussions also at the EGU 2008. I think a split of the EGU would not be the right direction, different opinions shall be spoken out and debated. One way of discussion could be via the Great Debates at the EGU. I think an interesting debate would be: "Shall the EGU be sponsored by oil companies? - Pros and Cons". I think in such a debate different views in geosciences will come up. This is probably related to these fields of geosciences working in close collaboration with oil companies, and those being more related to the climate change debate and IPCC work. For the contras I would invite CL scientists who are aware of the dark side of EXXON et al. due to the problems some of our colleagues faced, like previous medallists and conveners. Also an expert in ethical issues may help in such a debate. I think this question would have enough fire to be an interesting and important event. If you agree, I will send this suggestion to the other divisions (ERE already showed interest.). 5. Conference 2009 "Climate change" One idea would be to make a topical conference about "Climate Change". Please find enclosed a first draft for a proposal. A nice framework for such a conference in a framework would be 1000-2000 people, possibly in Nice in September 2009? (The regular big EGU meeting in April 2009 is in Vienna again.) The organisation could be done via copernicus with their cosis system, as a topical conference possibly also under the umbrella of CLIVAR-PAGES, IGBP, WCRP, and other European organisations like EMS. An interesting partner would be IPCC, both, they have now enough money, and we get Al Gore as a speaker for free ;) For a rough planning, I would like to ask you to give me some feedback. Would you be interested? If yes, would you offer a session? When would be the appropriate time (around Sept. 2009)? Also to avoid overlap! 6. PAGES Newsletter We are pretty interested in the approach combining Earth System Models and data. Such an approach could include a mechanistic understanding of proxies that record past climate and environmental conditions, or statistical methods. For this data-model topic Thorsten Kiefer from the PAGES office and me will make a PAGES newsletter for 2008. [5]http://www.pages.unibe.ch/cgi-bin/WebObjects/products.woa/wa/type?id=2 There is room for short contributions about new ideas/concepts as well as examples and applications. Please tell me if you are interested in contributions, e.g. through examples and/or new concepts. Kind regards Gerrit Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EGU_sessions2008.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Text_for_climate_change_conference.doc" 2302. 2007-10-18 12:19:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:19:26 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU TS Secondaries Strategy to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, As I understand it, the strategy is to move towards all regularly- reported parameters being 'Primaries', so I don't have the luxury of lifting the carpet. I agree that the secondary databases are in varying states of repair - but to be frank so are the rest. I have seen a few horrors in the 'wet' database - but I've seen them in more, er, important databases too. I'm currently working with rd0/wet and there's plenty of modern data. The solution I'm using is actually an option in the IDL gridding prog (quick_interp_tdm2.pro) that allows both synthetic and observed data to be used - with synthetic supplanting the observations. This will allow observations to take over as the relevant database is improved. Cheers Harry On 18 Oct 2007, at 12:06, Tim Osborn wrote: > I was about to reply to say that I didn't think you had time to do > the proposed solution, because by starting to use direct > observations of the secondary parameters that have not previously > been used, you may well uncover a multitude of data quality and > homogeneity problems and difficulties in identifying stations etc. > that would not arise if you ignored the secondary observations and > stuck with derivations from the primary obs that have already been > used. Your solution might have been better, but unfortunately no > time available to try it. > > However now you have an alternative solution... hopefully not > involving more time or the risk of using previously unused obs? > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 11:56 18/10/2007, Ian Harris wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Scratch all that - I've found a neater solution. >> >> Cheers >> >> Harry >> >> On 17 Oct 2007, at 14:03, Ian Harris wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been mulling over a strategy issue. >>> >>> CRU TS Secondary parameters are currently derived from: >>> >>> 1. One or more Primary parameters, gridded (to 2.5, for some >>> reason) >>> 2. Normals for the Primary parameter(s) >>> 3. Normals for the Secondary parameter >>> >>> The IDL routines do not allow for genuine observations of the >>> secondary parameter to be incorporated. >>> >>> The problem is that we should be moving towards using secondary >>> observations where available. If we just pick a changeover point, >>> there are likely to be noticeable discontinuities - also we >>> probably don't have enough observations to do that yet! >>> >>> So, what I propose is this: >>> >>> 1. Produce Secondaries as Secondaries (using synthetically- >>> generated data from Primaries) >>> 2. Produce Secondaries as if they were Primaries (ie using direct >>> observations of Secondary values) >>> 3. Let the output from 2 overwrite the output from 1 WHERE the >>> actual station count is >=1. >>> >>> In other words, the synthetic data is replaced with 'genuine' data >>> if there is at least one station reporting within the cell at that >>> timestep. >>> >>> How does that sound? Any better ideas? It has the advantage that it >>> doesn't require a great deal of coding ;-) >>> >>> Harry >>> Ian "Harry" Harris >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> School of Environmental Sciences >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich NR4 7TJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >> >> Ian "Harry" Harris >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ >> United Kingdom >> > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 834. 2007-10-18 14:08:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:08:52 +0100 from: "Mike Hulme" subject: RE: IPCC and UEA to: "'Tim Osborn'" , "'Phil Jones'" , , "'Sarah Raper'" >From my side ... I was a Key Contributor to Chapter 3 in SAR WGI 1996 And a Review Editor to Chapter 3 in TAR WG2 2001 My UE employment has been from 1988 onwards If we're try to milk this for glory then go for the IPCC DDC also as Tim suggests. Other UEA people missing from AR4 Neil Adger, Andrew Watkinson, Xianfu Lu and Rachel Warren. On a more questioning note: what is the IPCC that got the NPP? Is it the Bureau who run it, the Chairman who chairs it, the Governments who own it, or the scientists who contribute? I've never signed any membership form for IPCC - nor the 10,000s who have contributed over the years. The best answer might be the Governments who own it, in which case all the Governments of the world have won the NPP - brilliant! Who receives the 1,500,000 Prize? Not me. It's surprising there was no discussion about this beforehand. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 16 October 2007 16:32 To: Phil Jones; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Sarah Raper; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: IPCC and UEA Hi Phil + others, I've made a few edits, including a small number of the AR4 WGII parts that I happen to know about. But I also thought that the management and hosting of the IPCC DDC was worth including, so I added some text below the tables. Perhaps Mike can improve/edit this, if people think it's a contribution of sufficient stature to include? Cheers Tim At 15:42 16/10/2007, Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, > The attachment has some congratulatory text (not sure who from - > it's not me) then Tables of who has been involved from UEA during the > 4 IPCC Assessments for WG1. Someone else is doing WG2 and 3, but do > add in any involvement there - especially for the first 3 > Assessments. > The aim is to collect all the UEA involvement, to justify a claim > we might use in the RAE - that is that UEA has had more involvement > than any other academic institution in the world. I wonder if this > can be made even greater - any more than anywhere else. The likely > contenders with us for the latter are the Hadley Centre and NCAR - > unless any of you can think of other 'worthy' > institutions for the claim. > Can you look through what I've put you down for? I've been > through the Assessments quite quickly, so have likely made some > mistakes especially with omitting CA involvement and also TS and SPM? > I don't have an email for Dick Warrick. Can anybody think of > others from UEA who have been involved in any of the reports - whilst > at UEA? I know there are others who were at UEA, but their > involvement has been after they left. > > Cheers > Phil > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > > 4779. 2007-10-18 20:45:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:45:05 +0100 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: RE: IPCC report to: Dear Phil This old and very dated chestnut. You were going to find out more if you could. You know my part of the story - it goes back to a Defra (then DOE) publication (which it would be nice to identify) and was requested in the Govt review by David Warrilow. )Likely based in part on Lambs CET work with some subjective alterations?). Any further insights would be helpful. Cheers Chris Prof. Chris Folland Head of Climate Variability and Forecasting Research Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) <[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Bob Ward [mailto:Bob.Ward@rms.com] Sent: 18 October 2007 19:11 To: Folland, Chris Subject: IPCC report Dear Professor Folland Sir John Houghton suggested that I should contact you. I have been having an exchange of e-mail messages with Martin Durkin, who produced the programme 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' that was screened on Channel 4 in March. In particular, I have been challenging him about his use of a figure that he attributed to the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990. It appears as Figure 7.1c on page 202 of the IPCC report, and shows global temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period. I would be interested in finding out where this figure was obtained from - it closely resembles some of the figures published by Hubert Lamb, except that he was concerned with the temperature in Central England. Any light that you may be able to cast on this issue would be greatly appreciated. I should stress that I am primarily concerned about the extent to which Durkin has misrepresented the scientific evidence and the work of researchers - I have complained to Ofcom about the programme and I organised a joint letter to him from researchers in April asking him not to distribute it on DVD without correcting the substantial errors in it: [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/controversiesinscience.channel4 Yours sincerely, Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [3]www.rms.com This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. 1858. 2007-10-19 11:49:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:49:05 +1300 from: "Richard Warrick" subject: RE: IPCC and UEA to: "Phil Jones" Phil, Thanks for all the newsy bits about ENV and CRU. I abhore these kind of RAEs. We had to do similar exercises whilst I was at IGCI/Univ Waikato and I detested them. Mostly, they soaked up enormous amounts of time. Although in retirement, I still do bits and bobs here and there. I have an Adjunct Prof position at a small university in Australia, called University of the Sunshine Coast, near Brisbane. We actually have assembled quite a clutch of people as Adjuncts (including at least four IPCC lead authors) in order to pursue climate-change-related teaching, applied research and local engagement in adaptation. I go over there about four times a year to teach an intensive post-graduate professional development block course in climate change impact and adaptation assessment. One of the aims is to create an international network of collaborative centres that offer the course, with the aim of eventually getting dual accreditation. For example, California State University at Chico has joined and Jeff Price (lead author WG2 and fianc of Rachel Warren at Tyndall Centre, by the way) is driving the activities there. The ultimate strategy is to get a collaborative centre at a number of regions throughout the world and build a network of like-minded people who can share in teaching methods and materials, research and practical applications. Whether it will eventuate remains to be seen. If anyone there is interested, let me know. I have corresponded with Mick, but not for quite a while. He sent me information on the location of their new property in Northland. As my family and I are headed that way for a holiday in December, I shall make contact again with the hope of seeing him. Cheers for now, Dick -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:10 AM To: Richard Warrick Subject: RE: IPCC and UEA Dick, Thanks for the quick reply! Trying to put all this together is difficult, developing a scoring system will-nigh impossible, but I reckon ENV has more involvement in IPCC over the years than anywhere else! We have this stupid Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, so the preface about ENV for the 2008 (and hopefully last) one of these can say phrases like these. 1. ENV has had more involvement across the IPCC Assessments (from 1990 to the present) than any other institution in the world! (includes places like the Hadley Centre and NCAR as well - so not just academic institutions) 2. Also ENV has more Nobel Peace Prize Laureates than anywhere else!! This is a bit vain, but I'm hopeful of everyone involved getting a copy of the certificate after it is awarded in Oslo on Dec 10! So, retiring ! In NZ - or are you going somewhere else? I have some years to go yet - possibly 10, unless UEA make me an offer. That might be a possibility if the RAE doesn't go too well. CRU is about the same size as it was when you were here, but ENV is much bigger. ENV will be returning about 70 faculty in the RAE next year. Our MSc in Climate Change has 26 this year, but 50 do the CC courses fom across the modular masters. Keith has just capped the U/G course at 50 students (out of the 180 doing the U/G course). 3 U/G students signed up for Atmospheric Chemistry! Many reckon loads more would do this if it were called Climate and Atmospheric Chemistry! The whole U/G course might get changed to Climate and Environmental Sciences - seems as though you have to have that 7 letter word in everywhere. Have you heard Mick retired to NZ in March. He's about 100km north of Auckland. I can dig out an email if you're ever up that way. Cheers Phil At 22:31 16/10/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil, Got the message below with attached table from Tom Wigley. Although I retired from the University of Waikato this year, I still can be reached at this email address for a couple more months. As regards the table: You may wish to note that I left UEA in 1992, well before the IPCC SAR publications. Unlike Tom, I did not retain any sort of affiliation with UEA. If you still decide to count me for the SAR, I also contributed to Working Group II as a Lead Author, as follows: Basher, R.E., Pittock, A.B., Bates, B., Done, T., Gifford, R.M., Howden, S.M., Sutherst, R., Warrick, R.A., Whetton, P., Whitehead, D., Williams, J.E., Woodward, A., (1998). Chapter 4: Australia. In: R. Watson, M. Zinyowera, R. Moss and D. Dokken (eds.). The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. A special report for IPCC Working Group II. Cambridge University Press. 105-148. Bijlsma, L., Ehler, C.N., Klein, R.J.T., Kulshrestha, S.M., McLean, R.F., Mimura, N., Nicholls, R.J., Nurse, L.A., Perez Nieto, N., Stahkhiv, E.Z., Turner, R.K. and Warrick, R.A., (1996). Coastal zones and small islands. In Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C. and Moss, R.H. (eds.) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 289-324. Hope all is going well for you. Cheers, Dick ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wed 10/17/2007 3:42 AM To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; n.gillett@uea.ac.uk; wigley@ucar.edu; p.liss@uea.ac.uk; c.lequere@uea.ac.uk; Sarah Raper; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: IPCC and UEA Dear All, The attachment has some congratulatory text (not sure who from - it's not me) then Tables of who has been involved from UEA during the 4 IPCC Assessments for WG1. Someone else is doing WG2 and 3, but do add in any involvement there - especially for the first 3 Assessments. The aim is to collect all the UEA involvement, to justify a claim we might use in the RAE - that is that UEA has had more involvement than any other academic institution in the world. I wonder if this can be made even greater - any more than anywhere else. The likely contenders with us for the latter are the Hadley Centre and NCAR - unless any of you can think of other 'worthy' institutions for the claim. Can you look through what I've put you down for? I've been through the Assessments quite quickly, so have likely made some mistakes especially with omitting CA involvement and also TS and SPM? I don't have an email for Dick Warrick. Can anybody think of others from UEA who have been involved in any of the reports - whilst at UEA? I know there are others who were at UEA, but their involvement has been after they left. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 467. 2007-10-19 15:56:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:56:44 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: thank you to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, Ok, I attached the series by this emil. Please find the txt file, which is the average value for each month. (I grided the station numbers into 2.5*2.5 grid boxes by First Differnce Method (Tom Peterson) then averged anomalies in the whole country. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-18 18:50:13 +0800 Subject: Re:Re:Re: thank you Dear Qingxiang, Is it possible to send the numbers, as opposed to the plot? Since 1951 will be fine. Best Regards Phil At 03:51 17/10/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-12 17:20:58 +0800 Subject: Re:Re: thank you Dear Phil, I have told you the difficulties of doing the monthly series during 1910-2006 of average China surface air temperature at present in last email, but I did the series since 1951(attachment). I hope there will be helpful. Best Qingxiang Li Dear Qingxiang, I have been away much of the last 3 weeks, but I have managed to get someone here to produce a few plots of the data you sent. I am attaching 3 of these plots. The first plot is a summary of the 'China' average we have produced from the data you sent (the two sets of 40-42 stations). We also used the data for the same stations we had in 1990. So there are 4 series on the plot Data for 1954-1983 rural and urban sites as we had in 1990 Data for 1951-2004 rural and urban site as you sent All are anomalies from 1954-83 - I need to change this to 1961-90 The other two plots show the 'rural' and 'urban' separately and also plot your unadjusted as well as your adjusted sites. So these have 3 series on. There is also a line with the count of station numbers. What this shows to me is. 1. As I expected - your homogeneity work (whilst good and useful) doesn't really change the average. It improves individual records, but it tends to cancel out when a number of stations are averaged. 2. There is a dramatic warming from mid-1980s - some of which may be urban related? What I still need to do. 1. I will produce a series for SST for the S. and E. China sea from HadSST2. This will not have any 'urban' influence. 2. An average based on some rural stations in Mongolia and the very east of Russia, and any sites I can find in the north of Vietnam, Laos and Myanmmar ( I'm not very hopeful of finding any good sites in these three countries). One other thing I would like from you. Can you send a 'China' average? What I need is an average for the whole of the period from say 1910 to 2006. This would be from your adjusted station dataset and would use many more stations than the 40-42 you have ( and exclude the obvious rural ones as in He et al. 2004 in Theor. Appl. Clim.). Is this possible as a monthly series? I will also send a couple of powerpoint slides to show you why homogeneity adjustments average to approximately zero. Best Regards Phil At 04:16 25/09/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: Dear Phil, Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you. From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations. I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren's. But I think different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale and in China. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "Rean Guoyoo" < guoyoo@yahoo.com > Cc: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net >, < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800 Subject: Re: thank you Dear Guoyu, I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week, but here this week. I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am quite busy the next few weeks. Best Regards Phil At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote: The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang. Regards, Guoyu Dear Phil, Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change. In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change. We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center. I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor. Best regards, Guoyu NCC, Beijing Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today! Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263¬£µ¨µ============== ========= Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263天ä¸é®ï¼ä¿¡èµé®èªä¸ä¸====== ================= Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263天信======================= Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mean_mon_ser(1).txt" 644. 2007-10-19 16:53:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:53:46 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: Re: Fwd: Re:Re:Re:Re: thank you to: Phil Jones Phil, I have got the annual anomaly series from the latest "all-China" monthly series that you sent. I have done a quick draft plot that shows distinct similarities - as we hoped. See hard-copy in your pigeon hole. Cheers David On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Phil Jones wrote: > > David, > The attached is a China (country) average) for each month 1951-2004. > Can you reformat and do a plot comparing this with the average you > have from the rural and urban networks you were working with a few > weeks ago. > I hope this 'national' series will look much like the ones you have. > It looks as though this is in absolute deg C for each month, so make > into anomalies wrt 54-83 period you were using before. You could > also plot this one wrt 1961-90 against the CRU grid that I've also sent > you. > A plot for this new one and the CRU one for all 4 seasons plus the year > wrt 61-90 would also be useful. > > Cheers > Phil > >> X-ABS-CHECKED:1 >> X-SENDER:limmy@263.net >> X-SENDER-IP:192.168.191.103 >> X-LOGIN-NAME:wmsendmail >> X-ATTACHMENT-NUM:1 >> X-SENDER:limmy@263.net >> From: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= >> To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> Cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn >> Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: thank you >> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:56:44 +0800 >> X-Mailer: XMail-3.0 >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.4 >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> Dear Phil, >> Ok, I attached the series by this emil. Please find the txt file, which >> is the average value for each month. (I grided the station numbers into >> 2.5*2.5 grid boxes by First Differnce Method (Tom Peterson) then averged >> anomalies in the whole country. >> >> Best >> >> Qingxiang >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >> To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > >> Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > >> Sent: 2007-10-18 18:50:13 +0800 >> Subject: Re:Re:Re: thank you >> Dear Qingxiang, >> Is it possible to send the numbers, as opposed to the plot? >> Since 1951 will be fine. >> >> Best Regards >> Phil >> >> >> At 03:51 17/10/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: >> >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >>> To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > >>> Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > >>> Sent: 2007-10-12 17:20:58 +0800 >>> Subject: Re:Re: thank you >>> Dear Phil, >>> I have told you the difficulties of doing the monthly series during >>> 1910-2006 of average China surface air temperature at present in last >>> email, but I did the series since 1951(attachment). >>> I hope there will be helpful. >>> Best >>> Qingxiang Li >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Qingxiang, >>> I have been away much of the last 3 weeks, >>> but I have managed to get >>> someone here to produce a few plots of the data you sent. I am >>> attaching 3 >>> of these plots. The first plot is a summary of the 'China' >>> average >>> we have produced from the data you sent (the two sets of 40-42 >>> stations). >>> We also used the data for the same stations we had in 1990. >>> So there are 4 series on the plot >>> >>> Data for 1954-1983 rural and urban sites as we had in 1990 >>> Data for 1951-2004 rural and urban site as you sent >>> >>> All are anomalies from 1954-83 - I need to change this to >>> 1961-90 >>> >>> The other two plots show the 'rural' and 'urban' separately >>> and >>> also plot your unadjusted as well as your adjusted sites. So >>> these >>> have 3 series on. There is also a line with the count of station >>> numbers. >>> >>> What this shows to me is. >>> >>> 1. As I expected - your homogeneity work (whilst good and useful) >>> doesn't >>> really change the average. It improves individual records, >>> but it tends to >>> cancel out when a number of stations are averaged. >>> >>> 2. There is a dramatic warming from mid-1980s - some of which may >>> be urban related? >>> >>> What I still need to do. >>> >>> 1. I will produce a series for SST for the S. and E. China sea from >>> HadSST2. This >>> will not have any 'urban' influence. >>> >>> 2. An average based on some rural stations in Mongolia and the very >>> east of Russia, >>> and any sites I can find in the north of Vietnam, Laos and Myanmmar >>> ( I'm not >>> very hopeful of finding any good sites in these three >>> countries). >>> >>> One other thing I would like from you. Can you send a 'China' >>> average? What >>> I need is an average for the whole of the period from say 1910 to >>> 2006. This would >>> be from your adjusted station dataset and would use many more >>> stations than >>> the 40-42 you have ( and exclude the obvious rural ones as in He et >>> al. 2004 >>> in Theor. Appl. Clim.). Is this possible as a monthly >>> series? >>> >>> I will also send a couple of powerpoint slides to show you >>> why >>> homogeneity adjustments average to approximately zero. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> At 04:16 25/09/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear Phil, >>>> >>>> Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to >>>> you. >>>> >>>> From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural >>>> stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the >>>> data. we >>>> have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data >>>> during >>>> 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality >>>> controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the >>>> relocation >>>> during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most >>>> of >>>> the stations. >>>> >>>> I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some >>>> analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. >>>> The >>>> results are differnt with Ren's. But I think different methods, data, >>>> and >>>> selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important >>>> causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies >>>> and >>>> graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new >>>> achives on this both on global scale and in China. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Qingxiang >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >>>> To: "Rean Guoyoo" < guoyoo@yahoo.com > >>>> Cc: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net >, < >>>> liqx@cma.gov.cn > >>>> Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800 >>>> Subject: Re: thank you >>>> Dear Guoyu, >>>> I think I emailed you from America last week. I am >>>> away again next week, >>>> but here this week. >>>> >>>> I do think that understanding urban influences are >>>> important. I will >>>> wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no >>>> rush, as I am >>>> quite busy the next few weeks. >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote: >>>> >>>>> The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I >>>>> send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, >>>>> Li >>>>> Qingxiang. >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guoyu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Phil, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back >>>>> from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. >>>>> I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in >>>>> the studies of climate change. >>>>> In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect >>>>> on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect >>>>> is >>>>> pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different >>>>> from the >>>>> result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three >>>>> reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses >>>>> are >>>>> different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and >>>>> the >>>>> aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of >>>>> China; >>>>> (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we >>>>> used >>>>> some stations which we think could be more representative for the >>>>> baseline change. >>>>> We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. >>>>> Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were >>>>> mostly rejected. >>>>> It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect >>>>> on >>>>> surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the >>>>> continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the >>>>> updated >>>>> dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. >>>>> As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you >>>>> a >>>>> hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and >>>>> adjustment >>>>> of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the >>>>> raw >>>>> datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we >>>>> used >>>>> are also from his center. >>>>> I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not >>>>> necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be >>>>> rather >>>>> minor. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guoyu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NCC, Beijing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Shape Yahoo! in your own >>>>> image. >>>>> Join >>>>> our Network Research Panel today! >>>> >>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>> Climatic Research Unit >>>> Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 >>>> 507784 >>>> University of East >>>> Anglia >>>> >>>> >>>> Norwich >>>> Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>> NR4 7TJ >>>> >>>> UK >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> =======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÂÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ======================= >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 >>> 507784 >>> University of East >>> Anglia >>> >>> Norwich >>> Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> =======================263天下邮－信赖邮自专业======================= >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> =======================263天下邮－信赖邮自专业======================= >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 554. 2007-10-19 18:04:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:04:14 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= subject: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: thank you to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil I have sent you the station numbers change plot in Oct 14th 's email. here I attached the numbers during Jan 1951 -Dec 2004. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-19 17:23:40 +0800 Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: thank you Dear Qingxiang, A couple of other things. Can you say how many stations over China you've used in developing this series? I presume the number differs slightly from year to year, so the maximum number will be fine. Also, I presume all these stations have been adjusted for homogeneity - well not all, but all those where your work suggested they should. Cheers Phil At 08:56 19/10/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: Dear Phil, Ok, I attached the series by this emil. Please find the txt file, which is the average value for each month. (I grided the station numbers into 2.5*2.5 grid boxes by First Differnce Method (Tom Peterson) then averged anomalies in the whole country. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-18 18:50:13 +0800 Subject: Re:Re:Re: thank you Dear Qingxiang, Is it possible to send the numbers, as opposed to the plot? Since 1951 will be fine. Best Regards Phil At 03:51 17/10/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-12 17:20:58 +0800 Subject: Re:Re: thank you Dear Phil, I have told you the difficulties of doing the monthly series during 1910-2006 of average China surface air temperature at present in last email, but I did the series since 1951(attachment). I hope there will be helpful. Best Qingxiang Li Dear Qingxiang, I have been away much of the last 3 weeks, but I have managed to get someone here to produce a few plots of the data you sent. I am attaching 3 of these plots. The first plot is a summary of the 'China' average we have produced from the data you sent (the two sets of 40-42 stations). We also used the data for the same stations we had in 1990. So there are 4 series on the plot Data for 1954-1983 rural and urban sites as we had in 1990 Data for 1951-2004 rural and urban site as you sent All are anomalies from 1954-83 - I need to change this to 1961-90 The other two plots show the 'rural' and 'urban' separately and also plot your unadjusted as well as your adjusted sites. So these have 3 series on. There is also a line with the count of station numbers. What this shows to me is. 1. As I expected - your homogeneity work (whilst good and useful) doesn't really change the average. It improves individual records, but it tends to cancel out when a number of stations are averaged. 2. There is a dramatic warming from mid-1980s - some of which may be urban related? What I still need to do. 1. I will produce a series for SST for the S. and E. China sea from HadSST2. This will not have any 'urban' influence. 2. An average based on some rural stations in Mongolia and the very east of Russia, and any sites I can find in the north of Vietnam, Laos and Myanmmar ( I'm not very hopeful of finding any good sites in these three countries). One other thing I would like from you. Can you send a 'China' average? What I need is an average for the whole of the period from say 1910 to 2006. This would be from your adjusted station dataset and would use many more stations than the 40-42 you have ( and exclude the obvious rural ones as in He et al. 2004 in Theor. Appl. Clim.). Is this possible as a monthly series? I will also send a couple of powerpoint slides to show you why homogeneity adjustments average to approximately zero. Best Regards Phil At 04:16 25/09/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote: Dear Phil, Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you. From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations. I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren's. But I think different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale and in China. Best Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "Rean Guoyoo" < guoyoo@yahoo.com > Cc: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net >, < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800 Subject: Re: thank you Dear Guoyu, I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week, but here this week. I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am quite busy the next few weeks. Best Regards Phil At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote: The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang. Regards, Guoyu Dear Phil, Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change. In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change. We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center. I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor. Best regards, Guoyu NCC, Beijing Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today! Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- =======================263¬£µ ¨µ======================= Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263¥¤©¤¸©®¯¼¤¿¡¨µ ®¨ª¤¸¤¸======================= Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263天ä¸é®ï¼ä¿¡èµé®èªä¸ä¸============= ========== Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263天信======================= Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\station number.doc" 164. 2007-10-20 10:01:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:01:31 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: GILGIT and ASTORE to: Tom Melvin , Keith Briffa Hi Tom and Keith, Here is my review of your "signal-free" paper just sent in to the journal and Connie Woodhouse who handled your paper. Please accept my sincerest apology for being so slow in doing this. Between two international trips, two proposals, and a congressional report on drought to do under tight time constraints with Richard Seager and others, I simply let the review slide. No excuse, just a bit of mea culpa explanation. The paper is very good and clearly needs to be published. As indicated below, the biggest issue I had related to convergence, how to determine it, and its apparent failure using a tree-ring data set from Gaspe. I have attached the ring-width data file for you to play with if you wish in order to see if you get the same unstable results that I got. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but other test data sets seemed to work fine in a signal-free sense. Cheers, Ed My review: This paper by Melvin and others is a significant new contribution to the basic development of tree-ring chronologies for studies of climatic and environmental change. It introduces and demonstrates clearly the potential problem of trend distortion caused by the fitting of growth curves to ring-width series, which can be influenced by the common signal of interest itself. Since this problem primarily manifests itself at the ends of the chronologies where interest lies concerning changes in the growth environment, trend distortion is a critically important matter to investigate and correct for. Melvins paper provides one approach to the correction of trend distortion through signal-free standardization. It is based on iteratively adjusting the individual detrended series to remove the effects of the common signal on the curve fitting procedure. That the signal-free approach can work, as expected, is indicated by a number of synthetic examples and examples using real tree-ring data at the end. While the results are in many ways compelling, experiments done by me on different tree-ring data sets using the signal-free algorithm provided in the Appendix (using a simple length-N spline for detrending in each case) produced results suggesting that convergence is might occur very slowly, if at all, in some cases. Depending on the data set, sometimes convergence occurred after 4-6 iterations or maybe only after 20+ iterations. The latter pathological case related to very slow growing trees in the 19th century (mean ring width ~0.2 mm around 1850) followed by a near-linear increase in growth up to the last year of growth in 1982 (mean ring width ~0.8 mm by that time). Each iteration increased the steepness of the growth increase from 1850 to 1982 with no apparent end in site after 20+ iterations and this was accompanied by the addition of a long-term negative trend being added up to 1850, which was suspiciously like the common long-term negative age trends in the raw data up to that time. Assuming that I have applied the signal-free method correctly (e.g., does use of the length-N spline matter?), this may be a problem. I suspect that this problem may relate to the growth curves getting too close to zero in the iterative procedure, a circumstance that Melvin rightly warns against in the Discussion. It would be useful for Melvin to discuss the issue of convergence, possible criteria for determining it, and under what conditions it might not occur very quickly, if at all. I am also a bit puzzled by Melvins statement in the Discussion concerning the growth curves falling below zero. Why is 3% indicated as a threshold? I would have thought that ANY growth curve that falls below zero anywhere in the sequence would be invalid to use. A bit more explanation would help here. One last thing. The wording in the bottom paragraph on pg. 19 is a bit ambiguous to me: the combination of the segment length curse and trend distortion severely restricts the value of chronologies produced using curve-fitting methods, for comparing the magnitudes of past and current warming. Does this refer to classical detrending methods before signal-free improvement or also the signal-free method as well? I suspect both. I would also prefer that the term severely either be removed or moderated because I am not sure such a sweeping stern generalization is completely justified in every case. Isnt restricts enough? Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\St_Anne_River_THOC.rwl.zip" ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== 2699. 2007-10-22 08:55:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:55:30 -0400 from: epsl subject: Re: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00839 to: Phil Jones Thank you very much for the reviews, Phil. And I apologize for the shape of the first one - with all the edits and so. This version was a revision of an earlier one, which I had rejected. Effectively, it was a copy to help me understand where the changes were made - but I should have asked the authors to present a clean version. Mea Culpa. Best, Rob Phil Jones wrote: > > Rob, > Have just submitted my reviews for both papers. The second is much > shorter, as > all the comments here (Blanter et al) are the same as for the other > paper. Authors > will get all as they are the same 4 but in a different order. > Both papers awful and should be rejected. They clearly don't know > the climate > literature - and like many seem not to want to accept that the > climate is changing > because of our emissions of greenhouse gases. > Solar variability/climate relationships (use to be called > solar/weather relationships) > have generally been awful articles for decades. I'm not sure why > Barrie Pittock decided to > write the paper I referred to in 1983 (and the earlier one in 1978), > but I'm glad he > did. I have referred to this paper a few times in articles I've > written, but I've > referred to it much more in rejecting articles of this type. > There is really only one paper where a solar influence on climate > on decadal > and longer timescales that has been shown to be possible (i.e. it > passes Pittock's > criteria). > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 12:26 18/10/2007, you wrote: > >> Dear Phil, that is what I thought also and that is indeed why I very >> much appreciate you (and the other reviewers) having look at both of >> them. I look forward to reading your report. Best, Rob >> (Last Monday I spent 70 mins waiting for a commuter train that never >> showed up - can be quite productive indeed, but very irritating also) >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Rob, >>> I've begun to look at them - train delay yesterday, so it may >>> not be too long. >>> There is also a lot of similarity between them, so it's not as >>> though there were >>> two independent papers. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 12:03 15/10/2007, you wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Phil, >>>> >>>> I very much appreciate this -- thanks! If I have the reviews by >>>> mid-November that would be great, but if you need more time, just >>>> let me know. >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> Phil Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rob, >>>>> I will try and do these two reviews. As there are two, it will >>>>> likely take the >>>>> full 21 days, but I do have some travel so will get a chance to >>>>> read the pair. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> Phil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 20:28 13/10/2007, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ms. Ref. No.: EPSL-D-07-00839 >>>>>> Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and >>>>>> Temperatures in Europe >>>>>> Authors: Elena Blanter; Jean-Louis Le Moul; Mikhail Shnirman; >>>>>> Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot, PhD >>>>>> Journal: Earth and Planetary Science Letters >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Phil, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the second part of my request. I hope you can help. >>>>>> Since the two papers are closely related, I would very much >>>>>> appreciate your views on the merit of two separate papers. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are available to review this manuscript, please click on >>>>>> the link below: >>>>>> http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/l.asp?i=23850&l=9KZXA957 >>>>>> >>>>>> If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you >>>>>> would return your review within 21 days. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are not available to review this manuscript, please click >>>>>> on the link below. We would appreciate receiving suggestions for >>>>>> alternative reviewers: >>>>>> http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/l.asp?i=23849&l=9H07Q3SG >>>>>> >>>>>> If you prefer, you may register your response to this invitation >>>>>> online, by accessing the Elsevier Editorial System for Earth and >>>>>> Planetary Science Letters as a REVIEWER: >>>>>> >>>>>> url: http://ees.elsevier.com/epsl/ >>>>>> Your username is: PJones-929 >>>>>> Your password is: jones26322 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please select the "New Invitations" link on your Main Menu, then >>>>>> choose to "Accept" or "Decline" this invitation, as appropriate. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you accept this invitation, you may submit your completed >>>>>> review online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for >>>>>> confidential comments to the editor and comments for the author. >>>>>> >>>>>> To assist you in the reviewing process, I am delighted to offer >>>>>> you full access to Scopus* for 30 days. With Scopus you can >>>>>> search for related articles, references and papers by the same >>>>>> author. You may also use Scopus for your own purposes at any time >>>>>> during the 30-day period. If you already use Scopus at your >>>>>> institute, having this 30 day full access means that you will >>>>>> also be able to access Scopus from home. Access instructions will >>>>>> follow once you have accepted this invitation to review >>>>>> >>>>>> *Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of >>>>>> research information and quality internet sources. >>>>>> >>>>>> With kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob D. van der Hilst >>>>>> Editor >>>>>> Earth and Planetary Science Letters >>>>>> >>>>>> ABSTRACT: >>>>>> We study the solar signature in the temporal evolution of >>>>>> disturbances of European temperature and pressure in the 20th >>>>>> century, using long series of daily data provided by >>>>>> meteorological stations. We use three independent indices of >>>>>> solar activity which exhibit similar evolution after 22-yr >>>>>> running averaging. With the same 22-yr averaging, disturbances of >>>>>> temperature and pressure are found to be dominated by wintertime >>>>>> perturbations. The solar signature in the wintertime disturbances >>>>>> is especially strong throughout the 20-th century and does not >>>>>> weaken in the last decades, contrary to what happens for whole >>>>>> year data. Disturbances of minimal temperature, pressure and wind >>>>>> direction in the wintertime display remarkable similarity: All >>>>>> these meteorological (actually almost climatic, given the 22-yr >>>>>> averaging) characteristics closely follow the solar signature as >>>>>> far as the winter season is concerned, even when little or no >>>>>> correlation is observed for the whole year. We >>>>>> discuss the particular features of European climate and speculate >>>>>> on how solar forcing may manifest itself in other regions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>>> University of East Anglia >>>>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>> NR4 7TJ >>>>> UK >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1519. 2007-10-23 09:52:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:52:21 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: [Fwd: EGU2008 - Guidelines for Conveners] to: Phil Jones Phil--I think you'd be a great candidate for the Ewing Medal. Going to see what I can do to drum up some support for this. I believe nominations are not due until mid March, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Did you get an email from Gerrit - I'll forward it in case you didn't. I thought just one of the Fellowships - AGU award a number each year. Kevin got one this year - at the Acapulco meeting in May. Cheers Phil At 14:13 23/10/2007, you wrote: Hey Phil, I share your view about EXXON--would be happy to go on record w/ that, do you mean I should contact Gerrit to suggest this? It would be my pleasure to nominate you for an AGU fellowship, you mean one of the prizes right? I haven't done this before, and would need to look into it. I can find out, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Happy for you to upload something if you want. I think I'm down for it again along with Jean. I replied to Gerrit suggesting he had a great debate about EXXON and EGU. I said I didn't think AGU would accept EXXON money, but don't know if you have. Trying to get a copy of the Nobel Peace prize certificate that Patchy will collect in Oslo on Dec 10. If you get time any time, perhaps you can nominate me for an AGU fellowship - probably a lot of work! Cheers Phil At 13:59 23/10/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil, I don't know if I mentioned, but I won't be able to make this, but happy to help w/ the session planning. Do we already have a session description entered (i.e., the same one we've been using for years), or do I need to upload one? mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: EGU2008 - Guidelines for Conveners Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:56:23 +0200 (CEST) From: [1]egu2008@copernicus.org To: [2]mann@psu.edu Dear Conveners, Regarding the EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 13 - 18 April 2008, we want to inform you that the Call-for-Paper Programme is now available on [3] http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2008/ The deadline for abstract submission is 14 January 2008. We kindly remind you to upload your session description as soon as possible if not yet done so far. The session description is important for people looking for the best suited session for submitting their contribution. Please see [4] http://www.cosis.net/members/meetings/programme/overview_db.php?m_id=49 for your programme group. Choose your programme group and then your session and choose the link "Organizer Session Form" under "For Organizers and PC's only". Please login with your COSIS-ID. In case you lost your COSIS data, contact [5]egu2008@copernicus.org. 1. Organizer Session Form This tools enables you and your co-conveners to modify the title of your session; or to upload/accept/change the description of your session; name solicited speakers and/or any co-sponsorship, which will then be summarized under "Information" in the public line; or provide information about the publication of "proceedings" or "special issues" of your session or a report about your event after the assembly for upload under "Publication" and "Report", respectively, in the public line. Any changes in the coordinates (address, fax or phone numbers or email) of any convener or co-convener should be included in their respective COSIS personal directories first for automatic upload in the chapter "Organizer" in the public line. If a convener wishes to add/change co-conveners or editors or members of the organizing committee, he/she should contact the Copernicus Meeting Office ([6]egu2008@copernicus.org). 2. Contributions The contributions submitted to your session will be listed under "Contributions". Only after acceptance by you and your co-conveners through the "Overviews" tool, the contributions will be listed for the public in a citable journal style form under "Accepted Contributions". In this way it is guaranteed that new results and techniques are not published in a non-reference able manner. 3. Support Selection Contributions submitted in connection with an application for financial support are listed in part 1 of the tool "Support Selection". Here, you and your co-conveners will also be able to upload further requests of, e.g. selected solicited speakers, and requests like "Waiver of Conference Fee" or even a specific amount of money to assist the participation of a particular speaker. In part 2, which will become active on 10 December 2007, you and your co-conveners will then be able to rank all applications in view of the excellence of the contributions and the importance for your session. The final decision, however, will be in the hands of the "Support Selection Committee". We will inform you in time about each action. For now, we recommend that you read the chapters about the "Conveners' Guidelines", "Deadlines & Milestones", "Abstract Evaluation & Identification" and "Financial Support" from the home site of the assembly: [7] http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2008/ Best regards, Katja Gaenger & Martin Rasmussen Copernicus Meetings on behalf of Gerald Ganssen EGU 2008 Programme Committee Chair -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [8]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [9] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [10]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [11]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [12] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [13]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [15]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2320. 2007-10-23 18:43:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: dave lister date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:43:38 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: CRU TS 3.00 Precip to: Phil Jones Hi As a result of trying to produce the 'wet' secondary parameter, I discovered that I was using an inappropriate algorithm to convert percentage anomalies to real values. No idea where I got it from though I can say with certainty that I didn't just make it up! In the following, N is the Normal, A is the anomaly and V is the 'real' value. I was using: V = N(A+N)/100 However, the anomdtb.f90 program (which creates the original anomalies at the start of the process) uses: A = 1000((V/N)-1) which translates to: V = N(A+1000)/1000 This only affects Pre and Wet, I have re-run Pre. An example of the difference is that, for January 2001, the maximum was 14408 and is now 7174! Obviously trends will not be significantly impacted so I don't think the Nat Geog stuff needs amending. Apologies for any inconvenience (did Dimitrious use these files too?). Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1590. 2007-10-24 09:31:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eugene R Wahl , Francis Zwiers date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:31:41 -0600 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Wahl/Ammann vs Zwiers to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, a short note regarding what you perceive as differences in the reconstruction results by Lee et al (Zwiers) and ours. Actually, I don't think that there is anything that is inconsistent. There are a number of differences in the approach and so a one-to-one assessment is not possible. However, all general results agree very well with our observations and exercises, so I have absolutely no issues with Francis' results and paper (other than small bickering and suggestions for what is a really nice and clean paper): - more proxies: better performance (daahhh) - smoothing: better performance (! Key !) This is not systematically done in tradiational MBH, but I bet that this is actually the largest component for the improvement... you can do the acrobatics of xyz, in the end, if you do the fit on smoothed data, what is most representative of the CLIMATIC evolution in the series, then you get the best fits and amplitude preservation. - dependence on models: none - dependence on calibration period coverage: YES. Francis does not assess this, but we show that if you calibrate over period where a good chunk of the warmest and a good chunk of the coldest years are present, then your potential for amplitude loss is reduced - detrending: simply doesn't make sense, statistically as well as geophysically (removing the pattern that is associated with the global average and then try to recapture that in a truncated space??? stupid...) Caspar -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [1]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 1656. 2007-10-24 11:05:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100 from: "Douglas Maraun" subject: Informal Seminar TODAY to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk Dear colleagues, I'd like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the coffee room: "Climate science and the media" After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially after the "inconvenient truth" case and the Nobel peace prize going to Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called "climatism" appeared also in respectable newspapers. Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the way it should be. In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are: -Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this? -How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest. -How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie? -What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"? -What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media? -How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant? -Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics? If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not interesting, please let me know in advance. See you later, Douglas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Douglas Maraun Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia +44 1603 59 3857 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas 4876. 2007-10-24 16:59:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:59:51 +0100 from: "John Davies" subject: THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS to: Dear Dr Phil Jones, You are probably aware of this paper but just to be sure here it is: [1]http://www.carbonequity.info/docs/arctic.html The relevant paper is `The big melt'. The section I find most concerning and interesting is on page 3 and 4 `The accelerating loss of the Arctic ice sheet'. Also see page 1 point12. I think it is essential that a plan is devised to ensure that the Arctic Sea Ice does not melt even though there is a remote possibility it might do so as early as August/September 2008. Enclosed are two Short papers as I now think the estimate I gave prior to the 2007 Ice Melt was overly optimistic. All the Best, John B Davies personal GLOBAL TEMPERATURE UP UNTIL 2014 JB DAVIES. A PAPER BY Dr DOUG SMITH OF THE HADLEY CENTRE RECENTLY FORECAST A GLOBAL RISE IN TEMPERATURE WHICH COULD CAUSE GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL DEVASTATION WITHIN THE NEXT DECADE. This is a response to the paper by Dr. Doug Smith et al of the Hadley Centre regarding `Surface Temperature Predictions for the coming decade'. Reference [cid:image002.gif@01C8165F.47E67950] And [cid:image004.gif@01C8165F.47E67950] This paper forecasts a significantly larger rise in global temperature in the short term than has generally been thought likely hence it is extremely urgent to ascertain how accurate this forecast is likely to prove. ARCTIC ICE LOSS 2007. This response also looks at how the loss of arctic ice in 2007 relates to Dr Smiths paper. Global Warming is generally considered a fact by most climate scientists and indeed most people and generally accepted as devastating in the long term though the short and medium term climate future is much less studied. This paper was extremely useful especially for those needing climatic prediction for planning in the relatively short term. It shows that in the next few years global temperatures are likely to be significantly higher than in the instrumental record. Though the report does not say this it would be reasonable to suppose that global weather patterns will also be significantly different to what has been experienced in the last few hundred years or more recently and this is likely to cause all sorts of problems for humanity and other life forms. This report shows that we need to ascertain what the likely outcomes are and plan to deal with a disastrous rise in temperature in this period should it happen. A major negative feature of this report is that if in the next few years there is not a significant rise in global temperatures, then climate sceptics will say Global Warming is a lot of hot air and most people and governments will believe this to be true. The result will be that any attempts to halt Global Warming will be curtailed. Dr. Smith is predicting a rise in global temperature between 2004 and 2014 of almost 0.3 degrees Celsius, most of which will occur between 2008 and 2012. This report is predicted on the assumption that there is no volcano in this period which is large enough to place large amounts of dust into the Stratosphere and thus cool the earth. In the event that there is such a volcano then the forecast temperatures in this period will be invalidated. A WARMING OF 0.20 DEGREES WORLDWIDE OR MORE ABOVE 2004 LEVELS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY CAUSE A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EVENT. A great deal of this can be avoided if humanity takes responsible corrective action now. Hence the importance of this report. PROBABLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE The probability of a volcano putting large amounts of dust into the Stratosphere before the end of 2014 is almost 30%. Dr Smith forecasts a rise in global temperature on 2004 levels of 0.25 degrees Celsius by 2012 and almost 0.30 degrees Celsius by 2014. There is a 90% chance that global temperature will be within plus or minus 0.21 degrees Celsius of these levels and 60% within plus or minus 0.10 degrees Celsius of these levels. There is clearly a 50% chance that global temperature will be above the forecast level and 50% chance they will be below it. THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE FORECASTS ARE HORRENDOUS. MY VIEW I have felt illogically and unscientifically that if there had been going to be a dangerous level of global warming prior to the present and if it were to happen in the near future, the timescale this paper deals with, then the world will initially be lucky and be protected in the very short term by a large volcano erupting and cooling the earth. I think this solely because I feel lucky, there is no science in this view though I think it will happen nevertheless. This needs saying because despite it's illogicality it is probably fact. Should the global temperature exceed a rise of 0.20 degrees Celsius above the 2004 level the consequences will be devastating. It is necessary to note at this point that there have been claims that at the end of the Younger Dryas period at the close of the last ice age the world warmed by five degrees Celsius in five years. My view is that the world will warm by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2014 unless there is a huge volcano which will have the effect of cooling the earth. A CHECKING THE TEMPERATURE FORECAST AND B PLANNING FOR A HUGE RISE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE Dr Smith's paper warns us that global temperatures may surge in the next few years. It is also comparatively easy to check. These are two very great virtues. Initially it would be very useful to know what other research units think of this paper and if they agree with its conclusions. This will go some way to inform government as to how serious the short term situation really is. A more effective check is to re-examine this forecast and see how accurate it is possibly by asking Dr Smith's group and another scientist to re examine their conclusions in late 2009. The additional data at their disposal ought to enable them to give a far more accurate forecast for the following five years. . It is possible, that the rise in temperature by 2014, or even 2012, could be large enough to cause catastrophic climatic changes which could lead into a runaway greenhouse event. The sort of thing which might happen is that this could cause the arctic sea ice to melt . THE ARCTIC SEA ICE The arctic sea ice is retreating despite the relatively constant global temperature since 1997. The retreat of the sea ice is the first major impact of Global Warming and is likely to cause a runaway greenhouse event. The total minimum area of sea ice was lower in late summer 2007 than any previous time on record. Fortunately there was no retreat of sea ice in the Svalbard area or between there and Franz Josef Land. There was a huge retreat on the American side of the arctic. In the Svalbard area sea ice traditionally retreats to higher latitudes than elsewhere. Despite the small area of arctic sea ice in late summer 2007 there was no contiguous area of ice free sea linked to the open ocean north of 81 degrees North and in no year has there been ice free sea linked to the open ocean in any year north of 82 degrees North. It is fairly safe to conclude that though the ice is retreating it will not retreat northward of 82 degrees North until the global temperature rises slightly, say by 0.15 degrees Celsius. The sea ice at its minimum extent was roughly circular with pack ice extending from 90 degrees North to 80 degrees North but with a narrow bridge of ice extending to the Russian Coast at one point. This means that most points on the perimeter of the permanent ice were equally threatened with melting rather than the Svalbard to Franz Josef Land area being most at risk. The North West passage was open for a few weeks but the North East passage was not. This is a little surprising because there have been times in the past when the ice was much more extensive but the North East passage was open. A British tramp steamer actually navigated the whole passage in the 1930's, being a tramp of course this was unintentional, and the ship eventually got a cargo back to its home port of Hull. The NSIDC reported that the minimum extent of arctic ice fell to 1.59 million square miles in early September 2007 compared with the previous record of 2.05 million square miles in 2005 and an average minimum figure for sea ice of 2.6 million square miles in the 1979 to 2000 period. The minimum extent of sea ice in 2007 was 38% less than the average minimum in the 1979 - 2000 period. The sea ice extent at its minima was 20% less in 2007 than the minima in the previous record year of 2005. At times when the total area of ice decreases to record minima in late summer it is almost certain that the average thickness of the remaining ice is less than the average thickness than in those years when the minimum extent of sea ice was much larger. Hence it is probable that the total volume of arctic sea ice at the time of the 2007 minima was just less than half the average volume of sea ice for the average minima of the 1979 - 2000 period. A small rise in global temperature will almost certainly hasten the disappearance of sea ice south of 82 degrees North in late summer. My best estimate of the global temperature to cause significant sea ice retreat north of 82 degrees North is 0.68 degrees Celsius above the global temperature until 1976. The present global temperature is averaging 0.53 degrees Celsius above the level until 1976 so a small rise of anything above only 0.15 degrees Celsius will prove devastating. Any significant retreat north of 82 degrees North will lead to total loss of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean because the area of remaining sea ice will be too small to sustain itself. This problem of the loss of sea ice with such a small rise in global temperature needs to be examined closely at a high level as a matter of extreme urgency. This is a matter of life and death in the medium term. Dr Doug Smith thinks the global temperature could quite likely reach 0.84 degrees Celsius above the 1976 level by 2014. It seems likely that the global temperature will exceed 0.68 degrees Celsius above the global temperature until 1976 by 2014 unless there is a large volcano which puts dust into the Stratosphere. Unless the required volcano materialises then the Arctic Ocean is likely to be ice free in late summer by 2015. Recently the ice has not retreated to new lows in consecutive years but despite this there is a remote chance that the Arctic Ocean could be ice free at the end of summer next year, 2008. This just might happen because there is a hint that this ice is retreating to some extent independently of rising global temperature. However Doug Smith indicates it is unlikely that global temperature will be as warm as in 1998 in either 2008 or 2009 but might well be in 2010 and may reach 0.15 degrees Celsius above the present as soon as 2010. This seems to be a realistic assessment. This might be sufficient to cause the arctic sea ice to melt completely in this year. Urgent action needs to be taken to stop this happening. It is not immediately obvious what action needs to be taken but it needs urgent attention at the highest level with an absolute determination to save our world. The injection of sulphates into the atmosphere presents itself as a possibility. Another possibly more practical alternative might be to use unmanned solar powered vessels to spray water into the air which will form clouds which reflect incoming sunlight back into space. In the event that the thin arctic sea ice melted in late summer then the water will absorb the sun's rays whilst at present the ice reflects them thus the Arctic Ocean will warm very significantly almost immediately. This will warm the land around the ocean, in Northern Russia, Canada and Alaska; the frozen peat bogs will then defrost releasing vast amounts of methane and carbon dioxide thus leading to further rapid warming especially of the oceans. Once the ice has melted this will happen very quickly within a year or two. Later the methane hydrates at the bottom of some of the oceans will be released as a result of the warming of the oceans which will then cause further warming. These warming events would cause sufficient warming for the Amazonian rainforest to dry out and burn down with further positive feedbacks. Much of this will take decades to occur but global warming is likely to be so great in the next decade or two that humanity will be almost extinct by 2025, except for a few isolated individuals, unless we tackle this problem immediately and effectively. THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT IF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS HELD BELOW 2 DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE THE PRE INDUSTRIAL LEVEL HUMANITY WILL ESCAPE THE WORST EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING. HOWEVER IN FACT IF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REACHES ONE DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE THE PRE INDUSTRIAL LEVELTHEN A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EVENT WILL BEGIN. This latter view is reinforced by the lack of a significant temperature increase since 1997. Many natural systems stabilise temporarily at a level of forcing just below the level of forcing which causes them to move into a completely different state. It is also probably true that if the greenhouse gas content of the air were to be stabilised at exactly the level of late 2007 then there might be a less than even chance of avoiding a runaway greenhouse event. THE MOST LIKELY SITUATION IN 2014 The main point to be borne in mind is that the world faces a high chance of very large climate changes in a very short space of time which we know about but of which we are nevertheless largely unaware. This is creeping up on us unawares because of the relative climate stability of the last ten years. In 2014 global climate may well be in the early stages of a runaway greenhouse event as it seems likely that the arctic ice will disappear in late summer at about this time. B PLANNING FOR A HUGE RISE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE THE BERKELEY LINE In a general sense human well being on the planet is better than ever before despite Global Warming. Humanity has not responded to this emergency simply because the rate of change is too slow to alarm people. Additionally there are more immediate though less serious problems which grab our attention and push Global Warming into the category of a problem to be dealt with when we have the time. Two of these problems are the possibility of an attack on Iran and the consequent clash between Muslims and the West, and the problem of peak oil which is causing high oil prices and slowing world economic growth. THE BERKELEY LINE is my measure of the rate of change which will be obviously dangerous and which almost everybody will recognise as dangerous and after which every government and all people will be prepared to take emergency action to save the global climate. Unfortunately the Arctic sea ice will probably melt in late summer before the world has warmed sufficiently to alarm most people, hence this measure, though a useful measure of the temperature which will cause alarm, is no longer useful as a guide to saving the global climate. COUNTERMEASURES TO GLOBAL WARMING THE IDEAL SOLUTION Ideally, there should be drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions immediately. Should there be any way in which humanity can be persuaded to implement this policy which will mean cutting most of humans greenhouse gas emissions at whatever the cost to ourselves then this must be the way forward but it is difficult to envisage how humanity can be pushed into such a programme without at the least a near ecological disaster. A PRACTICAL SOLUTION The most important action which must be implemented, even if nothing else is done now, is the only action which might cause the body politic and civil society to react in the very near future and this is publicising Dr Smith's paper and the medium term dangers facing the planet. This might lead to further action to combat the problem. When humanity becomes aware that it is facing an almost immediate and desperate catastrophe there are some very nasty measures which would have to be taken to stabilise the climate. These measures may have serious ecologically negative consequences of which we are unaware, but humanity will have to react because failure could mean our becoming extinct. Initially, governments should offer guaranteed prices for basic foodstuffs, in Britain the EU and hopefully worldwide. This used to be done but globalisation has largely halted this wise practise though it is becoming essential again as one way of mitigating the food shortages and hunger that humanity will soon face. These measures include seeding the oceans with iron to cause the growth of phytoplankton which hopefully will remove carbon dioxide from the air and reduce the atmospheric content of this gas. Urea can be added to the ocean in areas where there is a shortage of nitrogen which will hopefully have the same effect. Another alternative is to try using artificial trees to remove carbon dioxide and to capture and bury it. Another possibility is to build large numbers of solar powered unmanned vessels which spray sea water into the air which forms clouds which reflect incoming sunlight back into space, thus cooling the planet. These possibilities should be examined by scientists now and governments should fund this essential research. In conjunction with the technical solutions to global warming it is essential that the whole programme is controlled by governments rather than corporations. Higher taxes on the wealthy combined with higher taxes on emissions from fossil fuels must mean a greater equality of sacrifice than is the case now. The poorer people in the world will not accept greater sacrifices unless the rich share the burden of overcoming the problem of global warming, and any attempt to make them make greater sacrifices possibly even of their lives, is doomed to failure, and thus a policy which puts a large burden on the poor is not going to stop Global Warming. HOWEVER BAD THE SITUATION WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS HUMANITY MIGHT WELL SAVE ITSELF BY REACTING WITH ABSOLUTE RUTHLESSNESS AND DETERMINATION. John B Davies Additional reference [2]http://www.carbonequity.info/docs/arctic.html GLOBAL QUESTIONS ON TEMPERATURE UNTIL 2014 to the Minister Dr Doug Smith of the Hadley Centre has forecast a rise in global temperature of 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2014. The arctic sea ice retreated from an average minimum area in the 1979 - 2000 period of 2.6 million square miles to a record low of 1.59 million square miles in 2007, and the ice thickness in 2007 was also much less probably averaging between 5 and 6 feet thick at its minimum in September. It seems to me that the arctic sea ice must melt in late summer by 2015, unless a massive volcano puts dust into the Stratosphere causing this melting to be delayed by a few years, at the latest, and possibly as early as 2010 with a remote possibility this could be as early as 2008. In this situation the sea water will absorb the sun's rays thus warming the high arctic, the high arctic will become even warmer than in 2007 which is probably the warmest arctic summer on record, the arctic peat bogs will then defrost and huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane will be released into the atmosphere resulting in the start of a runaway greenhouse event. This will lead to the extinction of human life on earth, in my view by 2025. My question is, `How are you going to stop the arctic sea ice melting in late summer'? I expect you to have a plan to achieve this. Though I have no idea how to achieve this it can be started by asking your scientists how they would do this. They will probably say this is impossible. Your reply must be that it will be done and you will ask any scientists to devise a programme to do the necessary work. In your situation I could achieve this desirable objective. How are you planning to proceed to ensure our survival? All the Best, John B Davies -- [3]Support Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth Limited - Company No 1012357 Friends of the Earth Trust - Company No 1533942 Registered Charity No 281681 Registered Office - 26 - 28 Underwood Street, London. N1 7JQ Embedded Content: image001.emz: 00000001,7c325aad,00000000,60af5f0e Embedded Content: image0028.gif: 00000001,78b1dc50,00000000,60b15b20 Embedded Content: image003.emz: 00000001,0cf3c1ac,00000000,60af5f5a Embedded Content: image0045.gif: 00000001,0973434f,00000000,60b15b6c Embedded Content: oledata1.mso: 00000001,09642623,00000000,6d644f1b 3784. 2007-10-24 18:16:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ian Harris date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:16:47 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: CRU TS 2.10 VAP & WET to: Phil Jones Phil, Preliminary investigations are indicating that the published 2.10 dataset has transposed the Vapour Pressure and Wet Day parameters. Examples so far are from January and February 1981. Month Param Min Max Jan 81 VAP 0 310 Jan 81 WET 0 3220 Feb 81 VAP 0 280 Feb 81 WET 0 3240 I think the 310 and 280 values clinch it? This applies to both the original GRIM format files and to the ones I reformatted as grids (that program did one var at a time so could not have swapped them, I've checked anyway). Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2783. 2007-10-25 08:15:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: WG1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, IPCC WGI TSU date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:15:14 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Comment on the to: V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov Hi Susan et al Like Ram I think that more acknowledgment ought to be given to the pre-AR4 work. I am also sympathetic to a number of things Richard has raised. However I am not sure that a random drawing of everyone is the way to go. In particular, there are many of us who have participated in more than the AR4. In a random drawing, does that mean one's name gets entered multiple times to increase the odds? Or wouldn't it make sense to try to do an integral over the reports and select those who have contributed the most, in the same spirit as for those already selected? I make this suggestion with trepidation because I have a vested interest as someone who was a CLA in the SAR, an LA in the TAR, and an LA on the SPM and TS in both. In other words I was in Madrid, and Shanghai, as well as Paris. I know several others who have been involved in multiple reports. I would like to see this experience also considered. Regards Kevin [1]V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov wrote: All, Interesting to read about the IPCC "delegation" to Oslo. I was on travels, and did not have access until I returned this afternoon to the flurry of e-mails concerning the who-will-be-there issue. First and foremost, no matter who else gets to go, I am really pleased about the inclusion of the Chairs and Co-Chairs, as listed. After that, who else should be on the "Team of 25".....? Decidedly, a complicated puzzle to be wading into so soon just after signing off on a successful scientific package. I am not sure if this has been suggested yet, but a sure way to truncate the predicament/dilemma could be to stop with the Co-Chairs and settle on a delegation less than 25. Can it not be less than 25? I agree that all comments made so far have merits attached to them. But, I am quite in sync with Richard's comment, and especially the names he suggests. I realize it is difficult to follow through without some judgemental value - as has been pointed out in subsequent comments. But, if we consider the "8" spots as important, surely we can do better than "random" drawing, and recognize the more deserving stalwarts from the past. Reiterating Susan's point emphasizing the Nobel citation, to me, the evolution of the science in the IPCC since 1990 counts as much as where AR4 has drawn the frontier. As a factual matter, and without trying to prejudice the solution: - does the Nobel recognition extend only to the 4 major IPCC reports? Should not the other assessments - Supplementary, Interim, SROC, Aviation - also be included? One can argue that each one of those reports was an important stepping stone. If so, then how about the Chairs/Co-Chairs from those reports (unless they are already on the list)? - should those CLAs who have been involved in several reports/WGs merit more than one 'entry' in the drawing? It is the complication and hassle of sifting/arguing through all this that convinces me it may be wise to stop with the Co-Chairs - they can handle the Nobel ceremony and the media very well - no one further is really required. As Susan points out, we are all "available" anyway to respond to the media. The collective recognition is upon us irrespective of who does or does not turn up in Oslo. Count me as OK with any decision that is taken - that would be the "consensus", isn't it? Cheers, Ram _______________________________________________________________________________ Dear CLAs of the AR4, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the issue of the Oslo ceremony. I have a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by Richard, but I understand the concerns expressed by several of you. I would like to propose a possible way forward. Given the strong feelings of several, it seems that the approach of a lottery may be the only fair approach to the matter raised regarding the participants at Oslo. As Ken notes, anyone who goes can make clear that they are only a representative of a much larger group, and that this award is to the entire community of scientists who have contributed so much to the IPCC and thus to the world. Regarding the issue of the media, I agree with Richard's concerns. It would be great to have all of you in Oslo. In the absence of that, we can and will work to distribute media contacts among those who are there and those who may be at home and willing to help via remote methods insofar as possible. The press conference is on Sunday Dec 9 and the ceremony is Monday Dec 10. If you are available to help with media on those days, please let me know that, with a number where you can be reached. To quote the Nobel committee, "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming." This makes it clear that the strong intent of the award is to acknowledge the suite of comprehensive assessments that have built this understanding - the FAR, the SAR, the TAR, and the AR4. As Richard has noted, acknowledging clearly the cornerstones represented by previous reports would be appropriate. The question is how to best do this. While it is clear that the authors of the SYR of the AR4 are still working while others are not, including the current SYR authors in the lottery as suggested by Gabi would further tilt the balance towards the AR4 so I would suggest not adopting that approach. My proposal is that all the chapter chairs (CLAs of the TAR and AR4, and first authors from the SAR and FAR, before they were called 'CLAs') from all four comprehensive assessments would comprise the list of names that WG1 would submit to the lottery, if you agree. This would be a statement from the AR4 author team to our predecessors of how highly we value their contributions that would surely be well appreciated. Please let me know if you agree, or have alternative suggestions. best Susan At 2:09 PM -0700 10/24/07, Ken Denman wrote: Hi All, While I understand Richard's comments, I think that coming to a consensus of who is most worthy from past reports will be very difficult. Also we have all given numerous talks on the IPCC findings since we were in Paris, and I think we can all answer any technical questions that might be asked, and know when we do not know enough to answer intelligently. This is an award to the IPCC as a whole. If people are chosen by lottery then when they are asked why they are going, and not others, they can and should respond (my feelings) that the award is to all the IPCC Authors and you won a lottery to represent all the authors at the ceremony. Regards, Ken Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] wrote: > > Hi all, > > I agree with Gabi's comments. I understand and sympathize with > Richard's observations, but I personally would find it difficult to know > who to exclude from the list that Pachi has drawn up. Allocating the > remaining seats via a lottery amongst present and former CLAs (and SYR > author team members) strikes me as being a fair approach. However, we > should agitate to have 9 seats rather than 8 allocated in this way. > Pachi is currently offering up only 8 seats so that one can be retained > as a "contingency". We should insist that this seat also be allocated. > If an important contingency does arise, it should be satisfied by > displacing one of the adminstrative officers rather than one of the > lottery winners. > > My two cents worth ... > > Cheers, Francis > > > > > Francis Zwiers > Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada > 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 > Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 > > > > *From:* [2]wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu > [[3]mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu] *On Behalf Of *IPCC WGI TSU > *Sent:* October 24, 2007 3:11 PM > *To:* [4]WG1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Comment on the IPCC prize ceremony > delgation(Hegerl) > > This message from Gabi was accidentally intercepted by our Mailman, so > am forwarding along... > > Subject: > Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Comment on the IPCC prize ceremony delegation > From: > Gabi Hegerl [5] [6] > Date: > Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:54:37 +0100 > > To: > [7]wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [8] > > > Hi Richard, I think your suggestion has advantages and disadvantages. > I agree that the media coverage point would be useful. On the other hand, > even if some topics are particularly hot, and some are more media > attractive than others, I think the report draws from efforts from all > of us, and I think we are all equally valuable parts of the puzzle. Any > attempts to pull some of us forward would be inevitably unfair... so I > cant think of a way to do this right (and definitely not fast) without > doing the others injustice....and it would > create first and second tier citizens beyond the Chair-CLA-LA-CA > structure which has been approximately proportional to the efforts > involved (emphasis on approximately). > One might consider though to add the somewhat exhausted looking SYR > team along with the CLAs list into the lottery...and CLAs from earlier > reports, I agree that would be good! > > Gabi > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please note that our email address has changed. > Please direct all future correspondence to: [9]ipcc-wg1@ucar.edu [10] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Melinda M.B. Tignor > Program Administrator > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > Working Group I Technical Support Unit > NOAA Chemical Sciences Division > 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 > Boulder, CO 80305 USA > Phone: +1 303 497 7072 > Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 > Email: [11]ipcc-wg1@ucar.edu [12] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list > [13]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu > [14]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- Ken Denman, FRSC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis c/o University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250) 363 8230 FAX: (250) 363 8247 email: [15]ken.denman@ec.gc.ca Room 263 Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3 Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences Fisheries and Oceans Canada tel. 250 363 6335 web page: [16]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [17]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [18]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas __________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [19]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [20]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas __________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [21]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [22]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [23]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [24]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 949. 2007-10-25 15:49:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:51 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU TS 2.10 VAP & WET to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, Just to let you know, the problem is with the decadal files only. The full 1901-2002 files are apparently correct. This is comparatively good news as I suspect most people don't bother with the decadal files. As to what happened - I have no idea. When I found that the full files were OK I guessed that there was a 'decade maker' program, and that this was simply seeded with the wrong parameter names. But on examination, the data have also been scaled to suit the parameter: FULL 1901-2002 FILE Var Year Jan_min Jan_max Jan_ave Feb_min Feb_max Feb_ave Mar_min Mar_max Mar_ave Ann_min Ann_max Ann_ave VAP 1981 0 322 82 0 324 84 0 320 90 0 360 107 WET 1981 0 3100 1018 0 2800 919 0 3100 980 0 3100 992 DECADAL 1981-1990 FILE Var Year Jan_min Jan_max Jan_ave Feb_min Feb_max Feb_ave Mar_min Mar_max Mar_ave Ann_min Ann_max Ann_ave VAP 1981 0 310 102 0 280 92 0 310 98 0 310 99 WET 1981 0 3220 819 0 3240 842 0 3200 903 0 3600 1071 I suspect this is just another mystery-never-to-be solved; I'll put with all the others. And get on with VAP. Cheers Harry PS Congratulations on getting Broadband! On 24 Oct 2007, at 19:51, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > Harry, > Have just got Broadband at home working, so > you can tell Mike tomorrow! In Newcastle tomorrow > and Friday - Colin also. > Looks convincing re the switch, so I guess you'll > just have to sort it somehow. > > This would affect what Dimitrios did re PET > but you're going to recalculate anyway. > > Sort it so you can finish version 3, then go back and > back sort version 2.10 > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Phil, >> >> Preliminary investigations are indicating that the published 2.10 >> dataset has transposed the Vapour Pressure and Wet Day parameters. >> >> Examples so far are from January and February 1981. >> >> Month Param Min Max >> Jan 81 VAP 0 310 >> Jan 81 WET 0 3220 >> Feb 81 VAP 0 280 >> Feb 81 WET 0 3240 >> >> I think the 310 and 280 values clinch it? >> >> This applies to both the original GRIM format files and to the ones I >> reformatted as grids (that program did one var at a time so could not >> have swapped them, I've checked anyway). >> >> Harry >> Ian "Harry" Harris >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ >> United Kingdom >> >> >> > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2939. 2007-10-25 17:24:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:24:58 -0600 (MDT) from: wigley@ucar.edu subject: Re: Data Sets to: "Paul Nevins" Paul, I'm copying this to my colleague Phil Jones who is more up to date on these issues. For the land temperature data, every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results. There are many other variables that are consistent with warming -- glaciers melting, sea ice disappearing in the Arctic, etc. The latest word on this is in the observations chapter of the IPCC 4th assessment report (AR4), which can be viewed/downloaded from the IPCC web site. Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land. There is no urban effect there. Also, oceans have warmed at depth, not just at the surface, increasing ocean heat content at a rate that agrees with expectations from climate models. The troposphere has also warmed -- although the amount depends on whose data one uses. This is covered in the IPCC report, and also in the CCSP1.1 report. Atmospheric moisture content has also increased by an amount similar to that predicted by climate models. These changes are not only consistent with each other at the global-mean level, the patterns of change agree with expectations from climate models. These aspects are covered the the IPCC AR4 detection and attribution chapter. THh evidence for substantial global warming, of about 0.7C, is truly overwhelming. You say "there is so much deliberate distortion for political gain and so much soft money riding on the issue". Certainly, none of the scientists I work with or know have any political axes to grind. For me, I don't rely on soft money, so that is not an issue. To think that good scientists would need to bias their results to get funding strikes me as ludicrous. There are some cases where scientists (in medical science) have done this, been found out, and destroyed their careers. Science is a mix of competitive and collaborative endeavours, with many many checks and balances. Any attempt to "fake" or distort results would soon be exposed. Please check out the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 report. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dear Dr. Wigley > > For a number of years I have thought that the urban heat island effect > had been well understood and accounted for. I thought that because of > your clear explanation of how it was done. It now appears that in the > United States, at the very least, this is not the case. Data used in a > recent paper, (Peterson and Wang I believe were the authors) that > claimed to show that urban heat Island is not a significant part of the > warming signal in fact showed just the opposite. > > I know that this is very recent and McIntyre is not necessarily correct > but, to me it looks like we are back to Richard Balling's claim from 20 > years ago that if you eliminate the urban effect the entire warming > signal vanishes in North America. Since my friends working at the south > pole have shown there is no warming there, and these are perhaps our two > most reliable surface data sets the phenomena isn't looking very global > at the moment. > > I only mention all this to you because you seem to me to have pretty > solid integrity and frankly there is so much deliberate distortion for > political gain and so much soft money riding on the issue that I am > doubting the reliability of almost everything. Climate is not my field, > but teaching scientific method is, and I need something to hang my hat > on when students ask me questions about current issues. Right now I > haven't got that and I suspect that you are also troubled. The entire > issue is starting to remind me of Eugenics research in Germany in the > 30s. > > What do we know that's really solid here? I don't expect a long answer > here, if you can give me a steer to someplace you think doesn't cherry > pick it's data I would appreciate it. > > Paul Nevins > 3758. 2007-10-26 14:35:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:35:52 -0400 from: Kim Cobb subject: Invitation to Proxy Uncertainty workshop, June 9-11, 2008, to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar, esper@wsl.ch, druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu, sandy.tudhope@ed.ac.uk, kcobb@eas.gatech.edu, j.lough@aims.gov.au, jto@u.arizona.edu, jcole@geo.arizona.edu, thompson.3@osu.edu, steig@ess.washington.edu, valerie.masson@cea.fr, haug@gfz-potsdam.de, khughen@whoi.edu, peter@ldeo.columbia.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, ian.walker@ubc.ca, fleitman@geo.unibe.ch, fdacruz@geo.umass.edu, pauline.treble@anu.edu.au, christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch, gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, ammann@ucar.edu, ngraham@hrc-lab.org, mann@psu.edu, M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk, wahl@ucar.edu, juerg@giub.unibe.ch, mathias@geo.umass.edu, hoffmann@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, david.m.anderson@noaa.gov, wanner@giub.unibe.ch, LJWILLIA@epri.com, thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, kc182@gatech.edu Dear colleagues, On behalf of the organizing committee, we invite you to attend a PAGES/CLIVAR workshop entitled "Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High Resolution Proxy Climate Data", to be held at the ICTP in Trieste, Italy June 9-11, 2008. The workshop prospectus is attached for your review. The workshop will bring together representatives from each major high-resolution paleoclimate archive to discuss proxy-specific sources of error, and strategies for reducing these errors. Your contributions are essential to the success of the workshop, and we sincerely hope that you can attend. Thanks to the ICTP, the Electric Power Research Institute, and PAGES, funds are currently in place to cover US$1000 of your travel expenses (roughly US$400 of which will cover your lodging, breakfasts, and lunches at ICTP). Pending additional workshop funds, requests for additional funding will be handled on a case-by-case basis, as needed. Please respond with a tentative yes or no as soon as possible, so that we can ensure that each proxy group is well-represented. Thank you, and we hope to see you in Trieste next summer. Sincerely, Kim Cobb Janice Lough Jonathan Overpeck Sandy Tudhope Thorsten Kiefer Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ProxyUncertainty08.pdf" 349. 2007-10-29 15:09:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: wigley@ucar.edu, "'Phil Jones'" date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:09:51 -0600 (MDT) from: wigley@ucar.edu subject: RE: Fwd: FYI: James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed to: "Tim Lenton" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by moffatt.cgd.ucar.edu id l9TL9q3c027313 Hi Tim, Thanks for the email. The first paper on this is the attached Nature paper -- rather idealized. More important is work Steve Smith and I have done over the years. The best example is in the CCSP3.2 paper, under review with Climatic Change (see p. 14) -- but we discuss this elsewhere such as in Smith & Wigley 2006. I'll also enclose my geoeng paper, which I think puts the correct spin on this. We (me, Hoffert, Caldeira and Green) have other work showing that the tech challenge of 450 ppm eq. stabilization is very unlikely to be met (in contrast to and highly critical of Pacala and Socolow) -- which puts more weight on geoeng. Stabilizing sea level is a mega challenge that requires dropping CO2 to below pre-ind (unless we do geoeng). I think my paper on this touches more bases more realistically than any other published work. The tricky issue here is the spatial patterns of change, where geoeng does not balance greenhouse. We have CCSM3 runs on this in progress. Best wishes, Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++ > Hi Tom, > > Jim (and Sandy) Lovelock's email is jesjl@daisyworld.org > > I'm going to Jim's lecture this evening so if you send me a pdf of the > paper > I can hand it to him, > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 29 October 2007 13:14 > To: wigley@ucar.edu > Cc: t.lenton@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Re: Fwd: FYI: James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed > global > warming > > > Tim, > If you have an email for Jim Lovelock can you send to Tom Wigley > (cc'd on this email). Tom wants to remind him of a paper in Nature from > 1991. > Assuming that Jim has an email and would look at Tom's email > and likely pdf. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 12:17 29/10/2007, you wrote: >>Actually in Nature in 1991. >> >>A much more important result is in my CCSP3.2 paper. >> >>Do you have Jim's email? >> >>Tom. >>+++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > >> > Tom, >> > Deja vu !!!! >> > >> > You said this in the 1980s!! >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> >>Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:34:46 -0500 >> >>To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu >> >>From: Michael Schlesinger >> >>Subject: FYI: James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed global >> >> warming >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.7 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: + >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;js >> > essionid=PPV2CNTS22QGHQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/earth/2007/10/29/eaclim129.xm > l >> >> >> >>James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed global warming >> >>By Charles Clover, Environment Editor >> >>Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 29/10/2007 >> >> >> >>A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions >> >>could speed up global warming, the veteran >> >>environmental maverick James Lovelock will warn in a lecture today. >> >> >> >>[] >> >> >> >>An Indian woman carrying drinking water on the dried up Osman Sagar >> lake >> >> >> >>Prof Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia theory that >> >>the planet behaves like a single organism, says >> >>this is because current global warming is offset >> >>by global dimming - the 2-3C of cooling cause >> >>by industrial pollution, known to scientists as >> >>aerosol particles, in the atmosphere. >> >> >> >>His lecture will be delivered as Hilary Benn, >> >>the Environment Secretary, launches the results >> >>of a public consultation on the Government's >> >>proposed Climate Change Bill which is intended >> >>to cut Britain's greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. >> >> >> >>Prof Lovelock will say in a lecture to the Royal >> >>Society: "Any economic downturn or planned >> >>cutback in fossil fuel use, which lessened >> >>aerosol density, would intensify the heating. >> >> >> >>"If there were a 100 per cent cut in fossil fuel >> >>combustion it might get hotter not cooler. We >> >>live in a fool's climate. We are damned if we >> >>continue to burn fuel and damned if we stop too suddenly." >> >> >> >>Prof Lovelock believes that even the gloomiest >> >>predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on >> >>Climate Change are underestimating the current >> >>severity of climate change because they do not >> >>go into the consequences of the current burden >> >>pollution in the atmosphere which will last for centuries. >> >> >> >>He argues that though the scientific language of >> >>the IPCC, which reported earlier this year, is >> >>"properly cautious" it gives the impression that >> >>the worst consequences of climate change are avoidable if we take >> action >> >> now. >> >> >> >>Prof Lovelock believes that six to eight billion >> >>humans will be faced with ever diminishing >> >>supplies of food and water in an increasingly >> >>intolerable climate and wildlife and whole ecosystems will become >> >> extinct. >> >> >> >>He argues that we have set off a vicious cycle >> >>of 'positive feedback' in the earth system >> >>whereby extra heat in the atmosphere - from any >> >>source - is amplified, causing yet more warming. >> >> >> >>He will say: "We are at war with the Earth and >> >>as in a blitzkrieg, events proceed faster than we can respond." >> >> >> >>According to Professor Lovelock's gloomy >> >>analysis, the IPCC's climate models fail to take >> >>account of the Earth as a living system where >> >>life in the oceans and land takes an active part in regulating the >> >> climate. >> >> >> >>He will argue that when a model includes the >> >>whole Earth system it shows that: "When the >> >>carbon dioxide in the air exceeds 500 parts per >> >>million the global temperature suddenly rises >> >>6C and becomes stable again despite further >> >>increases or decreases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. >> >> >> >>"This contrasts with the IPCC models that >> >>predict that temperature rises and falls >> >>smoothly with increasing or decreasing carbon dioxide." >> >> >> >>He argues that we should cut greenhouse gas >> >>emissions, nonetheless, because it might help >> >>slow the pace of global heating. We also have to >> >>do our best to lessen our destruction of natural >> >>forests but this is unlikely to be enough and we >> >>will have to learn to adapt to the inevitable changes we will soon >> >> experience. >> >> >> >>The pro-nuclear Prof Lovelock will say that we >> >>should think of the Earth as a live >> >>self-regulating system and devise ways to >> >>harness the natural processes that regulate the >> >>climate in the fight against global warming. >> >> >> >>This could involve paying indigenous peoples to >> >>protect their forests and develop ways to make >> >>the ocean absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere more >> efficiently. >> >> >> >>Prof Lovelock intends to add: "We are not merely >> >>a disease; we are through our intelligence and >> >>communication the planetary equivalent of a >> >>nervous system. We should be the heart and mind of the Earth not its >> >> malady." >> >> >> >>Meanwhile a Commons select committee warns today >> >>that the Government's response to climate change >> >>is "confused" and calls for a cross-departmental >> >>Climate Change Minister and a powerful new body >> >>to be created within the Cabinet Office to drive >> >>forward policy and to diminish inter-departmental conflict. >> >> >> >>Tim Yeo, MP, chairman of the Environmental Audit >> >>Committee, said: "The way the Government has >> >>addressed climate change has led to a confusing >> >>framework that doesn't promote effective action to cut emissions. >> >> >> >>"Our recommendations would create a more >> >>effective framework for dealing with climate >> >>change. However this framework alone will not >> >>cut emissions. That needs committed leadership >> >>by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. >> >> >> >>"The Government's commitment to sustainable >> >>development and climate change will be judged by >> >>actions and achievements, not speeches and targets." >> >>Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the >> >>copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and >> >>must not be reproduced in any medium without >> >>licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright >> >> >> > >> > Prof. Phil Jones >> > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> > University of East Anglia >> > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> > NR4 7TJ >> > UK >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WigleyNature1991.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WigleyScience2006.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WigleyAll-090907.pdf" 5241. 2007-10-29 17:30:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: awallard@bipm.org date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:30:58 +0100 from: Andrew Wallard subject: Re: Fwd: Attached Image to: Phil Jones Phil, Many thanks. I'm sure you saw the sidelined passage of mild complaint about the confidentiality. May I pass this on to my contact at the Academie ( Christain Borde)? I'm sure he'll pass it to Courtillot but I imagine you've told him what to do anyway. I'm sorry to draw you (back?) into this but Borde mentioned it to me last week. He is to be the chairman of our "General Conference of Weights and Measures" next month and I always try to be nice to my bosses! Andrew At 16:15 29/10/2007 +0000, you wrote: Andrew, My French isn't up to much, but if you go here you can get the gridded temperature data we produce in combination with the Hadley Centre. [1]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/ then you click on datasets such as HadCRUT3 or CRUTEM3 What I think Courtillot wants is our raw station temperature database. We have entered into agreements to get this data with many National Met Services and also scientists around the world (dating back to the 1980s). We can use the data in the gridded products (see above) but not make the raw station data available. You can get much of the raw data from a web site in the US (NCDC Asheville) if you know what you're doing. This isn't an issue for almost all climate scientists around the world. They are happy with the products we put together. We've started getting requests from people in the last few years asking for the raw station data. We've always not made the raw data available. As I said - I am assuming this is what he is talking about. Cheers Phil At 14:26 29/10/2007, you wrote: X-Original-To: awallard@bipm.org Delivered-To: awallard@bipm.org From: cannp1@bipm.org To: "Andrew Wallard" Subject: Attached Image Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:30:05 GMT Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3818. 2007-10-30 10:39:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Oct 30 10:39:40 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Questions about CRU CL 1.0 to: Ian Harris Harry -- I'm catching up on old emails including the one below from a month ago... the answer is "no" I don't know. Helpful aren't I?! Tim At 09:17 26/09/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil, Tim, Do either of you know the answers to these questions? Cheers Harry On 26 Sep 2007, at 8:48, Sheppard Sylv Miss ((SCI)) wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Jongschaap, Raymond [[1]mailto:raymond.jongschaap@wur.nl] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:16 AM To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Cc: Jongschaap, Raymond; Conijn, Sjaak Subject: Questions about CRU CL 1.0 Dear Dr Mitchel, or CRU colleague, I would like to know if you could help me out with some questions concerning the CRU CL 1.0 data-set, that is available on your website. In the above database radiation (rad, W m-2) is provided, although in the paper of New et al. (1999), this variable is not mentioned. My questions are: 1) Where can I learn how this variable was derived, and 2) As Rad is given as W m-2 (or J m-2 s-1); is this an average value for a day in a given month? Does this apply for 24 hours, or for the daylength period only? As you may understand, I would like to obtain the daily or monthly value of rad, and don't know which mulitplier I should use. My last question is about vapour pressure (vap, hPa) and wind speed (wnd, m s-1) 3) Are these mean values for a day (24 h) in a given month or do they apply for the daylength period of that day only? I hope you can help me out ASAP with some (partial) answers, Best personal regards, Dr. ir. R.E.E. Jongschaap Sustainable farming systems, Bioenergy, Simulation modeling and Remote Sensing Wageningen University and Research centre Plant Sciences Group Plant Research International Dept. Agrosystems Innovations T +31 (0)317 475953 / [new: 480570] F +31 (0)317 423110 E raymond.jongschaap@wur.nl W [2]www.pri.wur.nl Postal address: P.O. Box 16 NL-6700AA Wageningen the Netherlands Visiting address: Bornsesteeg 65 Building 122, room 0.24 NL-6708PD Wageningen the Netherlands Jatropha curcas evaluation, breeding and propagation programme W [3]www.jatropha.wur.nl Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 4125. 2007-10-30 11:45:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:45:10 +0100 from: Edouard BARD subject: French stuff to: Phil Jones Phil, Note that this very paper by Courtillot (Caro is only the interviewer) has been severely criticized by one of our prominent atmospheric dynamicist (Bernard Legras CNRS director at LMD). I attach his recent letter to the heads of the French Academy and to the editorial board of its publication. In a previous email, I pasted for you one of my email to Courtillot criticizing another aspect of this interview paper (see below again). I am not sure if you can read all this French stuff, but you may have colleagues around who could help you (e.g. Corinne Le Qur who may be interested by these issues, feel free to forward it to her). Best wishes, Edouard Edouard, Seems fine with me. Let's see what happens. CRU and Hadley data are on other group's web sites, so it is likely from a secondary source. Strange then that google can't find the file. Odd also to give the file name and not a web site! Cheers Phil PS I've had an exchange yesterday with Andrew Wallard Director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris. It relates to the attachment. Here's the initial exchange and then what I sent later. Phil, I've been away as well. Maybe you have seen the article by Courtillot and Caro in which they say that they've been in touch with you to see if they can compare their data with yours but the data at Hadley is under a confidentiality agreement with the providers. I'll mail you the paper. Andrew Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:21:02 +0100 To: Vincent Courtillot From: Edouard BARD Subject: Re: Numro Thmatique : Evolution du Climat Cc: letreut@lmd.ens.fr, Jean-Claude.Andre@cerfacs.fr, ghil@lmd.ens.fr, Anny.Cazenave@cnes.fr, lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr, allegre@ipgp.jussieu.fr, Jean-Claude.Duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, hauglustaine@cea.fr, fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr, B.Tissot.cne@wanadoo.fr, michel.petit@m4x.org, jean.dercourt@academie-sciences.fr, J.Hoffmann@ibmc.u-strasbg.fr, jean-francois.bach@academie-sciences.fr, edouard.brezin@physique.ens.fr, jean.dercourt@wanadoo.fr, lorius@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, jacques.blamont@cnes.fr, chanin@aerov.jussieu.fr, labeyrie@obs-hp.fr, laskar@imcce.fr, pierre.encrenaz@obspm.fr, pierre.lena@obspm.fr, roger.balian@cea.fr, lepichon@cdf.u-3mrs.fr, berger@astr.ucl.ac.be, ssolomon@al.noaa.gov Cher Vincent, Comme je te l'ai dit, il y a eu un malentendu, probablement de ma part, concernant un ventuel article pour ce numro spcial des CRAS (j'avais compris que celui-ci serait constitu exclusivement par les articles dtaills relatifs la journe spcialise du 5 mars). En outre, j'ai t surcharg de travail cet t pour faire avancer les programmes de mon labo, ainsi que pour les nombreuses runions de l'AERES et surtout du "Grenelle" de l'environnement. Je n'ai donc pas trouv le temps ncessaire pour contribuer ton volume spcial. J'en suis vraiment dsol, d'autant plus que le thme de ma contribution incluait le rle du gaz carbonique aux diffrentes chelles de temps. Ceci m'aurait permis de rectifier certaines erreurs releves ici ou l: Par exemple, dans le dernier numro de La Lettre de l'Acadmie (n21), tu nous dis que les paloclimatologues n'ont vraiment rien compris la relation entre le CO2 et le climat pendant les glaciations et que l'explication de la corrlation est, "tout simplement", lie l'effet de la temprature sur la dissolution du gaz carbonique. Je cite ton texte de la page 27: "Les rsultats les plus rcents montrent que les variations du gaz carbonique mesures dans les bulles d'air trouves dans les carottes de glace se produisent quelques sicles aprs les variations de temprature, et traduisent donc tout simplement le rchauffement (ou le refroidissement) des ocans par le Soleil qui provoque un dgazage (ou une redissolution) du gaz carbonique. Pour ces priodes, c'est principalement la temprature qui contrle le gaz carbonique". Cela fait plus de vingt ans que la variation de CO2 en priode glaciaire est un fait dmontr et cela fait aussi vingt ans que nous savons que l'effet direct du refroidissement ocanique est totalement insuffisant pour expliquer l'amplitude du phnomne. Il y a une littrature abondante sur ce sujet pour comprendre et quantifier les rles respectifs du stockage du carbone dans l'ocan profond, les sdiments et la biosphre (Wally Broecker de Columbia vient d'ailleurs d'obtenir le Prix Crafoord en grande partie pour cela). Pour prparer les dbats de mars l'Acadmie, tu avais diffus un "document de travail" rdig par M. Marcel Leroux que tu as aussi invit rdiger un article pour ton numro spcial des CRAS. Je suis un peu inquiet car cet auteur reprend son compte la courbe et la thse de Beck, selon laquelle il y aurait un complot organis par le laboratoire de la Scripps de San Diego pour faire en sorte que tous les laboratoires mesurant le CO2 atmosphrique retrouvent la mme augmentation l'chelle du sicle (en particulier les mesures de Dave Keeling pour le site de Mauna Loa). La courbe de Beck figure prcisment en page 3 du document de travail que tu nous as diffus avant le 5 mars. Celle-ci indique des teneurs en CO2 allant jusqu' plus de 440 ppm au dbut du 19e et au milieu du 20e sicle ( comparer la valeur actuelle de 385 ppm). Il s'agit en fait de mesures trs peu prcises ralises dans des villes europennes pollues par l'utilisation du charbon. Cette courbe que M. Leroux ainsi que de nombreux "sceptiques" prsentent maintenant comme la vrit l'chelle mondiale est en fait une escroquerie organise par un prof des coles en Allemagne. Pour plus de dtails, tu peux lire par exemple la page web suivante : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/ J'espre qu'en tant qu'diteur et acadmicien, tu veilleras ce que cette fameuse courbe de Beck ne soit pas publie dans les Comptes Rendus de la noble Acadmie laquelle tu appartiens. Bien cordialement, Edouard ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collge de France Chaire de l'volution du climat et de l'ocan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80 13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4 Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.) Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email bard@cerege.fr http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Chers amis et auteurs, Bernard Tissot et moi-mme nous permettons de vous rappeler que votre article pour le numro thmatique de GEOSCIENCES etait d pour le 15 juin. Nous ne voyons pas de problemes pour tendre la date limite au 30 juin, mais aprs se poseront de serieux problemes: Bernard Tissot et moi meme ne serons pas disponibles en juillet ni aout, et les dosssiers arrives apres le 30 juin ne pourront etre traites (envoi aux rapporteurs) que debut septembre. L'ensemble du numero en sera retard de 2 mois. Vous ne serez pas surpris d'apprendre que j'ai deja recu, a la date limite d'origine, le manuscrit d'Ilya Usoskin (plus on est loin...). Deux autres m'ont t promis pour cette semaine. J'espere une reponse par retour de mail des autres. Merci de votre aide et de votre contribution (n"oubliez pas de proposer au moins 5 "reviewers" avec leurs adresses email si possible; vous pouvez aussi vous proposer comme reviewer d'un article autre que le votre le cas echeant...). Tres amicalement, VC et BT Liste des articles attendus (les titres ne sont qu'indicatifs et non contraignants) Herv Le Treut: Fondement disciplinaire des tudes climatiques Jean-Claude Andr: La modlisation mathmatique du climat l'chelle centenaire Michael Ghil: Modlisation du climat: les aspects non linaires Anny Cazenave: Evolution rcente du niveau de la mer Jean-Louis Le Moul et Vincent Courtillot: La temprature depuis un sicle : influence du Soleil et variabilit spatiale Jean-Claude Duplessy: Reconstitutions de l'volution du climat l'chelle du million d'annes Claude Allgre: intervention Didier Hauglustaine: Les mcanismes de l'effet de serre Frdric Fluteau: Le rle du volcanisme I.G. Usoskin: Le rle des rayons cosmiques Edouard Bard: Rle du CO2 et des facteurs d'origine terrestre Plus deux articles sollicits de Leroux et de Michard. -- Vincent Courtillot Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Universit Paris 7, et Institut Universitaire de France Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Legras=Courtillot3.pdf" -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collge de France Chaire de l'volution du climat et de l'ocan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80 13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4 Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.) Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email bard@cerege.fr http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- 3467. 2007-10-30 13:23:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:23:19 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: recently submitted paper abstract to: cru.all@uea Hi everyone, we decided a while ago that when papers are submitted we should email around a copy of the abstract to everyone in CRU so we can keep up with forthcoming work and not be taken by surprise when some relevant work gets published. I keep forgetting to do this (as do others)! But, in case anyone out there has an interest in polar bears, this has just been submitted.... O'Neill SJ, Osborn TJ, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Watkinson AR (2007) Expert assessment of the uncertainties of polar bear population dynamics under climate change. Submitted to Journal of Applied Ecology. Abstract Polar bear population dynamics under climate change has become a controversial topic. A survey of expert opinion (the first ever undertaken for a particular species) based on modelled sea-ice data was performed in order to quantify the trends and variance surrounding possible impacts of climate change on polar bear populations. 1. Polar bears Ursus maritimus have become an iconic species in the communication of climate change, with media coverage implying a rapid population decline. This contrasts with scientific research, which indicates that most populations are currently stable or growing. Negative impacts of climatic warming on polar bears have been suggested, but cannot be quantified as no models yet exist to analyse the relationship between polar bear population dynamics and climate change. 2. Ten polar bear experts participated in an expert opinion survey, quantifying the trends and variance surrounding possible impacts of climate change on polar bear populations. The experts were provided with maps and time series of sea-ice extent and duration to 2050, simulated under mid-range emissions scenario SRES A1B. Expert responses for future polar bear habitat range and population size across the Arctic, and for population size in five regions, were obtained. Experts were asked to define 'best conservation practice', and to re-evaluate the total Arctic population projection if this best practice was implemented. 3. Most experts project a substantial decline in polar bear range and population across the Arctic, and in population across each region. Expert best estimates for total Arctic polar bear population size lie from no change to a 70% decrease relative to today; with half the experts projecting at least a 30% decrease. The median best estimates show the Barents Sea, Hudson Bay and the Chukchi Sea populations experiencing the greatest population decline under this scenario. There is much uncertainty both within and between expert responses, especially in little-researched regions such as the Chukchi Sea. 4. Synthesis and Applications. The responses of experts suggest polar bear populations will undergo significant declines by 2050, even implementing best management practices, under the scenario of climatic warming outlined here. In order to minimise population decline many experts believed that a precautionary approach to hunting is needed. However, unless conservation management of polar bears is teamed with global mitigation efforts there is little prospect of preventing significant population declines. Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 741. 2007-10-30 16:16:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Oct 30 16:16:02 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Essay help to: V.Coe@uea.ac.uk Dear Vikki, the marks won't really depend on the style or approach that you take with presenting them... as long as you have identified natural mechanisms of climate change that might contribute to some significant part of the observed warming then that is good enough. So either of your options is ok, provided you use most of your word allowance on the natural mechanisms. The only reason why I asked for it to be presented in this particular form (i.e. a briefing document for George W Bush) is to make it more difficult for people to just cut and past from the web! It might be easy to find text about natural mechanisms on the web, but not so easy to find it in the required style and therefore encourage everyone to re-write it in their own words -- which everyone should be doing anyway, to avoid "plagiarism", but sadly not everyone does. Hope that helps, Tim At 15:52 30/10/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim I am an environmental undergrad student, i am currently working on the coursework where you have to submit a document to George Bush. I am slightly confused on how to answer this question. I have researched natural mechanisms such as sunspots etc. however i am unsure on how to present this information George Bush did not sign the kyoto agreement so therefore his thought patterns must be towards the fact that anthropogenic factors are not a significant cause of climate change. Is the idea of the essay to write about natural mechanisms and therefore give some weight to his arguement? Or Is the idea of the essay to say write about for example sunspots and dictate that this natural mechanism may have caused 10% of the global warming trend observed.....however 90% may be other natural mechanisms or anthropogenic causes? ( i just plucked those figures out of thin air!)So should i write in the style of considering natural mechanisms are partly to blame however anthropogenic reasons should not be ignored! I would really appreciate your help in getting my head around what the question is asking...or atleast pointing in the right direction. Regards Vikki Coe 360. 2007-10-30 16:22:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:22:38 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: [Fwd: Your Submission] to: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa Hi Tim & Keith, Received the comments of two reviewers to the Clim. Dyn. paper last week. Haven't had the opportunity to look at is closely - but it doesn't look too good....... Cheers, Gerard Ref.: Ms. No. CLIDY-D-07-00069 Detecting trends in meridional heat transport in the North Atlantic using variations in sea surface height Climate Dynamics Dear Dr. van der Schrier, The reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. The comments are appended below. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work in its present form. Therefore I must reject it. However, I am ready to consider a new manuscript describing your work, substantially revised following the referees' comments. This manuscript should be submitted as an entirely new submission. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Yours sincerely Jean-Claude Duplessy Executive Editor Climate Dynamics Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The authors are tackling a timely topic of how to deduce MHT changes from SSH using an optimal detection approach. The method is applied on a long control simulation of the HadCM3 coupled model from which the SSH response function to MHT changes and the estimate of the internal variability are derived. As the bottom line the authors state that changes need to be at least 0.024PW/yr to be deemed statistically different from zero. Of course this number means that MHT would decrease/increase 25% in 10 years from the mean MHT at 30N (=0.96PW as stated on page 4) before the method could find it significantly imprinted to SSH. Somehow this sort of large and rapid change in MHT should manifest itself with more confidence in SSH ... While the method appears straightforward, the authors fail to disclose salient information how it was actually applied. Since the main conclusion is that the basic method (which was presented) is not as reliable as a variant of the method, why not use the variant method to start with or at least present it in the same manuscript ? I am not convinced that the manuscript is publishable until the variant of the optimal fingerprinting method is presented. I don't want to see multiple manuscripts that present only partial and inadequate solutions when potentially better methods are available. Also at its present form, the manuscript is rather lightweight. Further comments: Page 5: discussion related to noise: the k highest variance EOFs of the control run, EOFs of what field ??? And using what time period ? Page 6: 2.2.1 regression of MHT and SSH, what time period ? A 1000 year segment ? Or was it split into smaller segments ? And how exactly was the response pattern constructed ? Page 6: Composite analysis, was the response pattern different from Fig. 1 ? Could be included to gain some information what the differences are ? Was the regression pattern chosen because it performed the best in the validation period ? Page 7: Estimation of climate noise issue: Here I got totally lost : 'SSH contains the response to MHT'. Is this a bit too late in the manuscript to worry about it ? Pages 9-10: 3.2: I don't understand how the noise pattern was derived for the altimetric SSH. Pages 10-12: Discussion: discussion of the drought index seems irrelevant except it exposes the same overlapping influences as MHT on SSH and NAO wind forcing (local Ekman pumping and Rossby waves) on SSH (the noise part). Reviewer 2:This article investigates the potential change (trend) in oceanic meridional heat transport (MHT) in the North Atlantic using altimetry-based sea surface heights (SSH) and runs from the HadCM3 climate model. Detecting MHT trends is important issue in the context of current climate change. Published results based on direct measurements are so far inconclusive, reported slowing down of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation being barely above measurement uncertainty. I am not expert in climate modelling; Thus my comments will remain general (although I have a few detailed comments about the figures). General comments 1. A 10-year record of SSH data is quite short to detect trends. Why only use 10 years while nearly 15 years are now available (from the Topex and Jason-1 record)? 2. Some studies (e.g., Latif et al., 2005) have shown that the meridional overturning circulation is subject to strong multidecadal variability related to NAO low-frequency variability, suggesting that anthropogenic weakening may be hard to detect. Again a 10-year record may be too short. 3. Several studies have shown that regional trends in SSH (or sea level) are mostly due to the combined trends in thermal expansion and halosteric effects (see the recently published IPCC 4th Assessment Report, chapter 5; Bindoff et al., 2007). Thus instead of a short altimetry-based SSH record, why not use observed steric trends over the last 40-50 years? 4. Another possibility would be to use outputs (SSH and/or steric sea level) from OGCMs runs with data assimilation which provide 'data' for the last ~40 years (e.g., the SODA reanalyse; Carton et al, 2005). The global mean sea level trend is possibly unrealistic but the spatial trend patterns agree well with observed trends based on satellite altimetry (over their overlapping time span). I suggest the authors provide more convincing arguments for the use of such a short SSH record. Other comments - The section on model adjustments (sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3) are hard to understand for a non-expert in climate modelling : for example, the differences between the 3 cases shown in Fig.3. By the way, if these figures are considered s essential by the authors, I suggest to combine them into a single one. - Fig.4 shows considerable low-frequency variability; But this is not discussed. Why? Cannot distinguish between simulated and 'observed' curves. Which is which? - What is the time unit in Fig.4? years? - The figures need legends on the X and Y axes - The figure captions are not enough informative. Should be expanded. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 2685. 2007-10-31 20:03:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: ralley@essc.psu.edu, N.Bindoff@utas.edu.au, John.Church@csiro.au, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov, martin.heimann@bgc-jena.mpg.de, b.j.hoskins@reading.ac.uk, weaver@uvic.ca, jean.jouzel@cea.fr, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Peter.Lemke@awi.de, amanda.lynch@arts.monash.edu.au, meehl@ncar.ucar.edu, Neville.Nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, Graeme.Pearman@arts.monash.edu.au, randall@atmos.colostate.edu, shs@stanford.edu, gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov, will.steffen@anu.edu.au, trenbert@ucar.edu, Richard.wood@metoffice.com, francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca, haug@gfz-potsdam.de, martin.claussen@zmaw.de, jochem.marotzke@zmaw.de, klochte@ifm-geomar.de, c.lequere@uea.ac.uk, mvisbeck@ifm-geomar.de, uriebesell@ifm-geomar.de, d-archer@uchicago.edu, mlm373@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, wmc@bas.ac.uk, steig@ess.washington.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Michael Molitor , Richard Somerville , Stefan Rahmstorf , Andy Pitman , dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au, rasmus.benestad@met.no, Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov, S.Kober@unsw.edu.au, Penny Ajani date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:03:29 +1100 (EST) from: Matthew England subject: RE: 2007 Bali Declaration on Climate Change to: Matthew England Sorry, two points I overlooked earlier: 1/ Once signatures are finalised we will list those signing in alphabetical order, not according to time of sign-on. 2/ We are commissioning an official translation of the Declaration into the top-ten most widely used languages (Chinese, Hindi, ...). These will appear on the web as .pdf links shortly. We do want a global spread of signatures so pls send on suggestions of top scientists from developing nations. Thanks again, Matthew On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Matthew England wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Richard Somerville, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andy Pitman, Michael Molitor, > myself and a few others have put together a Declaration on Climate Change > to be released at the upcoming Bali meeting in early December 2007. > There are plans for a major press conference in Bali to release the > declaration - hopefully held on December 6, 2007. > > We are seeking signatures from a limited number of climate scientists from > around the world. This list might ramp up to approx. 80-100 signatures > over the coming weeks. We are inviting national leads to sign - the goal > is quality not quantity. > > Please consider signing this declaration. The declaration is set up so > that you can sign as individuals, not on behalf of your organisation. > The declaration is available for signing at > http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/ > > Feel free to forward us suggestions of people you'd like to see added to > this list. So that we can keep control of this process, please don't fwd > on this message to explode lists etc. > > *** NOTE: signing is password-protected (password is "climate"). We have > done this to ensure that the list of signatures is manageable and > focussed. This declaration would gather 100,000 signatures if we let it > loose on the wider community. So at this stage, could all correspondence > come back to us. We also want to avoid engaging the media until much > closer to the time of the meeting. > > Thanks for considering this. If you plan to be in Bali on 5, 6, or 7 > December could you also let one of us know? > > Best regards, > Matthew England > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Professor Matthew England > Climate and Environmental Dynamics Laboratory (CEDL) > School of Mathematics & Statistics > The University of New South Wales Telephone: +61-2-9385-7065 > UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052 Facsimile: +61-2-9385-7123 > Australia E-mail: M.England@unsw.edu.au > For reprints, visit: www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew > Lab website: http://www.cedl.unsw.edu.au/ > Executive Assistant: Penny Ajani P.Ajani@unsw.edu.au > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 734. 2007-10-31 22:38:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:38:52 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= subject: Re:Two more questions to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, Glad to see your encouraging results. The difference between the Hadsst and Tem series since later 1970s is very interesting. would you please give me the detailed information about your China land region (Is it for the whole country?)? Maybe I can check with NCEP/DOE reanalysis-II dataset .(which is considered as to be not effected by UHI by Kanay and Cai (2003 Nature) and Zhou etal (2004,PNAS)) . I am doing the grid datasets scince 1900 with the homogenized series in China here in these days (which is a little difficuties for the lack of stations in West China in earlier years) and I hope I can got some different results during the earlier 50 years in China. And thank you for your interests to my papers. I have published 4 papers about the datasets(station and grid versions ) and urbanization, three of them is in English, one is in Chinese with English abstrat. (attached). The monthly temperature series I send to you has not been published yet. And the homogenization of all the stations series has been published in my Adv. Atmos. Sci. paper, In addition, we have printed a brochure about the dataset, and some of them has been inclueded in the brochure, which has been released in Dec 2006, and is used by many colleges, institutes and scientists in China now. But it is now only in Chinese. Best wishes Cheers Qingxiang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" < p.jones@uea.ac.uk > To: "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" < limmy@263.net > Cc: < liqx@cma.gov.cn > Sent: 2007-10-31 21:16:38 +0800 Subject: Two more questions > Qingxiang, >> I will be writing something the week after next week. I want to >> check with you > > how the station homogeneity work you've done has been reported. I have the > paper attached - is this the one I should refer to? Are there more >recent ones > I should be referring? > > I have one by He et al. (2007) in Theoretical and Applied Climatology > and one by Ren et al. (2007) in GRL > > and the references within these papers. > > Another question - are the changes applied to each of the 700+ stations > documented anywhere? > > Hope all is well with you! > > Cheers > Phil > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =======================263ʼʼӪר======================= Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Urban heat island effect on annual mean temperature.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\=gb2312Bvfyw67j2ysC8zdbQufrH+NPywPrKt8b4zsLN+Ljxyv2+3byvtcS9qMGiLnBkZg=== .pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China.pdf" 4359. 2007-11-02 14:22:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,c.harpham@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:22:14 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Fwd: anthropogenic heat! to: Mark McCarthy Hi Mark Thanks for the information and papers - all very helpful. I agree it would be good to meet in the New Year. I have a couple of trips in January, but week beginning 7 January is possible, then week beginning 28 January or next couple of weeks (beginning 4/11 Feb). You're very welcome to Norwich and it would be an opportunity to meet other people - though its rather a long haul. Another possibility could be to meet in London. If we called it a SCORCHIO meeting, then it should be possible to get a free meeting room at the MRC. Just one clarification - the Tyndall London work I was referring to is actually different to the LUCID project. But all the projects are requiring the same kind of inputs, so hopefully there can be some flexibility. Best wishes, Clare At 09:35 02/11/2007, you wrote: >Hi Clare, > > It was good to meet you in Manchester. Thank you for the preprint >paper, it looks very relevant. > > Regarding London, Rich Betts is a stakeholder in the LUCID project for >London too. I will ask Rich about any specific involvement we have. The >model runs will most certainly include London, so exactly the same data >as for Manchester and Sheffield would be available (and for any other UK >or European city for that matter). The main difference will be the >magnitude of the anthro heat-flux which is currently prescribed to be >the same for all city locations. Claire Smith has sent me some anthro >heat-flux estimates for Manchester of 7-11Wm-2, which are smaller than >equivalent estimates I made for London of 11-30Wm-2 (reaching about >50Wm-2 or more for Westminster). If Claire's estimates are right, then >the anthro heat flux may not be such a critical part of Manchester's >surface radiation budget (although this ignores possibly important >seasonal and diurnal cycles). > > Jim Hall tried to get in touch with Rich and I before chatting to Phil, >but unfortunately Rich was away, and I was at the Scorchio meeting so we >missed each other. > > The 9 surface types in the land surface scheme are: > >Broadleaf tree >Needleleaf tree >Temperate Grass >Tropical Grass >Shrub >Urban >Inland Water >Bare Soil >Ice > >Each surface type having its own prescribed parameters for albedo, >roughness length, canopy height, water capacity, leaf area etc. For more >details see Essery et al. 2003 (attached). For details on the urban >parameterisation see Best 2005 (attached). I assume you would want 1.5m >temperature on tiles (surface T on tiles also available). Precip will be >the same for all tiles across a grid box, but specific and relative >humidity will vary. > >Early next year should be a good starting point. Perhaps we could >arrange a meeting (perhaps at UEA?) to discuss the science needs for >both Scorchio and CIRCE in the new year. > >On further reflection following the meeting I think the first couple of >runs should provide us with sufficient data to assess the sensitivity of >land-use change before instigating the third run. The uhi in the model >is actually not strongly dependent upon size of the urban area (although >any feedback to the wider atmosphere will be). Therefore the uhi on >tiles in neighbouring (or near-by) grid boxes could be very similar even >if one grid is 80% urban and the other only 20% urban. But the grid box >temperature of the 20% urban case would be regulated by the vegetated >area and therefore have a lower grid-box temperature than the near-by >80% urban grid box. Hopefully that makes some kind of sense, but I can >explain better once I have some data. > >Kind regards, >Mark > >On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 19:08 +0000, Clare Goodess wrote: > > Hi Mark > > > > It was good to meet you in Manchester last week. > > > > This is the preprint on energy balance in Marseille which I mentioned. > > > > Phil Jones, Colin Harpham and I met today to discuss the UEA SCORCHIO > > work, and also some proposed work on London as part of the Tyndall > > Cities programme led by Jim Hall. I think that Jim has spoken to > > Richard Betts about this, but don't know if you are aware. Anyway, > > CRU has a small amount of money from Tyndall to do similar work for > > London as SCORCHIO. Stuart Barr from Newcastle is involved in both > > projects - and Phil had a discussion with him and Jim in Newcastle > > last week. Anyway, my understanding from Jim is that the Hadley > > Centre will also be able to provide outputs for London. > > > > I know that you are producing a document outlining the planned > > simulations and their outputs. For us, it would be useful to have a > > list of the 9 (?) land-surface types used in the tiling scheme. What > > we would like for the weather generator output is daily temperature > > and precipitation time-series for the different land-types in the > > 'city squares' i.e., for Manchester, Sheffield, London. > > > > Colin and Phil are currently very tied-up with UKCIP08 weather > > generator work, but we would ideally like to be able to do some > > proper SCORCHIO work (i.e., moving on from data compilation) early > > next year. From our discussions in Manchester, it seems that you > > would like to have a least one run done by then. > > > > At some point, we need to talk about CIRCE, but I think this can wait > > until the SCORCHIO runs are sorted out. > > > > Best wishes, Clare > > > > > > >Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:26:53 +0200 > > >X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster > > >From: Matthias Demuzere > > >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) > > >To: Clare Goodess > > >Subject: anthropogenic heat! > > >X-Virus-Scanned: by KULeuven Antivirus Cluster > > > > > >Dear Clare, > > > > > >In attach you can find the manuscript I have been writing on thermal > > >roughness lentghs and thermal admittance over Marseille, making an > > >estimate of the anthropogenic heat. Maybe it can be of interest? > > >It is revised and submitted, I will let you know as soon as I find > > >out about the (hopefully) final version!! > > > > > >Cheers! > > >Matthias > > > > > >-- > > >Physical and Regional Geography Research Group > > >Geo - Institute > > > > > >Celestijnenlaan 200E > > >3001 Heverlee (Leuven) > > >BELGIUM > > > > > >Tel: + 32 16 326424 > > >Fax: + 32 16 322980 > > > > > >www.kuleuven.be/geography > > > > > > > > > > > >Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Clare Goodess > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich > > NR4 7TJ > > UK > > > > Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > >-- >Mark McCarthy Climate Impacts Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, >Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB >Tel: +44(0)1392 884672 >Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 >email: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk >web: www.metoffice.gov.uk > > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 3190. 2007-11-03 14:39:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 14:39:34 -0400 from: Richard Somerville subject: Request to: jhc@dmi.dk, V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov, Herve.LeTreut@lmd.jussieu.fr, Piers Forster , peter.lemke@awi.de, Nathan Bindoff , jto@u.arizona.edu, Phil Jones , richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk, meehl@ncar.ucar.edu, stocker@climate.unibe.ch, Bruce Hewitson , Dave Randall Dear Colleagues, I am one of a group that has drafted a Declaration on Climate Change to be released at the UN climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia in early December 2007. We have plans for a major press conference in Bali to announce the declaration. Over the next few weeks, we are seeking signatures for the declaration from up to perhaps 100 climate scientists from around the world. Our goal is quality, not quantity. The declaration is self-explanatory. The text is pasted below. Without going into details of the Bali negotiations process, our focus is to create momentum around an appropriately low greenhouse gas concentration stabilization target. In the absence of framing the issue as we propose, some governments are virtually certain to advocate much higher targets for equivalent carbon dioxide stabilization values, with correspondingly greater climate risks. Please consider signing this declaration. People will sign as individuals, not on behalf of their organizations. Please do not delay. We have very little time before Bali. The declaration text is posted and is available for signing now at http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/ On the web site, you can see the names of those who have already signed. The list of signers is now chronological. We will alphabetize it before we release it. The names of several members of the drafting group appear early in the chronological list (England, Pitman, Rahmstorf, Somerville). Signing on the web site is password-protected (the password is "climate"). We have done this to ensure that the list of signatures is manageable and focused. We seek only well-qualified climate scientists and wish to avoid large numbers of other people signing. Therefore, please send any correspondence to us. We also want to avoid engaging the media until closer to the time of the meeting. Please send us suggestions of additional people whom you would like to see asked to sign this declaration. So that we can keep control of this process, please don't forward this message to email lists, etc. Instead, please suggest names to us at these email addresses: Matthew England , Stefan Rahmstorf , Andy Pitman , Richard Somerville . Many thanks, and best regards, Richard Somerville Prof. Richard C. J. Somerville Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego, USA Here is the text of the declaration: The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty (within the 1992 UNFCCC process) needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2 C above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries. Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2 C, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose. As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement. 1063. 2007-11-05 11:09:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:09:49 -0500 from: "Cohen, Barbara" subject: EPSCoR State Laboratory 2007 Review Request - 107650 -Jones to: Dr. Jones, You have been recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Program Manager, Anjuli Bamai, as a possible reviewer in the DOE's "Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DOE/EPSCoR); Building EPSCoR-State/National Laboratory Partnerships" for the following proposal. To assist you I am attaching the abstract as a preview to the research project. Proposal # 107650 PI: Uma Bhatt University of Alaska Fairbanks Title: Characterization of the Dynamics of Climate Systems and Identification of Missing Mechanisms Impacting Global Climate Models ABSTRACT: The proposed research will investigate dynamical features in both observed and modeled climate data with the aim of answering the questions: how well do currently existing models capture the long-term dynamics present in real data and how can we improve models? Finding answers to these questions will be important if we are to use the outcome of these models for any kind of long-term projection as well as understanding the uncertainty in those predictions. To do this, we will use several tools that estimate the degree of memory that exists in a system, in both real and modeled data from the atmosphere-ice-oceanland system. The dynamical characteristics of time-series of several quantities related to the energy or information content will be examined (using, for instance, R/S analysis or the Renyi entropy) as well as the features of long-term transport of passive quantities (using fractional diffusive models). Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) will be conducting a web-based review. If you agree to assist us by reviewing this proposal, the proposal will be made available to you at the ORISE web site and you will be able to enter your evaluation into a web-based form to complete the review. DOE is asking a deadline of November 30, 2007 for the completion of your review. Please let us know your willingness to assist DOE EPSCoR in this review process. If you are willing to participate, I will send you the necessary information via e-mail, and your access information to the web-site via Federal Express. Thank you for your assistance in the review process. We will greatly appreciate your time commitment to this important effort. Should you have any questions of a programmatic nature, please contact Dr. Kristin Bennett, DOE EPSCoR Program Manager, at 301-903-4269 or via e-mail at [1]kristin.bennett@science.doe.gov. Questions of an administrative nature should be directed to Barbara Cohen, ORISE, at 865-576-3717, e-mail [2]barbara.cohen@orise.orau.gov or Sophia Kitts at 865-576-2270 or [3]sophia.kitts@orise.orau.gov. Sincerely, Barbara Cohen ************************************************* Barbara Cohen ORAU/ORISE PO Box 117, MS 17, MC 212 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117 Phone: 865.576.3717; FAX: 865.241.3168 [4]Barbara.Cohen@orise.orau.gov *************************************************** 1105. 2007-11-06 11:50:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:50:00 +0100 from: Gerald Ganssen subject: Re: EGU 2008 and CL division-related topics to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, thanks for giving your opinion w.r.t. sponsoring. We take this issue very serious and certainly also the concerns of people from CL and other divisions, and our medallists' opinion in this even more. W.r.t sponsoring of ExxonMobil and AGU: http://www.agu.org/givingtoagu/Donor_List.pdf please look at our council agreed sponsorhip principles under http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/info/egu_statement_on_sponsorship_of_the_union.html nothing has been decided yet, w.r.t. approaching potential sponsors with kind regards Gerald Phil Jones wrote: > > Gerrit et al, > Here are a few quick thoughts on Andrea's email. > > 1. Tourism and Climate Change - try Bas Amelung at the University of > Maastricht. > b.amelung@icis.unimaas.nl. David Viner (who has now left CRU) worked with > him on this subject. If Bas can't help he should know who might. > > 5. On a Climate Change conference there are lots of climate meetings - > seems > as though you could go to one almost every week. So, it would be > difficult to > get all the good people. The IPCC award money is likely to be used for > new alternative technologies in developing countries. By 2009 we will know > if there will be another IPCC (AR5) - decision on that either next > spring or > later in the autumn. If you can get Al Gore - then many more would come. > > 4. A debate on EXXON support for the EGU would be useful next April in > Vienna. > I agree on your stance re EXXON. It would be wrong. Maybe CL needs to > tell the rest of EGU that EXXON needs to show the world that they mean > what they have said recently - i.e. they aren't supporting the > skeptics. EXXON > should say they broadly support the IPCC. The European part may be > happy with this, but need to know this is what the HQ in Houston would > go along > with also. September is OK - provided it's in the first half. Our > University terms > start in the last week. Second or third week the best. > > I doubt AGU would accept any EXXON money. > > I could bring along some correspondence re > > - threats to staff at ENV/UEA when papers come out (just emails so far) > - research malpractice allegations against some climate people in the > US and Europe. > - EXXON have clearly funded skeptics in the US in the past. > > I reckon only a few in the climate field know the full extent of what is > going on behind the scenes in climate science. The Nobel Peace prize > will certainly help, but some skeptics are redoubling their efforts. > I wouldn't want to see a split within EGU. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 08:39 18/10/2007, you wrote: >> Dear collegues, >> >> The programme for the climate division at the EGU 2008 is close to ready. >> http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2008/ then click to programme, then >> to CL. >> Until now, there are about 55 CL sessions. If there is something >> missing (text, co-conveners, etc.), either modify it or send an email >> to Andrea.Bleyer@awi.de , and we will >> insert it. >> >> Several issues: >> >> 1. CL topics >> >> I thought it might be a good idea to give the CL division with 55 >> proposals a structure in order to avoid overlaps and to detect missing >> topics. >> Besides the president (myself), the vice-president (Denis-Didier >> Rousseau: >> Denis.Rousseau@lmd.ens.fr >> ), >> and the secretaries, there shall be some persons overlooking each group >> of sessions. Is it possible to find these persons? I suggest about 2-3 >> persons for each group. >> . >> The preliminary list of the sessions is enclosed. Please feel free to >> come up with suggestions. >> >> I want to implement one additional session about climate change and >> tourism dealing with the challenges of sea level rise, melting ice, >> and seasonal climate prediction. Until now, I have not been able to >> find one. May be you have ideas or know persons. >> 2. Poster awards >> >> For our division, we need a person who feels responsible for the >> young scientist poster award. Sonia Seneviratne ( >> sonia.seneviratne@env.ethz.ch ) >> did it this year and she would be willing to help. My suggestion is >> that each session will choose the best poster by convener and >> co-convener. The co-/convener cannot choose a poster on which he/she >> is co-author. This poster will be sent to us as pdf, we will create a >> web page with these posters, and a committee of 3-4 persons will >> select the best ones. For each finally selected poster, a citation of >> one about sentence will be presented by the committee. >> >> 3. Web site for CL >> >> For the division, it would be nice to have a web site with important >> meetings, news etc. Arne Richter has already bought EGU.eu, but it >> would take a while. If we want, we can use one from our institutes in >> between and transfer the file to the EGU at a later stage. >> >> 4. Sponsoring of the EGU by oil companies >> >> There is a discussion about sponsoring of the EGU by oil companies, >> especially Exxon. For me and for some others, this would be very >> problematic. There is no financial pressure to do so, and there is a >> risk to lose independence. Furthermore, the politics of >> disinformation about climate change of these companies undermine the >> scientific progress and work we are actually doing. There are more >> arguments, and the Nobel Peace Price shows that many people recognise >> the implications of climate change. There may be ways to influence >> the companies politics, but it is difficult to trust new ways >> immediately. Something like that is probably better working on a >> specific project. For most of the climate community, the oil >> companies are a critical point. I was astonished to recognise how >> little acceptance the EGU council gave to these arguments, except ERE >> and OS (AS and BG left earlier). Therefore, we may think about new >> structures without the oil fraction. My suggestion is to fathom >> several ways, and we definitely need more discussions also at the EGU >> 2008. I think a split of the EGU would not be the right direction, >> different opinions shall be spoken out and debated. One way of >> discussion could be via the Great Debates at the EGU. I think an >> interesting debate would be: Shall the EGU be sponsored by oil >> companies? Pros and Cons. >> >> I think in such a debate different views in geosciences will come up. >> This is probably related to these fields of geosciences working in >> close collaboration with oil companies, and those being more related >> to the climate change debate and IPCC work. For the contras I would >> invite CL scientists who are aware of the dark side of EXXON et al. >> due to the problems some of our colleagues faced, like previous >> medallists and conveners. Also an expert in ethical issues may help >> in such a debate. I think this question would have enough fire to be >> an interesting and important event. If you agree, I will send this >> suggestion to the other divisions (ERE already showed interest.). >> >> 5. Conference 2009 Climate change >> >> One idea would be to make a topical conference about Climate >> Change. Please find enclosed a first draft for a proposal. A nice >> framework for such a conference in a framework would be 1000-2000 >> people, possibly in Nice in September 2009? (The regular big EGU >> meeting in April 2009 is in Vienna again.) >> >> The organisation could be done via copernicus with their cosis >> system, as a topical conference possibly also under the umbrella of >> CLIVAR-PAGES, IGBP, WCRP, and other European organisations like EMS. >> An interesting partner would be IPCC, both, they have now enough >> money, and we get Al Gore as a speaker for free ;) >> >> For a rough planning, I would like to ask you to give me some >> feedback. Would you be interested? If yes, would you offer a session? >> When would be the appropriate time (around Sept. 2009)? Also to avoid >> overlap! >> >> 6. PAGES Newsletter >> >> We are pretty interested in the approach combining Earth System >> Models and data. Such an approach could include a mechanistic >> understanding of proxies that record past climate and environmental >> conditions, or statistical methods. For this data-model topic >> Thorsten Kiefer from the PAGES office and me will make a PAGES >> newsletter for 2008. >> http://www.pages.unibe.ch/cgi-bin/WebObjects/products.woa/wa/type?id=2 >> There is room for short contributions about new ideas/concepts as >> well as examples and applications. Please tell me if you are >> interested in contributions, e.g. through examples and/or new concepts. >> >> Kind regards >> Gerrit >> >> >> > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Dr. Gerald Ganssen Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences Vrije Universiteit de Boelelaan 1085 1081HV Amsterdam The Netherlands tel. +31205987369 President European Geosciences Union, http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/EGU.html Co-Editor-in-Chief Climate of the Past please visit the website of this EGU open access journal www.climate-of-the-past.net 199. 2007-11-06 14:43:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:43:29 -0800 (PST) from: "David M. Ritson" subject: Re: RCS paleo reconstructions to: Tim Osborn Dear Keith and Tim, I wrote in the summer relative to the statement that underpins mmuch of the discussions on the merits of RCS versus conventional standardizations of paleo climate reconstructions of Cook et al 1995 that `" ,,, the cross-dated annual changes in ring-width between trees due to climate are forced out of alignment and effectively averaged out in the creation of the mean regional curve." This is commonly taken to imply that RCS methods largely circumvent the segment-length curse. At the time I believed that, in most instances, the systematics inherent in the actual data, such as the fractions of juvenile and mature trees in the sites invalidated the cancellations implied in the Cook et al. paragraph. There are cancellations, but in most instances insufficient to better eliminate the segment curse. This appears to be well known, by the professional dendrochronologist community. What is disconcerting is that I find no clarifications or follow-up of the above Cook statement either in the IPCC AR4 nor in the generally available climate change literature. If indeed such clarifications are missing then I think it is incumbent that you guys ensure that they are understood throughout the climate community. My own take on the current situation is that the only hard statements that can be trusted should be based on `bounds'. Juvenile growth for the first century or so, is likely to be variable and probably juvenile data should be ignored. Subsequent to this an `upper' bound is provided by assuming that ring width growth is independent of tree age. More speculatively a lower bound is provided by assuming ring-area growth constancy. However nobody provides such bounds. Tim gave me some interim answers to the above, but promised me that Keith would provide a more definitive summary of RCS status after the summer. I certainly would appreciate your considered views as to the absolute precision and trustworthiness of past millenial temperature reconstructions. Obviously the North NAS committee had similar reservations . Cheers Dave Ritson 545. 2007-11-06 16:34:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:34:06 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Vapor pressure in CRU TS 2.10 to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, Yup - all the decadal 2.10 files for WET and VAP had been swapped. And rescaled to look like they ought to. Inexplicable. Harry On 6 Nov 2007, at 16:34, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Harry -- still catching up on my emails... is the query below > now resolved because the wet-day counts and vapour pressures had > been interchanged (or some explanation like that)???? Cheers, Tim > > At 08:08 24/10/2007, Ian Harris wrote: >> Phil, Tim >> >> Any ideas? I think he means 'Northern Eurasia' rather than 'polar'. >> >> Harry >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "Wladimir J. Alonso" >>> Date: 23 October 2007 19:13:20 BDT >>> Cc: i.harris@uea.ac.uk >>> Subject: Vapor pressure in CRU TS 2.10 >>> >>> Dear Ian, >>> >>> I am using the dataset CRU TS 2.10 on an ongoing study on worldwide >>> diversity of palms, and we noticed that there is something a bit >>> strange >>> about the vapor pressure. As you can see in the attached image >>> generated >>> from one month (Jan/1981) picked up at random from the TS 2.10 >>> dataset, the vapor pressure present high values near the polar >>> regions. This is in contrast with the data you present at http:// >>> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~markn/jpg/glo_vap.gif >>> >>> I would much appreciate if you could help us on this. >>> >>> Thank you very much, >>> >>> Wladimir >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wladimir J. Alonso (MSc, PhD) >>> International Epidemiology and Population Studies >>> Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health >>> Phone: +55-48 9148 7830, +55 48 3233 6172 >>> e-mail: alonsow@mail.nih.gov, wladimir@origem.info >> >> >> >> Ian "Harry" Harris >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ >> United Kingdom >> >> > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1859. 2007-11-07 11:48:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Bo Vinther date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:48:07 +0000 from: Thomas Kleinen subject: Re: Query on Arctic sea ice to: Nathan Gillett Hi Nathan. I guess I best answer this one directly. Bo Vinther had approached us with the observation that sulphate aerosol emissions in North America and Europe had decreased a lot stronger than the projections in the SRES scenarios assume, and he had speculated that this might be one of the reasons for the rapid sea ice decline in the Arctic (less aerosol cooling). So I did two quick runs, one with SRES CO2 and sulphate, and one with sulphate decreasing a lot quicker. I looked at both annual and September sea ice coverage, and the difference between the two runs is not significant in any way. What Keith is referring to is the fact that even under the normal SRES scenarios sea ice in HadCM3 is disappearing rather quickly already - starting from an already very low sea ice coverage. The attached plot shows September sea ice cover in the arctic, blue is SRES B2, red is changed aerosol. So HadCM3 already has a strong decrease in sea ice for the late 20th century, which would imply a nearly ice-free Arctic in the 2050 timeframe, if the trend continues. The values for 2007 are actually pretty close to observed sea ice coverage (4-and-a-bit 10^12 m^2), but the 20th century sea ice cover was underestimated by nearly 25%, and therefore reduction is not as strong as in the real world. The second figure is from the Stroeve et al. GRL 2007, showing this for all IPCC models and observations (2007 still missing). Here HadCM3 is the very lowest... Cheers, Thomas On Wednesday 07 November 2007, you wrote: > Hi Keith, > This sounds interesting, and is new compared to other findings.. I was > just at a workshop on polar climate change and I think Marika Holland > reported that none of the IPCC models simulate single year decreases in > summer minimum ice comparable to that observed this year in the Arctic > (some of the models such as the NCAR model do show large interannual > changes, but none as large as observed). Were you looking at changes in > summer minimum ice, or in annual mean ice? And how were these runs > different from e.g. the Hadley Centre's HadCM3 runs? > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > Keith Briffa wrote: > > Dear all > > this is best answered by Thomas Kleinen here , as he has just > > completed some runs > > with the unified model and lower tropospheric aerosols than were > > previously input in the recent 20th century - looking at the speed of > > sea ice melting and temperature change. > > The bottom line is that the model gets roughly correct melting (close > > to what we observe ) AND THE LIKELY IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE WARMING > > ARE "not significantly different than what we previously believed > > would happen". > > > > Keith > > > > At 09:14 05/11/2007, James Screen wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I've been contacted by a Mr Mike Parr regarding the recent loss of > >> Arctic > >> sea ice and it's implications on sea-ice/climate modeling. See email > >> below. > >> I'm sure there is someone better placed than me to answer his query. > >> Most of > >> my studies have focused on Antarctica and I don't consider myself a > >> sea-ice > >> expert. If you think you can help Mr Parr please email him directly > >> (info@pwr.co.uk). > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> James > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mike Parr [mailto:info@pwr.co.uk] > >> Sent: 04 November 2007 10:46 > >> To: j.screen@uea.ac.uk > >> Subject: Arctic Ice loss > >> > >> Dear Mr Screen, > >> > >> I picked up your name from the CRU web site - forgive me for writing > >> direct but I have a question which you may not be able to answer > >> directly perhaps you know one of your colleagues that could. > >> > >> I'm working with a couple of government agencies (European) on > >> climate change (isn't everybody these days). One of the issues I > >> would like to clear up is, given the recent and surprising loss of > >> arctic summer sea ice how current models may change. > >> > >> If I look at Hadley centre data on this subject (which they seem to > >> obtain from CRU??) it seems somewhat out of kilter with what is > >> actually happening. I was wondering if (and how) models might be > >> modified in light of this year's developments? I would also be > >> interested in the link between arctic summer sea ice loss and if > >> anybody is giving some thought to how a changing arctic ocean albedo > >> might impact on ice outflows from Greenland (one could - not > >> unreasonably - imagine an acceleration in such outflows given an > >> albedo for sea ice of 0.6 to 0.8 and that for water of 0.05?). > >> > >> Any help would be most appreciated, > >> > >> best regards, > >> > >> > >> Mike Parr. > > > > -- > > Professor Keith Briffa, > > Climatic Research Unit > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\icearea_sep2.eps" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\stroeve.jpg" 2989. 2007-11-07 11:54:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk date: Wed Nov 7 11:54:55 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Query on Arctic sea ice to: Nathan Gillett Hi Nathan We used only the Hadley Centre model .We were looking at sea ice extent, in the expectation that with more rapidly reducing circum North Atlantic tropospheric aerosol inputs (as indicated by the latest estimates and the ice core concentrations) compared to the AR4 assumptions, we might expect more rapid local warming and faster ice melting than has previously been expected. We note that HadCM3 had the lowest ice extent of all the models anyway . We only looked at global mean temperature, which did not warm any faster with reduced aerosol input than before. The sea ice extent was not significantly different from the AR4 run. Thomas can show you these runs . He is still going to extract the spatial pattern of warming from this run (right Thomas?) but other than that we pretty much abandoned the idea of a quick paper indicating drastic immediate ice melt. The runs still indicate no permanent sea ice with 30-50 years which is still amazing - but not publishable. At 11:17 07/11/2007, you wrote: Hi Keith, This sounds interesting, and is new compared to other findings.. I was just at a workshop on polar climate change and I think Marika Holland reported that none of the IPCC models simulate single year decreases in summer minimum ice comparable to that observed this year in the Arctic (some of the models such as the NCAR model do show large interannual changes, but none as large as observed). Were you looking at changes in summer minimum ice, or in annual mean ice? And how were these runs different from e.g. the Hadley Centre's HadCM3 runs? Cheers, Nathan Keith Briffa wrote: Dear all this is best answered by Thomas Kleinen here , as he has just completed some runs with the unified model and lower tropospheric aerosols than were previously input in the recent 20th century - looking at the speed of sea ice melting and temperature change. The bottom line is that the model gets roughly correct melting (close to what we observe ) AND THE LIKELY IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE WARMING ARE "not significantly different than what we previously believed would happen". Keith At 09:14 05/11/2007, James Screen wrote: Hi I've been contacted by a Mr Mike Parr regarding the recent loss of Arctic sea ice and it's implications on sea-ice/climate modeling. See email below. I'm sure there is someone better placed than me to answer his query. Most of my studies have focused on Antarctica and I don't consider myself a sea-ice expert. If you think you can help Mr Parr please email him directly (info@pwr.co.uk). Cheers James -----Original Message----- From: Mike Parr [[1]mailto:info@pwr.co.uk] Sent: 04 November 2007 10:46 To: j.screen@uea.ac.uk Subject: Arctic Ice loss Dear Mr Screen, I picked up your name from the CRU web site - forgive me for writing direct but I have a question which you may not be able to answer directly perhaps you know one of your colleagues that could. I'm working with a couple of government agencies (European) on climate change (isn't everybody these days). One of the issues I would like to clear up is, given the recent and surprising loss of arctic summer sea ice how current models may change. If I look at Hadley centre data on this subject (which they seem to obtain from CRU??) it seems somewhat out of kilter with what is actually happening. I was wondering if (and how) models might be modified in light of this year's developments? I would also be interested in the link between arctic summer sea ice loss and if anybody is giving some thought to how a changing arctic ocean albedo might impact on ice outflows from Greenland (one could - not unreasonably - imagine an acceleration in such outflows given an albedo for sea ice of 0.6 to 0.8 and that for water of 0.05?). Any help would be most appreciated, best regards, Mike Parr. -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- **************************************************************************** Dr. Nathan Gillett, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1603 593 647 Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507 784 Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ **************************************************************************** -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4507. 2007-11-07 16:03:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:03:07 -0800 (PST) from: "David M. Ritson" subject: Re: RCS paleo reconstructions to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, Many thanks for your reply. No need to feel apologetic. Whenever you have time I would really like to get your current take on RCS, certainly not an easy problem Cheers Dave On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Keith Briffa wrote: > Dave > I am sorry for not getting back to you - it was merely pressure of work . I > am finally getting a few days free in the next fortnight as several of us > from here are visiting Ed Cook in Lamont. I will have time to get down some > response to you and also send a ( likely still be unfinished) draft paper on > the RCS methodology written for a book Malcolm Hughes is Editing. I am really > sorry but both Tim and I have been heavily inconvenienced this term by having > to take on the convenership and teaching etc on our Masters course as the > previous organiser left unexpectedly. On my part , this has left me behind on > a number of reviewing and other outstanding jobs. The time in the States will > give us time to take stock. Believe me that none of us here think the RCS is > a panacea but in certain situations it offers the prospect of recovering > tree-growth forcing information on time scales from one to several centuries > . It is the medium-frequency biasing effects that I believe can lead to the > biggest problems (particularly art the recent end of chronologies) as we try > to calibrate the data . However it is also true that in many applications > there is a severe limitation in the basis for comparing 20th century and > earlier ( say medieval ) growth rates. Please give me a couple of weeks when > I would really appreciate the opportunity to discuss the problems and issues > of explicit chronology and calibration uncertainty that arise. > Even now , I must go off to listen to student seminars! > best wishes > Keith > > At 22:43 06/11/2007, you wrote: > >> Dear Keith and Tim, >> >> I wrote in the summer relative to the statement that underpins mmuch of the >> discussions on the merits of RCS versus conventional standardizations of >> paleo climate reconstructions of Cook et al 1995 that `" ,,, the >> cross-dated annual changes in ring-width between trees due to >> climate are forced out of alignment and effectively averaged out in the >> creation of the mean regional curve." This is commonly taken to imply that >> RCS methods largely circumvent the segment-length curse. At the time I >> believed that, in most instances, >> the systematics inherent in the actual data, such as the fractions of >> juvenile and mature trees in the sites invalidated the cancellations >> implied >> in the Cook et al. paragraph. There are cancellations, but in most >> instances insufficient to better eliminate the segment curse. This appears >> to be well known, by the professional dendrochronologist community. What is >> disconcerting is that I find no clarifications or follow-up of the above >> Cook statement either in the IPCC AR4 nor in the generally available >> climate >> change literature. If indeed such clarifications are missing then I think >> it >> is incumbent that you guys ensure that they are understood throughout the >> climate community. >> >> My own take on the current situation is that the only hard statements that >> can be trusted should be based on `bounds'. Juvenile growth for the first >> century or so, is likely to be variable and probably juvenile data should >> be ignored. >> Subsequent to this an `upper' bound is provided by assuming that ring >> width >> growth is independent of tree age. More speculatively a lower bound is >> provided by assuming ring-area growth constancy. However nobody provides >> such bounds. >> >> Tim gave me some interim answers to the above, but promised me that Keith >> would provide a more definitive summary of RCS status after the summer. I >> certainly would appreciate your considered views as to the absolute >> precision and trustworthiness of past millenial temperature >> reconstructions. Obviously the North NAS committee had similar reservations >> . >> >> Cheers >> >> Dave Ritson >> > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > 4809. 2007-11-08 12:45:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:45:30 -0600 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: FYI: Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam to: Phil Jones Phil: I agree that Mr. Coleman is both ignorant and arrogant. This is a perfect example of a fellow with an undergraduate meteorology degree who probably never had a single course on climate and understands not the simple physics of greenhouse gases, first expressed in 1827 by Fourier. Yes, Heidi Cullen works for this fellow. She must truly be upset by his pronouncement. When she interviewed me a few years ago for her climate segment, she informed me that the 'meteorologists' at the Weather Channel had a view of global warming that was pretty much that expressed by Mr. Coleman. Now I see why that was so. Perhaps I should offer to give my Global Warming lecture at the Weather Channel and engage with Mr. Coleman thereon. Michael Mike, This guy is the Whacko.... In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. This could be paraphrased In a decade or two, it will be patently obvious to everyone on the planet that the climate is warming.. Unfortunately, it will be virtually impossible (then) to do anything about it. As you know the rest of world (even more so than some good people in the US) also believe that warming is happening and we're responsible. Doesn't Heidi Cullen work for this guy? I've just voted for her on the AMS Council Ballot. Voted for Tom Karl as well! Great iceberg picture on that 'cure' story - the cure that isn't a cure... Cheers Phil At 16:57 08/11/2007, you wrote: http://newsbusters.org/node/16955/print Published on NewsBusters.org ( http://newsbusters.org ) Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History' By Noel Sheppard Created 2007-11-07 17:58 If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice? We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article [1] published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is. 98d3b7.png Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250): It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment. [...] I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. Let's hope so, John; let's hope so. Related articles: Harvard Paper Calls Al Gore a Hypocrite [1] Renowned Environmentalist Calls Biofuels [1]'Crime Against Humanity' [1] John Stossel: 'Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet' [1] UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort [1] Global Warming Tutorial Media Should be Required to Watch [1] Vote for Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit as Best Science Blog [1] Source URL: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-wa rming-greatest-scam-history Links: [1] http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded Content: 98d3b71.png: 00000001,6a5912c4,00000000,00000000 570. 2007-11-08 21:43:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:43:52 -0000 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: JOC-07-0295 - Invitation to Review to: "Phil Jones" Phil More a career decision than one related to going back - thought the position of Director sounded both interesting and challenging. A chance to make things different at UoA Best Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:40 PM To: Glenn McGregor Subject: RE: JOC-07-0295 - Invitation to Review Glenn, Congrats and all that - I presume you wanted to go back, and/or get promotion! If you ever do step down from IJC, do let me know. We had an away day many moons ago, and most of CRU thought then that it would be a good idea if someone here wanted to take on the role it would be good for CRU. I still think this way, but I certainly don't want to do it. A couple of the younger newer faculty might though. Good luck with the move! I am finally off the RMS Awards Committee. It took a couple more emails, as they invited me again for the next one... RMS is doing some good things at the moment - have benefiitted from a couple of speakers lunches near the zoo. Pity we're likely moving back to IC, but Geraint is doing a good job. Cheers Phil At 15:16 08/11/2007, you wrote: >Dear Phil > >Sorry - got the message. Seems did not pick up on your previous email - but >have just found it. Don't know if you know but am leaving the UK in March >next year to take up the Inaugural Directorship of a new School of Geog, >Geol and Env Sci at the Uni of Auckland, NZ from where I graduated many >moons ago. The editorship will travel with me. > >Glenn > >Professor Glenn McGregor >Professor of Physical Geography >Director Centre for Environmental Assessment Management and Policy >Editor International Journal of Climatology >www.interscience.wiley.com/joc >Department of Geography >King's College London >Strand London WC2R 2LS, UK >++44)0)2078482610/2612 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 01 November 2007 08:11 >To: glenn.mcgregor@kcl.ac.uk >Subject: Re: JOC-07-0295 - Invitation to Review > > > > Glenn, > I don't think I should be a reviewer for this paper, as I > have a copy from the authors and I'm also involved with > them in a number of projects. > As for other possibilities to do this review, I suggest > > Tom Peterson/Dave Easterling at NCDC Thomas C >Peterson >David.Easterling@noaa.gov > > or David Parker at the Hadley Centre. > > Cheers > Phil > >At 21:16 31/10/2007, glenn.mcgregor@kcl.ac.uk wrote: > >31-Oct-2007 > > > >Dear Prof. Jones > > > >Manuscript # JOC-07-0295 entitled "Updated and > >extended European dataset of daily climate > >observations" has been submitted to the > >International Journal of Climatology. The > >abstract and author details are to be found at the foot of this email. > > > >As you are an acknowledged expert in this area, > >I am writing to see if you could find time to > >review this manuscript. Ideally I would like the > >review back to me within 6 weeks if possible. > >Please let me know within 7 days if you will be > >able to review this paper. If you are unable to > >review would you take a moment to please > >recommend one or two other possible referees with expertise in this area. > > > >You can respond to this invitation by either > >emailing me directly, or if you are willing to > >review the paper you may use the shortcut of > >clicking on the "Agree" link below. This will > >initiate another email that grants you access to the manuscript. > > > >To respond automatically, click below: > > > >Agreed: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc?URL_MASK=SBY3S7sfNhRXQdfhKTBP > > > >You will then have access to the manuscript and > >reviewer instructions in your Referee Centre. > > > >Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. > > > >Sincerely, > > > >Dr Glenn McGregor > >International Journal of Climatology > > > > > >MANUSCRIPT DETAILS > > > >TITLE: > >Updated and extended European dataset of daily climate observations > > > >AUTHORS: > >Klok, Lisette; Klein Tank, Albert > > > >ABSTRACT: > >The European Climate Assessment (ECA) dataset of > >daily observations, which has been widely used > >for studies on climate extremes, has been > >updated and extended. It now contains > >observational series of 2191 stations located in > >Europe and the Mediterranean (average > >inter-station distance: ~75km). About 1200 > >precipitation series and 750 temperature series > >cover the period 1960 to 2000. For a small > >number of stations (< 15%) air pressure, cloud > >cover, sunshine duration, snow depth and > >relative humidity series exist. All series are > >quality controlled and the homogeneity of the > >precipitation and temperature series is > >assessed. About 50% of the daily series is > >publicly available for climate studies through > >the website http://eca.knmi.nl. The main > >potential of the ECA dataset follows from its > >daily resolution, enabling studies of impact > >relevant climate extremes and variability. To > >guide these studies, climate indices calculated > >from the ECA series are presented on the website > >too. In the near future, gridded versions of the > >daily ECA data will be available for easy > >comparison with climate model simulations. A > >trend analysis for the diurnal temperature range > >(DTR) demonstrates the dataset. Seasonal and > >annual DTR trends were calculated for 333 > >homogeneous temperature series in ECA and a > >Europe average trend was estimated. In spring > >and summer, the DTR increased from 1979 to 2005, > >whereas in autumn and winter the DTR generally > >decreased. The European average trend in annual DTR was 0.09 C decade-1. > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1124. 2007-11-09 11:38:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Wallace, John" , "Jones, Phil" , "Kennedy, John" date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:38:42 +0000 from: David Parker subject: Re: A discontinuity in surface temperature observations to: David Thompson Dave, Mike Thanks. I somewhat misinterpreted your original email as referring to a one-month "blip" in August 1945, as I didn't receive the diagrams. Now it is clear that you meant a sudden "cooling" to a sustained (for several years) lower temperature. It might be worth including John Kennedy as a co-author of your paper on 20th century climate variability. He has made an attempt to correct uncorrected biases in HadSST2 during the 2nd World War by splitting the data into individual countries and then calculating climatologies for 1940-1970 for each country, thus removing any relative biases (which are strongly related to recruiting country of the ship) over the climatology period. He then recombined the different countries into a single 'corrected' HadSST2. The effect was to reduce the height of the 2nd World War peak and also to reduce the depth of the subsequent fall in 1945. Like Phil, however, we note that during this period, there are fewer observations so the uncertainties are likely to be larger. John notes that the problems are particularly marked in the southern hemisphere: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/hemispheric/southern/ It looks like the rapid changes are due to rapid changes in the mix of countries available in ICOADS. We have had over a million new data for the 2nd World War period digitised in the project Phil mentioned, and these data do not show such a big peak in the early 1940s or such a big fall in 1945. However these newly-digitised data are not yet incorporated in HadSST2 and their inclusion in our analyses is only likely to be done in the next financial year (April 2008-March 2009). Marine air temperatures also have problems in the 2nd World War so may not help; we are giving priority to sea surface temperature. So whatever John may be able to contribute to your paper won't be the final word! Regards David On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 08:27 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Phil, David, > > > Thanks so much for the quick responses. Some quick comments: > > > 1. the temperature drop in 1945 is evident in NMAT data, earlier > HadSST products and the MoHSST products. > 2. the drop is also apparent if you freeze the domain to only those > grid boxes available 41-44. > 3. if you look at, for example, the FAR Summary for Policymakers, you > can really see the 0.3 K drop reflected in the key global mean time > series. > > > I'll do some more investigating and will send another email next week > summarizing things in more detail. > > > Thanks again for quick thoughts... > > > -Dave > -- David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 http:www.metoffice.gov.uk 3485. 2007-11-09 13:51:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: "C G Kilsby" , , "H J Fowler" , "Richard Dawson" , "Brown Virginia Miss (ENV)" date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:51:54 -0000 from: "Jim Hall" subject: RE: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects to: "Clare Goodess" , "Phil Jones" Dear Clare, Phil, Stuart, Hayley et al. Sorry it has taken me so long to get notes out from the meeting with Phil et al on 26 October. In this message I will try to summarise the methodology we are proposing and then address the timescale, responsibilities and financial matters for implementation for the Tyndall Cities work. The background to this work is: In the Scorchio project Stuart Barr is developing a method for obtaining spatial temperature patterns in urban areas from satellite data. Clare, Chris and Phil are extending the Betwixt weather generator and peturbing it with outputs from the new Had runs. We wish to combine the spatial and temporal perspectives in order generate spatial-temporal scenarios (the extent to which this needs to be developed in Scorchio is open to interpretation in the propsal). We wish to apply this same approach to London for Tyndall. We have an allocation of 17k in 07/08 and 17k in 08/09 for CRU to contribute to this work. We have plans to direct some RA time onto this in Newcastle for Stuart's area of the work (see below). The Hadley Centre runs: I just had a very useful conversation with Mark McCarthy at HC. His programme is as follows: Run 1: Transient run (1950 to 2100) A1B scenario with const anthropogenic heat source (7W/m2 for Manc). To be done "for Jan 08"... Vague about whether this would be beginning or end of Jan. Run 2: Same run with linearly increasing heat flux. Not yet specified what this will be, but representing quite a strong increase in heat flux. Could be run at about the same time as Run 1 i.e. Jan next year. Run 3: To be decided at a Scorchio stakeholder meeting in March. Could be midway between 1 and 2 i.e. some adaptation. The urban anthropogenic heat fluxes will be applied for all urban areas in the HadRM3 domain (i.e. we get London as well as Manc and Shef). He was originally intending to apply the Manc heat flux (i.e. 7W/m2) for all urban areas, but we discussed the possibility of applying something different (higher) for London and he agreed that this would be possible. In London the grid cells allow some differentiation between inner (Westminster has 60-100W/m2) and outer (about 10W/m2) London. The land surface tiling is based on 9 surface types, urban being one of them. He can save daily pressure data for weather type classification if required. He mentioned the LUCID work and was enthusiastic about the Tyndall application providing a comparison for London with the the LUCID outputs (on a 1km grid 100km*100km but can only be run for 1 year due to computational cost). Outline of the proposed methodology: For present climate: Newcastle: Obtain AVHRR satellite images. Process to obtain temperature patterns for each satellite image. UEA: Obtain weather station data for London (Heathrow, St James, Holburn, and couple of outside London sites: Gatwick? Others?). Calibrate weather generator (with Chris K). Establish method for scaling Newcastle temperature patterns from selected weather station data. Cross-validate with other weather stations. Examine the improvement gained if the scaling relationship is conditioned on WG persistence variables (WW, WD, DW, DD). This will deliver hindcast spatial patterns of temperature (for comparison with any other observations that my become available through LUCID) and synthetic time series patterns of present day temperature. For future climate scenarios: We have three anthropogenic heat source scenarios from Hadley (runs 1 to 3 above). Because the runs are transient and are based on the UKCIP08 ensemble, for any desired climate scenario and time slice from the UKCIP08 ensemble we can match the non-urban temperatures to extract the corresponding time slice from these new urban runs (though we won't be able to access the highest climate changes even at 2100). UEA: Extract corresponding temperature change factors and other stats for WG from Had runs. Run WG and scale spatial temperature patterns as previously, conditioning as appropriate on persistence variables. Newcastle: Develop scenarios of changing land use and anthropogenic heat sources. Use these to modify temperature patterns used in the scenario generation. Hope that makes sense. Next steps: UEA: confirm funding arrangement with Virginia Brown. Tyndall Phase 2 is pre-FEC so the funds can all go to Colin's salary. UEA: confirm that methodology makes sense and confirm timescales for delivery, given Had proposed timescale for RCM runs (above). UEA: start assembling weather station data and calibrating weather generator Stuart: start assembling AVHRR images and processing temperatures Jim: email Mark McCarthy to confirm arrangements Jim: confirm UCL Lucid heat flux estimate for London (I'll see Mike Davies on 22 Nov) Is that all? Best regards Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 01 November 2007 19:15 > To: Jim Hall > Subject: Fwd: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > > Hi Jim > > Phil, Colin and I met today to discuss the Tyndall urban work > - and it sounds like you had a useful meeting with Phil last week. > > One thing that emerged from our meeting today, is how to > handle the financial aspects. Is the money earmarked for us > in the Newcastle budget? Will this be a subcontract? > Presumably it will be full economic costs, but hopefully we > can ensure that the bulk goes on Colin's salary rather than > having to cost in Phil's time. > > Is it Virginia Brown we need to liase with here? > > Best wishes, Clare > > > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 > >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:44:14 +0000 > >To: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk,c.harpham@uea.ac.uk > >From: Phil Jones > >Subject: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > > > > Clare, > > The attached is a summary of discussions I had with Jim > Hall and > > others last Friday in Newcastle. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >----- > > > > > > Dr Clare Goodess > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich > NR4 7TJ > UK > > Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > 2030. 2007-11-09 16:24:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Betts, Richard" , Clare Goodess , Phil Jones , C G Kilsby , S.L.Barr@ncl.ac.uk, H J Fowler , Richard Dawson date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:24:59 +0000 from: Mark McCarthy subject: RE: Scorchio to: Jim Hall Jim, That is a good summary of our discussion. Two additional points: While the runs are inextricably linked to UKCIP, we will still need to be careful about how we extrapolate the emissions/model uncertainty. This may in some part will relate to how non-linear the heat-island and climate change interactions prove to be at the regional model scale. In principle this could and should be done, but with some thought over methodology. The 7Wm-2 is the number being floated for Manchester at the moment, but it is to be confirmed. It might also be worth adding that for the Tyndall Centre work it would be beneficial if we could run the model with a spatially varying anthropogenic heat flux so that London and Manchester differ, as would different London grid-boxes. Ideally we would take London estimates from UCL to ensure some level of consistency with the LUCID modelling. Kind regards, Mark On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:52 +0000, Jim Hall wrote: > > Hi Mark > > Very useful to talk to you this morning. > > To recap on our objectives in relation to the Tyndall Centre work: > We (Newcastle and CRU) will be applying the Scorchio methodology to > London. This will involve (i) extracting spatial patterns of temperature > from AVHRR satellite data and (ii) training a weather generator based on > observed data. We will then scale the patterns off one or more of the > weather stations and do some cross-validation of the patterns using > other observations. We will explore conditioning of the pattern scaling > on persistence statistics or weather types. > > The plan you described in relation to Scorchio seems to fit in with this > very well. i.e. > The urban land surface and anthropogenic heat sources will be run for > all urban areas in the RCM domain so we can extract data for London. See > below for further discussion of the anthropogenic heat flux assumptions > for London. > The runs will be transient and will correspond to one member of the > UKCIP08 ensemble, so, by scaling off other runs in the UKCIP ensemble we > can extract time slices corresponding to a range of future climates. The > only query here is that obtaining high climate change (emissions, > sensitivity) scenarios for the 2080s may involve some extrapolation. You > may wish to comment on this. > You can output daily pressure and wind fields for weather type > classification if necessary. > You will be doing the following runs: > Run 1: transient run with steady (7W/m2) urban anthropogenic heat flux. > To be completed for January 08 > Run 2: transient run with linearly increasing urban anthropogenic heat > flux. This represents some high business as usual scenario for > increasing heat fluxes (increasing energy consumption). Rate of increase > to be decided? Could be completed at roughly the same time as run 1. > Run 3: to be decided at a Scorchio meeting in March 08. Possibly to > represent some adaptation scenario and energy efficienty measures (i.e. > between run 1 and run 2 in terms of heat flux, or maybe even below run > 1?). > > Our requirements to make use of this work in the Tyndall Centre cities > programme seem to be reasonably modest: > 1. achive daily data for London grid cells (presumably happening anyway) > 2. archive hourly data for London grid cells (not essential I think, but > potentially interesting) > 3. archive pressure data for weather type classification (may be > happening anyway) > 4. use more realistic anthropogenic heat flux estimates for London. We > discussed this at some length. You already have estimates for each > London borough (up to 60-100W/m2 for Westminster) and UCL have done more > detailed analysis. You suggested that with aggregation of boroughs > across grid cells you expect to end up with about 20Wm2 for the inner > London grid cell and about 10W/m2 for outer London. This seems > reasonable, but I will ask Mike Davies more about this when I see him on > 22 Nov. > > I hope these 4 items seem reasonable and feasible. Please let me know if > this does not correspond with your understanding of our conversation. > > I suggest that we talk or exchange emails again when you are finalising > the specification for your runs 1 and 2. By that time we will have made > further progress in the development of the weather generator and pattern > scaling methodology. > > Best regards > > Jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark McCarthy [mailto:mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk] > > Sent: 26 October 2007 08:59 > > To: Jim Hall > > Cc: Betts, Richard > > Subject: RE: Scorchio > > > > Hello Jim, > > > > Apologies. I was at the SCORCHIO meeting in Manchester > > yesterday so missed your email. Feel free to get in touch > > today if it would still be useful. My phone numbers are: > > > > desk: (01392) 884672 > > mobile: 07835995074 > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:51 +0100, Jim Hall wrote: > > > Mark > > > > > > Any chance of you calling me this afternoon on 07793 627716? I'm > > > meeting Phil Jones tomorrow and would like to have an > > update from you > > > before then. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Betts, Richard [mailto:richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk] > > > > Sent: 25 October 2007 00:25 > > > > To: Jim Hall > > > > Cc: McCarthy, Mark > > > > Subject: RE: Scorchio > > > > > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > > > > > Good to hear from you. I am on Annual Leave but you can talk to > > > > Mark McCarthy (mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk) if the > > questions are > > > > on the model development or related science. > > > > Mark, are you able to ring Jim on his number below? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Richard Betts Manager Climate Impacts Met Office > > Hadley Centre > > > > FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886877 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > > E-mail: richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jim Hall [mailto:jim.hall@newcastle.ac.uk] > > > > Sent: 23 October 2007 14:29 > > > > To: Betts, Richard > > > > Subject: Scorchio > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Richard > > > > > > > > Can you give me a call about scorchio/Tyndall? Phil Jones > > is coming > > > > here on Thursday and I need to make some decisions before > > I speak to > > > > him then. > > > > > > > > I don't have your direct number and getting through to > > you from the > > > > MetOffice switch board is a nightmare! > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > Professor of Earth Systems Engineering Tyndall Centre for Climate > > > > Change Research School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Room > > > > 3.19 Cassie Building Newcastle University > > > > NE1 7RU > > > > UK > > > > > > > > Phone: +44 191 222 3660 (Direct) > > > > +44 191 222 6319 (Secretary) > > > > Fax: +44 191 222 6669 > > > > Email: Jim.Hall@ncl.ac.uk > > > > http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/profiles2/njh57 > > > > > > > > MSc in Flood Risk Management: > > > > http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/flexiblelearning/frm.php > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark McCarthy Climate Impacts Scientist > > Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, Fitzroy Road, > > Exeter, EX1 3PB > > Tel: +44(0)1392 884672 > > Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 > > email: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk > > web: www.metoffice.gov.uk > > -- Mark McCarthy Climate Impacts Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB Tel: +44(0)1392 884672 Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 email: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk web: www.metoffice.gov.uk 3800. 2007-11-12 18:25:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "sydney07" date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:25:22 +0100 from: "sydney07" subject: GCOS-WCRP-IGBP Sydney Workshop: Draft Report to: ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Ann Henderson-Sellers" , "Buruhani Nyenzi" , "David Goodrich" , "Renate Christ" , "Stephan Bojinski" , , To: All Workshop Participants Dear Colleague, Please find attached the draft report from the GCOS-WCRP-IGBP workshop held in Sydney 4-6 October 2007, "Future Climate Change Research and Observations: GCOS, WCRP and IGBP Learning from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report", for your review and comment. Please note the following: 1) We would particularly invite you to comment on section 1.2, including Fig. 1, since it has been subject of intense discussion; 2) Focus specifically on the chapter/section to which you contributed; 3) Overall, the report needs to be reduced in size - please try to cut on the material presented, rather than adding text; 4) An outline of meeting minutes is given in Appendix A - please comment whether you would like to see this section expanded; 5) We identified lead authors for each chapter/section (based on input received at the workshop) who we would specifically ask to revise the text, address open questions, and identify priority items they wish to see highlighted. The lead authors are: Section 2: Mark Stafford-Smith, Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj Section 3: Kevin Trenberth, Francis Zwiers Section 4.1: Thomas Stocker Section 4.2: Thomas Karl Section 4.3: Michel Verstraete, Nathan Bindoff Section 4.4: Venkat Ramaswamy Section 4.5: Koni Steffen Section 4.6: Peter Thorne, Roger Saunders Section 5: Amanda Lynch, Paul Mason Section 6.1: Stephen Schneider Please reply to sydney07@wmo.int , preferably using tracked change in Word, by 23 November 2007. Thank you again for your participation in the workshop, and your valuable contribution to this report. Yours sincerely, Dr D. Goodrich Dr A. Henderson-Sellers Dr K. Noone Director, GCOS Secretariat Director, WCRP Executive Director, IGBP Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SydneyWorkshopRep_121107.doc" 5336. 2007-11-14 08:40:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Rayner, Nick" , Wallace@metoffice.gov.uk, John , Jones@metoffice.gov.uk, Phil , Kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk, John date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:40:02 +0000 from: David Parker subject: Re: A discontinuity in surface temperature observations to: David Thompson Dave Thanks. I'm familiar with COWL from your published papers. The plots are very interesting and I hope John Kennedy, who is working on marine data biases, will be able to contribute in due course regarding the 1945 dip. Regards David On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 17:44 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear David, Phil and John, > > > (This is a bit of a long email, so you might want to grab a cup of > coffee - or tea - before reading on...) > > > Thanks again for the quick and helpful responses last week. > > > Mike and I would be happy to include John as a coauthor on our paper. > And David, Phil: we understand if you are too busy to join another > project. But if you are interested in joining the paper, too, that > would be great. The goal of the paper is to clarify some key aspects > of 20th century temperature variability, and the study would certainly > benefit from your expertise. > > > Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me review the main points of > the paper as it currently stands. I've attached 3 pages of figures > (the figures will evolve as the writing evolves, but as of now it > appears the paper will end up being short and punchy) > > > Figure 1 includes 2 panels. The top time series in the top panel shows > the global-mean temperature time series. The next two time series show > the linear fit of ENSO and the COWL (cold-ocean/warm-land) time series > to the global-mean. The ENSO time series is found as a damped thermal > response to variations in the cold-tongue (this gives a marked > improvement in the representation of ENSO in global-mean > temperatures). The COWL time series represents the effects of random > fluctuations in climate acting on the different heat capacities of the > ocean and land (eg: periods of warm advection over land/cold advection > over the ocean lead to warmer than normal global-mean temperatures by > virtue of the fact that the continents have a lower heat capacity). > > > I'll provide more details of the ENSO and COWL methodologies in a > future email, but the main point is that a lot of the high frequency > 'noise' in global-mean temperatures can be accounted for on the basis > of two simple, physically based time series. > > > The bottom panel in Fig. 1 includes a reproduction of the global-mean > time series (top) and also shows the residual global mean time series, > which is found by removing the ENSO and COWL time series from the > global-mean time series. > > > The bottom panel of Fig. 1 is the key figure in the paper. We think > it's remarkable how well the fitting 'cleans up' the global-mean time > series. If you look closely, you'll see that the major volcanoes of > the past century (marked by solid vertical lines) are much, much > clearer in the residual time series. But the fitting not only isolates > the volcanoes, it also isolates the very large drop in Aug 1945. The > Aug 1945 drop is about 0.3 K, almost twice as large as the response to > Pinatubo. > > > The residual time series also suggests a slightly different view of > 20th century temperature variability. The canonical view is that > temperatures warmed in the 20s, settled from the 40s-70s, and warmed > from the 70s-the present. But if you stare at the residual time > series, you get the impression that global-mean temperatures have > actually risen steadily over the past century, but that the warming > has been disturbed by several discrete and abrupt drops in > temperature. > > > As for the volcanos: > In figure 2 we're exploiting the fitting procedure to provide a > 'cleaned up' version of the volcanic response in surface temperatures. > The figure shows the composite temperature response for the 4 largest > tropical volcanoes of the 20th century. The composite is done such > that the 10 year period before each volcano has a trend of zero and > mean of zero. (If you don't remove the trend then the long term > warming biases the composite). The response in the residual data is > surprisingly coherent (much more so than in raw data). But we think > what's most striking is that surface temperatures do not appear to > fully recover for up to a decade after each volcano (the composite is > limited to 9 years after the eruptions since the eruption of Pinatubo > occurred 9 years after the eruption of El Chichon). > > > You can see the long timescale of the volcanoes in the residual > global-mean time series: if you follow the temperature time series > before, say, Agung or Pinatubo, you can see that it takes a long, long > time for global-mean temperatures to catch up to where they would have > been, assuming they would have continued to warm... > > > And as for the dip in 1945: > Fig 2 shows the residual (ie with the COWL or ENSO time series > removed) global-mean land and ocean time series. The point here is > that the large dip in Aug 1945 does not show up in the land data. > > > My impression from your emails last week is that the dip is almost > certainly due to changes in instrumentation during the war. But it's > also my impression that the specific reasons for the dip are not yet > known. It's possible that the dip is offset by spurious rises in SSTs > at the start of the war. But this isn't certain. And even so, there is > a large drop in SSTs between the period before the war (1939) and the > period after the war (1945). To my eye, the residual ocean time series > in Fig. 3 suggests temperatures ratcheted downwards spuriously in > 1945. > > > In our view, the dip in Aug 1945 is very important and warrants being > highlighted in the literature. In fact, once you know it's there, it's > hard to view any time series of global-mean temperatures and not > wonder how different it would appear if the dip was not there. For > example, Fig. 4 shows the raw and residual global-mean temperature > time series assuming the 0.3 K drop in Aug 1945 is spurious. I realize > the figure is crude, and it might not make it into the paper. But the > point is that you would get a very, very different impression of 20th > century temperature trends if the dip proves to be an artifact of the > end of the war. > > > So our main point regarding the drop in Aug 1945 is this: if we assume > the dip is spurious, then the global-warming of the past century would > be at least ~0.3 K larger than currently thought, and global-mean > temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the past century. > > > That's enough for now. I'm working on the writing and our goal is to > submit something by Xmas. Please let me know what you think, and if > you are interested in continuing to interact with Mike and I on the > paper. > > > And again: thanks for your time and interest. > > > -Dave > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > David W. J. Thompson > www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet > > > Dept of Atmospheric Science > Colorado State University > Fort Collins, CO 80523 > USA > > > Phone: 970-491-3338 > Fax: 970-491-8449 > > > -- David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 http:www.metoffice.gov.uk 4344. 2007-11-19 17:22:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:22:11 -0700 from: Henry Diaz subject: Communication to: Caspar Ammann , rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk, Kim Cobb , Julia Cole , Edward_Cook , Rosanne D'Arrigo , Michael Evans , Michael Gagan , Ricardo Garca Herrera , Joelle Gergis , Nick Graham , Phil Jones , Janice Lough , mann@psu.edu, Jerry Meehl , luc.ortlieb@bondy.ird.fr, David_W_Stahle , Lonnie Thompson , Oliver Timm , Yves TOURRE , klaus.wolter@noaa.gov, yves.gregoris@meteo.fr, victoire.laurent@meteo.fr, philippe.dandin@meteo.fr, patrick.van-grunderbeeck@medias.cnes.fr, Yves TOURRE , daniel.nouveau@meteo.fr, Julien Emile-Geay , Warren White Greetings. See attached information regarding the Tahiti ENSO workshop. Best regards, Henry -- Dr. Henry F. Diaz NOAA/ESRL/CIRES 325 Broadway Boulder, CO 80305 Henry.F.Diaz@noaa.gov Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Tahiti_Ann2.doc" 4883. 2007-11-19 17:23:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:23:23 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: RE: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Phil I've just tried to check how much of Colin's salary 17k would cover. But I can't do this - as the DEFRA project accounts are one of several that I can't access - I complained again about this before going to Prague but have heard nothing. I'm not sure if you are able to check this yourself on PMA - you may have the same problem as me. Otherwise, we'll have to ask Janice I suppose. Once we've decided how many months and when, we/I need to contact Virginia Brown. We also need to confirm methodology with Jim - and give him indication of timescale for 'delivery', Clare >X-Newcastle-MailScanner-Watermark: 1195221138.04939@YtFfSGrIC9FW8HfM0E8sQA >Subject: RE: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects >Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:51:54 -0000 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects >Thread-Index: Acgcu6CzXk/3QRW7Rgqmov0iZUKnkwF+8aTw >From: "Jim Hall" >To: "Clare Goodess" , "Phil Jones" >Cc: "C G Kilsby" , , > "H J Fowler" , > "Richard Dawson" , > "Brown Virginia Miss (ENV)" >X-Newcastle-MailScanner-Information: Please contact >Postmaster@newcastle.ac.uk for more information >X-Newcastle-MailScanner: Found to be clean >X-Newcastle-MailScanner-MCPCheck: >X-Newcastle-MailScanner-From: jim.hall@newcastle.ac.uk >X-NCL-Spam-Status: No >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > >Dear Clare, Phil, Stuart, Hayley et al. > >Sorry it has taken me so long to get notes out from the meeting with >Phil et al on 26 October. In this message I will try to summarise the >methodology we are proposing and then address the timescale, >responsibilities and financial matters for implementation for the >Tyndall Cities work. > > >The background to this work is: > >In the Scorchio project Stuart Barr is developing a method for obtaining >spatial temperature patterns in urban areas from satellite data. Clare, >Chris and Phil are extending the Betwixt weather generator and peturbing >it with outputs from the new Had runs. We wish to combine the spatial >and temporal perspectives in order generate spatial-temporal scenarios >(the extent to which this needs to be developed in Scorchio is open to >interpretation in the propsal). >We wish to apply this same approach to London for Tyndall. We have an >allocation of 17k in 07/08 and 17k in 08/09 for CRU to contribute to >this work. We have plans to direct some RA time onto this in Newcastle >for Stuart's area of the work (see below). > > >The Hadley Centre runs: > >I just had a very useful conversation with Mark McCarthy at HC. His >programme is as follows: >Run 1: Transient run (1950 to 2100) A1B scenario with const >anthropogenic heat source (7W/m2 for Manc). To be done "for Jan 08"... >Vague about whether this would be beginning or end of Jan. >Run 2: Same run with linearly increasing heat flux. Not yet specified >what this will be, but representing quite a strong increase in heat >flux. Could be run at about the same time as Run 1 i.e. Jan next year. >Run 3: To be decided at a Scorchio stakeholder meeting in March. Could >be midway between 1 and 2 i.e. some adaptation. > >The urban anthropogenic heat fluxes will be applied for all urban areas >in the HadRM3 domain (i.e. we get London as well as Manc and Shef). He >was originally intending to apply the Manc heat flux (i.e. 7W/m2) for >all urban areas, but we discussed the possibility of applying something >different (higher) for London and he agreed that this would be possible. >In London the grid cells allow some differentiation between inner >(Westminster has 60-100W/m2) and outer (about 10W/m2) London. > >The land surface tiling is based on 9 surface types, urban being one of >them. > >He can save daily pressure data for weather type classification if >required. > >He mentioned the LUCID work and was enthusiastic about the Tyndall >application providing a comparison for London with the the LUCID outputs >(on a 1km grid 100km*100km but can only be run for 1 year due to >computational cost). > > >Outline of the proposed methodology: > >For present climate: >Newcastle: Obtain AVHRR satellite images. Process to obtain temperature >patterns for each satellite image. >UEA: Obtain weather station data for London (Heathrow, St James, >Holburn, and couple of outside London sites: Gatwick? Others?). >Calibrate weather generator (with Chris K). Establish method for scaling >Newcastle temperature patterns from selected weather station data. >Cross-validate with other weather stations. Examine the improvement >gained if the scaling relationship is conditioned on WG persistence >variables (WW, WD, DW, DD). This will deliver hindcast spatial patterns >of temperature (for comparison with any other observations that my >become available through LUCID) and synthetic time series patterns of >present day temperature. > >For future climate scenarios: >We have three anthropogenic heat source scenarios from Hadley (runs 1 to >3 above). Because the runs are transient and are based on the UKCIP08 >ensemble, for any desired climate scenario and time slice from the >UKCIP08 ensemble we can match the non-urban temperatures to extract the >corresponding time slice from these new urban runs (though we won't be >able to access the highest climate changes even at 2100). >UEA: Extract corresponding temperature change factors and other stats >for WG from Had runs. Run WG and scale spatial temperature patterns as >previously, conditioning as appropriate on persistence variables. >Newcastle: Develop scenarios of changing land use and anthropogenic heat >sources. Use these to modify temperature patterns used in the scenario >generation. > >Hope that makes sense. > > >Next steps: >UEA: confirm funding arrangement with Virginia Brown. Tyndall Phase 2 is >pre-FEC so the funds can all go to Colin's salary. >UEA: confirm that methodology makes sense and confirm timescales for >delivery, given Had proposed timescale for RCM runs (above). >UEA: start assembling weather station data and calibrating weather >generator >Stuart: start assembling AVHRR images and processing temperatures >Jim: email Mark McCarthy to confirm arrangements >Jim: confirm UCL Lucid heat flux estimate for London (I'll see Mike >Davies on 22 Nov) > >Is that all? > > > >Best regards > >Jim > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > > Sent: 01 November 2007 19:15 > > To: Jim Hall > > Subject: Fwd: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > > > > Hi Jim > > > > Phil, Colin and I met today to discuss the Tyndall urban work > > - and it sounds like you had a useful meeting with Phil last week. > > > > One thing that emerged from our meeting today, is how to > > handle the financial aspects. Is the money earmarked for us > > in the Newcastle budget? Will this be a subcontract? > > Presumably it will be full economic costs, but hopefully we > > can ensure that the bulk goes on Colin's salary rather than > > having to cost in Phil's time. > > > > Is it Virginia Brown we need to liase with here? > > > > Best wishes, Clare > > > > > > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 > > >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:44:14 +0000 > > >To: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk,c.harpham@uea.ac.uk > > >From: Phil Jones > > >Subject: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > > > > > > Clare, > > > The attached is a summary of discussions I had with Jim > > Hall and > > > others last Friday in Newcastle. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > >University of East Anglia > > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > >NR4 7TJ > > >UK > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > >----- > > > > > > > > > > Dr Clare Goodess > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich > > NR4 7TJ > > UK > > > > Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > > > > > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 202. 2007-11-19 18:15:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: elena.xoplaki@giub.unibe.ch, Malcolm Hughes , Ricardo Garcia Herrera , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Juerg Luterbacher date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:15:50 -0700 from: Henry Diaz subject: Istanbul Workshop to: kahyae@itu.edu.tr Dear Ercan - It looks like the first week in September is no longer a possibility for this meeting. Both Elena, and Ricardo Garca and I are committed to attending other workshops (Elena and Juerg in Switzerland, and Ricardo and me in Spain). The week of August 25, 2008 might work for many of us. What do you think? Have you gotten any more information regarding possible local funding support from Turkish sources? A also note that there have been some interesting new paleoclimate results from different studies that suggest very large climatic changes and societal disruption around 4200 and 5200 BP in many parts of the world. We may want to emphasize research results for these two time markers, as well as MWP and LIA impacts, as possible scenarios for future climate change impacts. Best, Henry =============== > Dear All, > > I have received some good news about our proposal to the MedClivar > ESF. We will receive the requested contribution of the 6000 Euro. > For the acceptance of the funding, an audited bank account is needed > for the transfer of the data shortly before the workshop. I have > checked with our university and we could use one of our accounts, I > hope this is fine for you. Please comment on this. > > And finally an annoying matter is availability in September 2008. At > the moment September is full with some overlapping as well. I wish I > could participate during the whole workshop, therefore I would like to > ask you whether there is any room for date modifications. Is there a > possibility for August (week 35) or even October (week 41)? > Unfortunately, 8-10 September is not anymore possible-Graduate School > teaching. > > Best wishes > Elena > ================== > > Dear Dr. Xoplaki > > I am pleased to inform you that the Steering Committee of the ESF > activity entitled 'Mediterranean Climate Variability and > Predictability' has decided to support your Workshop on 'Extreme > Climate Events of the Last 1000-2000 Years in the Greater > Mediterranean Region and Their Impact on Cultural History' to be held > on 01/09/2008 - 03/09/2008 in Istanbul, Turkey with a contribution of > 6000 EUR. > > The ESF-MedCLIVAR Steering Committee invites you to note the following > recommendations: > - to arrange for a presentation of the ESF-MedCLIVAR Programme to be > made at your meeting; > - to highlight in your scientific report the relevance and value of > your meeting to the Programme. > > You are kindly requested to indicate acceptance or rejection of this > funding by completing the acceptance form at: > http://www2.esf.org/asp/form/scmeetings/acceptance/login.asp > > In order to access this form you will be required to enter the > following information: > Password : whsehvsc > Reference Number: 1721 > > Following submission of your acceptance form an advance payment of 80 > percent of the total amount awarded will be transferred to the bank > account indicated, normally 2 months before the meeting. The final > payment will be made after the meeting, subject to receipt of the > scientific and financial reports and the full list of participants. > These reports should be submitted within 2 months of the event. Please > note that any unspent balance must be returned to the ESF. Further > information on accessing the report forms will be forwarded to you in > due course. > > I would like to draw your attention to the following site > http://www.esf.org/sciencemeetings where you can download: > > 1) Guidelines for Proposers and Organisers of Science Meetings > 2) Information on Co-Sponsorship > 3) Report Form > 4) ESF Remit > 5) ESF Logos > > It would be beneficial for the future evaluation of 'Mediterranean > Climate Variability and Predictability' if you would clearly identify > the Workshop as being sponsored by this ESF activity e.g. by using the > ESF logo and ESF remit on the programme etc. Support of the ESF > activity should also be acknowledged in any publications resulting > from the event, and a reprint should be sent to the ESF in due course. > > Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. > > Yours sincerely > > Ellen Degott > ESF Liaison Officer > ************************************************************** > -- Dr. Henry F. Diaz NOAA/ESRL/CIRES 325 Broadway Boulder, CO 80305 Henry.F.Diaz@noaa.gov 10. 2007-11-20 16:03:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:03:03 +1100 from: David Thompson subject: The volcanoes... to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, I'm really glad your interested. And thanks for the comments. First a general comment about the direction of the paper. Then some specific thoughts on the volcano results. A general comment: The paper has two main parts: 1) clarifying the importance of the step in 1945 and 2) providing new insight into the climatic impacts of volcanic eruptions. I've been emailing with John Kennedy about how to approach the dip in 1945. It's now seems clear the dip is due to uncorrected data issues. But the step contributes substantially to the appearance of global-mean cooling in the middle of the 20th century. So correcting the dip is almost certainly going to impact the appearance of the global-mean time series. It's good to have the data experts on board to help frame the discussion carefully and appropriately! The attached Fig. 4 includes a few new figures you might not have seen. SSTs diverge rapidly from land data in 1945 in the tropics. I'll keep iterating with the Hadley Centre on this and keep you posted ... The volcano results: Thanks for pointing me to the monograph. I thought I was up to date on the literature, but I missed that one. I've ordered the monograph from the library and it will arrive in a couple days. In the meantime: please see the attached Figures 2-3. They clarify some of my thinking on the topic. The left column of Fig 2 shows the composite for the largest 5 tropical eruptions (Krakatoa, Santa Maria, Agung, El Chichon, Pinatubo) for the globe (top), global land (middle) global ocean (bottom). The anomalies are shown with respect to the 4 year period before the eruption (ie, the mean for years -4 to 0 is zero). The middle column shows the exact same results, but for the residual data. The key here is that the volcanic signal is much clearer in the residual data, both in terms of the signal after the eruption date, but also in terms of less volcanic noise during the rest of the composite period. You can see the improvement in the global mean, in the land data, and in the SST data. It's also clear from both the left and middle panels that there is a lingering trend in the composites. For example: if you look at the top left panel (the composite of the raw global mean), the anomalies ~8 years before the eruptions are more pronounced than the anomalies after the eruptions. This doesn't make physical sense, and reflects the fact the eruptions are superposed on the global-mean warming of the past century. So it occurred to us that the global warming of the past century is likely biasing the volcanic signal. And .... The right hand panel shows the residual composite after the trend calculated for the decade preceding the eruptions has been removed from the 20yr composite period. In this case, the prevolcanic period is very quiescent, as you'd expect. But the volcanic signal is very, very pronounced, and seems to linger for more than a decade. That volcanos may have a >10 year timescale is supported by the recent Church et al paper in Nature (attached as a PDF) on changes in ocean heat content after volcanic eruptions. And I think it makes physical sense. See, for example, the attached Fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows the simulated output to a 3 W/m2 forcing imposed over two years. The result is based on the simple Hasselman climate model, that is: c*dT/dt = Forcing - alpha*T where T is temperature, Forcing is the 3 W/m2 for two years, alpha*T is Newtonian cooling, and c is the heat capacity of the atmosphere+the depth of the ocean to which the signal penetrates. The model is extremely simple, but shows that if the signal penetrates the top 100-150m of the ocean mixed layer, then the e-folding damping timescale of the volcanos is at least 6-8 years. If you use a shallower mixed layer (say 10m), then you get a shorter damping timescale, but the amplitude of the response is much too large (~1 K). So the argument is that to get the right amplitude (~0.3 K), then you need a mixed layer response of at least 100m. I think that a reader could argue about how we detrend the data. And so I don't think we can "prove" that the volcanic signal lasts for a decade or more based on observations and our simple model alone. But I do think we can make a compelling case that the data are suggestive of a long time scale, and we can certainly show that a long time scale is consistent with changes in ocean heat content down to 100 m. So the paper could get people chatting about the possibility. What do you think? -Dave ps I understand what you mean about centering about January (to account for the midwinter warming). It turns out that centering matters for a few months during NH midwinter (as you know). But it doesn't change the general appearance of Fig. 3. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Figures_VNov141.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Church_etal_Nature2006.pdf" On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, I've had a read of the email now and looked at the pictures over the weekend. It seems very interesting and I like to be involved. The volcano response looks clear, but this may be a result of the way you've done superposed epoch analysis - and maybe on the residuals (i.e. without ENSO and COWL). Anyway have you seen this paper? Jones, P.D., Moberg, A., Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R., 2003: Surface climate responses to explosive volcanic eruptions seen in long European temperature records and mid-to-high latitude tree-ring density around the Northern Hemisphere, In (A. Robock and C. Oppenheimer, Eds.) Volcanism and the Earths Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254. I would normally send you a pdf, but for some reason when AGU allowed us to get them in 2004 they were enormous - 40Mb, so too big to email. It is worth you getting hold of this and comparing to what we've al;ready done there. We used longer European records, but for the NH we used 5 large tropical eruptions in the 20th century. I don't think your 10 years before/after (as opposed to our 5) is the cause of the difference. It could be your extraction of trends, or could just be your working with residual T. The paper will show you how to calculate significance levels for the volcanic signal. I hope you've always used the January of the eruption year to designate the 4 volcanoes you've chosen. I can't see in your volcano plot the greater cooling in summers (NH mainly) cf NH winters. This was a clear signal in the work we did. Some other thoughts: 1. The COWL series looks to have smaller variance before about 1925. Also COWL variance looks more one-sided in recent decades. 2. As you or David said, the 1945 drop could be that 1940-44 are too warm. Still think that it doesn't look natural. Cheers Phil At 06:44 14/11/2007, David Thompson wrote: Dear David, Phil and John, (This is a bit of a long email, so you might want to grab a cup of coffee - or tea - before reading on...) Thanks again for the quick and helpful responses last week. Mike and I would be happy to include John as a coauthor on our paper. And David, Phil: we understand if you are too busy to join another project. But if you are interested in joining the paper, too, that would be great. The goal of the paper is to clarify some key aspects of 20th century temperature variability, and the study would certainly benefit from your expertise. Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me review the main points of the paper as it currently stands. I've attached 3 pages of figures (the figures will evolve as the writing evolves, but as of now it appears the paper will end up being short and punchy) Figure 1 includes 2 panels. The top time series in the top panel shows the global-mean temperature time series. The next two time series show the linear fit of ENSO and the COWL (cold-ocean/warm- land) time series to the global-mean. The ENSO time series is found as a damped thermal response to variations in the cold-tongue (this gives a marked improvement in the representation of ENSO in global- mean temperatures). The COWL time series represents the effects of random fluctuations in climate acting on the different heat capacities of the ocean and land (eg: periods of warm advection over land/cold advection over the ocean lead to warmer than normal global- mean temperatures by virtue of the fact that the continents have a lower heat capacity). I'll provide more details of the ENSO and COWL methodologies in a future email, but the main point is that a lot of the high frequency 'noise' in global-mean temperatures can be accounted for on the basis of two simple, physically based time series. The bottom panel in Fig. 1 includes a reproduction of the global-mean time series (top) and also shows the residual global mean time series, which is found by removing the ENSO and COWL time series from the global-mean time series. The bottom panel of Fig. 1 is the key figure in the paper. We think it's remarkable how well the fitting 'cleans up' the global-mean time series. If you look closely, you'll see that the major volcanoes of the past century (marked by solid vertical lines) are much, much clearer in the residual time series. But the fitting not only isolates the volcanoes, it also isolates the very large drop in Aug 1945. The Aug 1945 drop is about 0.3 K, almost twice as large as the response to Pinatubo. The residual time series also suggests a slightly different view of 20th century temperature variability. The canonical view is that temperatures warmed in the 20s, settled from the 40s-70s, and warmed from the 70s-the present. But if you stare at the residual time series, you get the impression that global-mean temperatures have actually risen steadily over the past century, but that the warming has been disturbed by several discrete and abrupt drops in temperature. As for the volcanos: In figure 2 we're exploiting the fitting procedure to provide a 'cleaned up' version of the volcanic response in surface temperatures. The figure shows the composite temperature response for the 4 largest tropical volcanoes of the 20th century. The composite is done such that the 10 year period before each volcano has a trend of zero and mean of zero. (If you don't remove the trend then the long term warming biases the composite). The response in the residual data is surprisingly coherent (much more so than in raw data). But we think what's most striking is that surface temperatures do not appear to fully recover for up to a decade after each volcano (the composite is limited to 9 years after the eruptions since the eruption of Pinatubo occurred 9 years after the eruption of El Chichon). You can see the long timescale of the volcanoes in the residual global-mean time series: if you follow the temperature time series before, say, Agung or Pinatubo, you can see that it takes a long, long time for global-mean temperatures to catch up to where they would have been, assuming they would have continued to warm... And as for the dip in 1945: Fig 2 shows the residual (ie with the COWL or ENSO time series removed) global-mean land and ocean time series. The point here is that the large dip in Aug 1945 does not show up in the land data. My impression from your emails last week is that the dip is almost certainly due to changes in instrumentation during the war. But it's also my impression that the specific reasons for the dip are not yet known. It's possible that the dip is offset by spurious rises in SSTs at the start of the war. But this isn't certain. And even so, there is a large drop in SSTs between the period before the war (1939) and the period after the war (1945). To my eye, the residual ocean time series in Fig. 3 suggests temperatures ratcheted downwards spuriously in 1945. In our view, the dip in Aug 1945 is very important and warrants being highlighted in the literature. In fact, once you know it's there, it's hard to view any time series of global-mean temperatures and not wonder how different it would appear if the dip was not there. For example, Fig. 4 shows the raw and residual global-mean temperature time series assuming the 0.3 K drop in Aug 1945 is spurious. I realize the figure is crude, and it might not make it into the paper. But the point is that you would get a very, very different impression of 20th century temperature trends if the dip proves to be an artifact of the end of the war. So our main point regarding the drop in Aug 1945 is this: if we assume the dip is spurious, then the global-warming of the past century would be at least ~0.3 K larger than currently thought, and global-mean temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the past century. That's enough for now. I'm working on the writing and our goal is to submit something by Xmas. Please let me know what you think, and if you are interested in continuing to interact with Mike and I on the paper. And again: thanks for your time and interest. -Dave  -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [1]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 Dear David, Phil and John, (This is a bit of a long email, so you might want to grab a cup of coffee - or tea - before reading on...) Thanks again for the quick and helpful responses last week. Mike and I would be happy to include John as a coauthor on our paper. And David, Phil: we understand if you are too busy to join another project. But if you are interested in joining the paper, too, that would be great. The goal of the paper is to clarify some key aspects of 20th century temperature variability, and the study would certainly benefit from your expertise. Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me review the main points of the paper as it currently stands. I've attached 3 pages of figures (the figures will evolve as the writing evolves, but as of now it appears the paper will end up being short and punchy) Figure 1 includes 2 panels. The top time series in the top panel shows the global-mean temperature time series. The next two time series show the linear fit of ENSO and the COWL (cold-ocean/warm-land) time series to the global-mean. The ENSO time series is found as a damped thermal response to variations in the cold-tongue (this gives a marked improvement in the representation of ENSO in global-mean temperatures). The COWL time series represents the effects of random fluctuations in climate acting on the different heat capacities of the ocean and land (eg: periods of warm advection over land/cold advection over the ocean lead to warmer than normal global-mean temperatures by virtue of the fact that the continents have a lower heat capacity). I'll provide more details of the ENSO and COWL methodologies in a future email, but the main point is that a lot of the high frequency 'noise' in global-mean temperatures can be accounted for on the basis of two simple, physically based time series. The bottom panel in Fig. 1 includes a reproduction of the global-mean time series (top) and also shows the residual global mean time series, which is found by removing the ENSO and COWL time series from the global-mean time series. The bottom panel of Fig. 1 is the key figure in the paper. We think it's remarkable how well the fitting 'cleans up' the global-mean time series. If you look closely, you'll see that the major volcanoes of the past century (marked by solid vertical lines) are much, much clearer in the residual time series. But the fitting not only isolates the volcanoes, it also isolates the very large drop in Aug 1945. The Aug 1945 drop is about 0.3 K, almost twice as large as the response to Pinatubo. The residual time series also suggests a slightly different view of 20th century temperature variability. The canonical view is that temperatures warmed in the 20s, settled from the 40s-70s, and warmed from the 70s-the present. But if you stare at the residual time series, you get the impression that global-mean temperatures have actually risen steadily over the past century, but that the warming has been disturbed by several discrete and abrupt drops in temperature. As for the volcanos: In figure 2 we're exploiting the fitting procedure to provide a 'cleaned up' version of the volcanic response in surface temperatures. The figure shows the composite temperature response for the 4 largest tropical volcanoes of the 20th century. The composite is done such that the 10 year period before each volcano has a trend of zero and mean of zero. (If you don't remove the trend then the long term warming biases the composite). The response in the residual data is surprisingly coherent (much more so than in raw data). But we think what's most striking is that surface temperatures do not appear to fully recover for up to a decade after each volcano (the composite is limited to 9 years after the eruptions since the eruption of Pinatubo occurred 9 years after the eruption of El Chichon). You can see the long timescale of the volcanoes in the residual global-mean time series: if you follow the temperature time series before, say, Agung or Pinatubo, you can see that it takes a long, long time for global-mean temperatures to catch up to where they would have been, assuming they would have continued to warm... And as for the dip in 1945: Fig 2 shows the residual (ie with the COWL or ENSO time series removed) global-mean land and ocean time series. The point here is that the large dip in Aug 1945 does not show up in the land data. My impression from your emails last week is that the dip is almost certainly due to changes in instrumentation during the war. But it's also my impression that the specific reasons for the dip are not yet known. It's possible that the dip is offset by spurious rises in SSTs at the start of the war. But this isn't certain. And even so, there is a large drop in SSTs between the period before the war (1939) and the period after the war (1945). To my eye, the residual ocean time series in Fig. 3 suggests temperatures ratcheted downwards spuriously in 1945. In our view, the dip in Aug 1945 is very important and warrants being highlighted in the literature. In fact, once you know it's there, it's hard to view any time series of global-mean temperatures and not wonder how different it would appear if the dip was not there. For example, Fig. 4 shows the raw and residual global-mean temperature time series assuming the 0.3 K drop in Aug 1945 is spurious. I realize the figure is crude, and it might not make it into the paper. But the point is that you would get a very, very different impression of 20th century temperature trends if the dip proves to be an artifact of the end of the war. So our main point regarding the drop in Aug 1945 is this: if we assume the dip is spurious, then the global-warming of the past century would be at least ~0.3 K larger than currently thought, and global-mean temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the past century. That's enough for now. I'm working on the writing and our goal is to submit something by Xmas. Please let me know what you think, and if you are interested in continuing to interact with Mike and I on the paper. And again: thanks for your time and interest. -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [2]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [3]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 3105. 2007-11-21 17:54:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: eduardo.zorita@gkss.de, gerd.buerger@met.fu-berlin.de, wahle@alfred.edu, Francis.Zwiers@ec.gc.ca, "Ammann; Caspar" , ycen@bgc-jena.mpg.de, geqs@igsnrr.ac.cn, "Guiot; Joel" , boli@ucar.edu, mschofield@maths.otago.ac.nz, "Smerdon; Jason" , zhengjy@igsnrr.ac.cn, "Briffa; Keith" , Scott Rutherford , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "Moberg; Anders" date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:54:51 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Preprint on statistical climate reconstruction methods to: Bo Christiansen similarly--please see attached paper, where the problematic ridge regression step is remediated using TTLS for regularization; there is no underestimation bias irrespective of standardization with both models tested in this case, mike mann eduardo.zorita@gkss.de wrote: > Dear Bo and colleagues, > > just for your information I attach a recent GRL paper by > Kuettel et al on European pseudoreconstructions, testing the Luteracher et > al method. My apologies if you were already aware of this paper. > > eduardo > > > > > ####In case of problems, you can use the alternative address eduardo.zorita@gmx.de ######### -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MRWA-JGR071.pdf" 4439. 2007-11-21 19:35:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:35:50 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] WG1 cla lottery result] to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Couldn't go anyway ! Jean is going though. Odd that with all those CLAs a Brit and an American won.... Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] WG1 cla lottery result From: "Susan Solomon" Date: Wed, November 21, 2007 6:12 pm To: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Colleagues, Dr. Pachauri informs us that the WG1 clas who won the 'lottery' and are invited to go to Oslo are Richard Wood and Dan Albritton. Sir John Houghton, Qin Dahe, and I will also be there and we will all do our best to represent you in Oslo. best regards, Susan _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas 1948. 2007-11-25 11:54:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Phil Jones'" , , "'Gabi Hegerl'" date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:54:55 -0000 from: "Simon Tett" subject: RE: Collaboration to: Hi Tim (With Keith added to the CC list). One thing we could think about is a consortium bid -- there is a lot of 19th century data to be digitised, worked up and used in model intercomparision work as well as paleo intercomparision. I'm working on a consortium bid for next June in another area but perhaps we could start working our ideas up for such a thing for Dec 2008 or June 2009. (June 2009 feels more sensible as I should have a better idea of how various projects are going by then...). You could invite me to visit UEA to give you a seminar as well..... S Simon Tett Chair of Earth System Dynamics School of Geosciences The University of Edinburgh Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Room 351, Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW UK http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 23 November 2007 17:40 To: Gabi Hegerl; simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Cc: Phil Jones; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Collaboration Dear Simon and Gabi, I've not been able to reply till now as we're out at Ed Cook's for Thanksgiving! I've now had a quick glance through the draft proposal and it certainly sounds very interesting. And given that you've both (especially Simon) been very supportive to our projects in the past, then of course I'd be happy to help you out with some collaboration. As you'd probably expect, however, we (Keith & I) have related plans to work in similar directions and plan future proposals in this area. This won't stop me being a collaborator on your proposal, but it would be nice to get something back -- e.g., use of the simulated data that you will generate at an appropriate time (for collaborative work/papers with you both, of course). Anyway, I'll be in on Monday and I'll sign the letter then that Phil has written. Do you need anything more specific from me about the work Thomas has done with HadCM3? Cheers Tim On Wed, November 21, 2007 10:48 pm, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Phil, I attach a draft, it still needs huge amounts of work. > (and its way too long). > But maybe it gives you an idea of what we are trying to do... > > If you are interested, all we'd need is a letter saying you are happy > to collaborate with us on this and will share data with us. > > Gabi > > Quoting Phil Jones : > >> >> Simon, >> Sounds interesting. Tim is in the US at the moment - back Monday. >> I'm here Monday, but then away the rest of the week. >> >> Do you have any text yet? Deadline for these is Dec 1 if I recall. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> At 17:01 20/11/2007, Simon Tett wrote: >>> Dear Phil & Tim, >>> Gabi and I and thinking of submitting a proposal to NERC called >>> "Causes of hemispheric and regional climate change over the last >>> Millennium". >>> We >>> plan to simulate the last millennium using hadcm3 to see if we need >>> the sun then from 1500 to present do an ensemble of four with volc. >>> Only & volc >>> + >>> solar. Other innovations are a run with constant 1000 forcing to >>> estimate the adjustment. We would also spin of ensembles from 1750 >>> to 2000 with various different anthropogenic forcings. >>> >>> So would you be interested in collaborating? -- Phil to provide >>> early instrumental data and Tim to communicate the results of his >>> international RAPID project. Gabi also wants to have a reference to >>> a paper on rapid Scandinavian climate change. >>> >>> S >>> >>> Simon Tett >>> Chair of Earth System Dynamics >>> School of Geosciences >>> The University of Edinburgh >>> Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 >>> Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 >>> email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk >>> Room 351, Grant Institute, >>> The King's Buildings, >>> West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW >>> UK >>> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------- > > > > -- > Gabriele Hegerl > School of GeoSciences > University of Edinburgh > http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > 1648. 2007-11-26 10:03:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 26 10:03:10 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: south central England Oak to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk let's discuss this before sending Keith Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:38:15 +0000 From: Rob Wilson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: south central England Oak X-StAndrews-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-StAndrews-MailScanner: No virus detected X-StAndrews-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.675, required 5, HTML_20_30 0.47, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED 0.10, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, MIME_HTML_ONLY 0.10) X-StAndrews-MailScanner-From: rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk X-UEA-Spam-Score: 3.7 X-UEA-Spam-Level: +++ X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi Keith, that would be great. Yes - you have showed my your ADVANCE report and the reconstruction. If I remember, it was a relatively high frequency series though. My interest is more in low frequency trends. The year-to-year precipitation signal is not particularly strong in Oak, but I am convinced that there are some interesting low frequency trends, but to really explore them robustly, I need lots of data. Pfister is also doing some documentary work and it may be possible to combine the historical and TR data at some later stage. Looking through your PhD - which is a great piece of work I might add - and I am not saying that to suck up - the sites which appear to sit within our target region are: CRU1 CRU2 QB6 QB9 CRU3 QB3 - this site might be a little to far west although the dominant signal is precipitation, our target region is roughly equal to the that covered by the CET record, so if you have any other relevant Oak chronologies from this region, that would be great. I would be happy to collaborate in some way if that would reduce any conflicts all the best Rob [1]K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: Hi Rob did not see any previuos email from you but it may have gone into my junk mail folder (no pun). No problem in sending you the oak data - in fact I thought they were in the ITRDB but Tom has just told me that he only sent my early pine data. Incidentally, I have to say that we have already done some work reconstructing PDSI for a western Europe area, using a single regional chronolgy predictor produced as part of the ADVANCE work. We never got round to publishing it but I will look it out and perhaps redo with the ScPDSI data. Cheers Keith P.S. what little bird? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Rob Wilson Lecturer in Physical Geography School of Geography & Geosciences University of St Andrews St Andrews. FIFE KY16 9AL Scotland. U.K. Tel: +44 01334 463914 Fax: +44 01334 463949 [2]http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/ ".....I have wondered about trees. They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty might prove useful. " "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2513. 2007-11-26 12:32:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:32:37 -0000 from: "Roger Coe" subject: Global temperature data to: "Phil Jones" Phil, Since we last corresponded it has become clear that 2007 will be another year in which the global temperature has not risen significantly, the 6th year on the HadCRUT3 data series. During this period the atmospheric CO2 level has continued to rise steadily at 1.9ppm/year and, according to Hansen, sulphate aerosols have declined equally steadily thus reducing global dimming. The period has therefore been relatively quiet in atmospheric terms except for the solar insolation which has declined coincidentally by the full solar cycle 23. The paper by Camp and Tsung in GRL July 2007 analyses the last four 11 year cycles and obtains a global warming signal of almost 0.2K for each cycle. Similarly Scafetta and West in JGR November 2007 identify a scenario in which the Sun might have contributed up to 50% of the observed global warming since 1900. These and other papers suggest that IPCC figure of about 8% solar contribution is a significant under estimate of a factor which could go a long way to explaining the static global temperature data. It is surely important to try to get this science right in view of the current emphasis on CO2 mitigation policies. Roger Coe. 3344. 2007-11-26 16:36:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:36:55 -0000 from: "Mark Hassall" subject: Final Poster to: , "'Miroslaw Kuc'" , "'Elizabeth Peacock'" , "'Taylor, Mitch'" , Dear, Amy, Liz, Mitch, Miro and Tim, Thank you all very much indeed for your help in producing the poster (attached). Thank you especially to Miro for tirelessly running Riskman at what appeared to be all times of the day and the night if I understand the time difference between us correctly. That was a mammoth effort thank you, but well worth while I think because the poster does now contain a lot of interesting ideas backed up by hard data, much more than I imagined possible as little as a month ago. I have to confess I am rather looking forward to standing up there with it. It will be a big meeting, at the last count there are due to be 890 odd papers presented. There was a last minute crisis when the proof that our print room produced came out with pink and mauve ice which was highly surreal but which somewhat detracted from your husband's splendid photography Liz. I took it to a commercial Co. in town who added more blue so that it was fine in the end and is now printed and laminated. I feel certain, due to the rash of papers appearing on this subject, that if we want to publish these results we need to do so soon. I am taking a set of recent papers and Amy's thesis with me to read on the 12h flights and any time spare between sessions. I would very much like to have a stab at a very crude first draft before Christmas so that Amy and I can circulate it to you all for comment and amendment/amplification as appropriate. I will let you know if the prides of hungry Marine Biology lions try to tear me to sheds and what their comments are when I get back Many thanks to you all again. Cheers, Mark Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Polar Bear Poster Final.pdf" 1782. 2007-11-26 17:22:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Phil Jones'" , "'Gabi Hegerl'" date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:22:14 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Collaboration to: , Hi Simon (and others) I have to say that this is what I had envisaged was "our" plan , following our earlier discussions with Simon and Philip Brohan. I do think this is a good idea , with the special focus on the period of the early instrumental data , perhaps even more than on the earlier data. The project could include more concentration on the identification and separation of "natural" dynamics-related climate changes from anthropogenically- forced changes , using multiple GCM experiments and possibly EMIC runs. This would also require a much more elaborate scheme of exploring different proxy , instrumental , and joint proxy plus instrumental reconstructions and errors (my preference would be for a "European and US window ") , based on reanalyses and critical review of the existing reconstructions and repeat reconstruction exercises where we can better constrain the differences in method . However, how much of this is now foreseen in your current application I do not know. Either way, you know that a joint , multi-institutional proposal is OK with me. Hope all is going well for you and that the family are well Keith At 11:54 25/11/2007, Simon Tett wrote: > >Hi Tim (With Keith added to the CC list). One thing we could think about is >a consortium bid -- there is a lot of 19th century data to be digitised, >worked up and used in model intercomparision work as well as paleo >intercomparision. I'm working on a consortium bid for next June in another >area but perhaps we could start working our ideas up for such a thing for >Dec 2008 or June 2009. (June 2009 feels more sensible as I should have a >better idea of how various projects are going by then...). > >You could invite me to visit UEA to give you a seminar as well..... > >S > >Simon Tett >Chair of Earth System Dynamics >School of Geosciences >The University of Edinburgh >Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 >Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 >email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk >Room 351, Grant Institute, >The King's Buildings, >West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW >UK >http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 23 November 2007 17:40 >To: Gabi Hegerl; simon.tett@ed.ac.uk >Cc: Phil Jones; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Re: Collaboration > >Dear Simon and Gabi, > >I've not been able to reply till now as we're out at Ed Cook's for >Thanksgiving! > >I've now had a quick glance through the draft proposal and it certainly >sounds very interesting. And given that you've both (especially Simon) been >very supportive to our projects in the past, then of course I'd be happy to >help you out with some collaboration. > >As you'd probably expect, however, we (Keith & I) have related plans to work >in similar directions and plan future proposals in this area. This won't >stop me being a collaborator on your proposal, but it would be nice to get >something back -- e.g., use of the simulated data that you will generate at >an appropriate time (for collaborative work/papers with you both, of >course). > >Anyway, I'll be in on Monday and I'll sign the letter then that Phil has >written. Do you need anything more specific from me about the work Thomas >has done with HadCM3? > >Cheers > >Tim > > >On Wed, November 21, 2007 10:48 pm, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > > Phil, I attach a draft, it still needs huge amounts of work. > > (and its way too long). > > But maybe it gives you an idea of what we are trying to do... > > > > If you are interested, all we'd need is a letter saying you are happy > > to collaborate with us on this and will share data with us. > > > > Gabi > > > > Quoting Phil Jones : > > > >> > >> Simon, > >> Sounds interesting. Tim is in the US at the moment - back Monday. > >> I'm here Monday, but then away the rest of the week. > >> > >> Do you have any text yet? Deadline for these is Dec 1 if I recall. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> At 17:01 20/11/2007, Simon Tett wrote: > >>> Dear Phil & Tim, > >>> Gabi and I and thinking of submitting a proposal to NERC called > >>> "Causes of hemispheric and regional climate change over the last > >>> Millennium". > >>> We > >>> plan to simulate the last millennium using hadcm3 to see if we need > >>> the sun then from 1500 to present do an ensemble of four with volc. > >>> Only & volc > >>> + > >>> solar. Other innovations are a run with constant 1000 forcing to > >>> estimate the adjustment. We would also spin of ensembles from 1750 > >>> to 2000 with various different anthropogenic forcings. > >>> > >>> So would you be interested in collaborating? -- Phil to provide > >>> early instrumental data and Tim to communicate the results of his > >>> international RAPID project. Gabi also wants to have a reference to > >>> a paper on rapid Scandinavian climate change. > >>> > >>> S > >>> > >>> Simon Tett > >>> Chair of Earth System Dynamics > >>> School of Geosciences > >>> The University of Edinburgh > >>> Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 > >>> Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 > >>> email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk > >>> Room 351, Grant Institute, > >>> The King's Buildings, > >>> West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW > >>> UK > >>> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 > >> > >> Prof. Phil Jones > >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >> University of East Anglia > >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >> NR4 7TJ > >> UK > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------- > > > > > > > > -- > > Gabriele Hegerl > > School of GeoSciences > > University of Edinburgh > > http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 > > > > -- > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1934. 2007-11-26 17:25:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 26 17:25:04 2007 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: TODAY Dr. Keith Briffa, THURSDAY, 15 Nov @ 12:15, BPE to: "Wallace S. Broecker" Wally I am sorry too , only because direct insightful critical comment is more valuable than any indirect review. Thanks indeed for taking the trouble to send this message. Very best wishes Keith At 17:08 26/11/2007, you wrote: Keith, Sorry to have missed your seminar. I was far away in the UK. Cheers, Wally Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:08:36 -0500 From: Veronica Lance User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) To: everyone-ldeo@ldeo.columbia.edu CC: lamont-post@ciesin.columbia.edu, iniri@iri.columbia.edu, lg2019@columbia.edu, vrgallagher@ei.columbia.edu Subject: TODAY Dr. Keith Briffa, THURSDAY, 15 Nov @ 12:15, BPE Seminar X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 129.236.10.30 BIOLOGY & PALEO ENVIRONMENT Seminar Series TODAY THURSDAY, 15 November @12:15 pm Seismology Seminar Room Dr. Keith Briffa Reader at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia TITLE: "Is there a 'Real' Loss of Temperature Sensitivity in Recent High-latitude Tree Growth?" For more information on the speaker visit [1]www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa A link to the full fall seminar calendar can now be found on the BPE homepage or go directly to: [2]http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/bpe/seminars.html also see <[3]http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ldeo/cal/sundial/> FROM MORNINGSIDE CAMPUS: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LAMONT BUS SCHEDULE NOW RUNS ON AN HOURLY BASIS, AND IS FREE WITH YOUR CU ID: [4]http://www-admin.ldeo.columbia.edu/acs/shuttle.htm ___________________________________________________ Wallace S. Broecker Newberry Professor of Earth & Environmental Sciences Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University 61 Route 9W/P.O. Box 1000 Palisades, New York 10964-8000 USA Tel: (845) 365-8413/Fax: (845) 365-8169 WSB/msc -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 536. 2007-11-27 10:48:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:48:58 +1100 from: David Thompson subject: a quick comment and a quick question to: Phil Jones Phil, The comment.... Thanks for the thoughts on the volcano plots. I've spent the last few days playing with different analyses, and I think I'm converging on the main points to make in the paper. It's my impression that almost all aspects of the volcanic signal have been discussed in the literature, except for the longish timescale suggested by the residual data and the detrending. For sure the timescale is sensitive to the detrending, and I'll be very careful about that in the writing. But I think using the residual data we can get folks chatting about the possibility that volcanoes impact SSTs much longer than the ~2-4 years suggested by the current literature. Anyway.... that's how I'm leaning on the results. I should have some text ready soon... The question.... As for the dip in 1945. After iterating with John Kennedy, it appears that the dip in 1945 corresponds to a sudden drop in US measurements in Aug 1945 (the US measurements were known to be biased warm, so the cooling is consistent with the loss of US data). But it is also now clear that the SST is fraught with many instrument changes between the 30s and 1961. So a conclusion we'll likely make is that the trend in SSTs between 1900 and the present is reliable, but the behavior of the time series from the 1930s to the 1960s is not. That the data are so unreliable between the 30s and 60s means we don't know for sure what happened in terms of global-mean temperatures during that period. In fact, if you blank out the data from the 30s to the 60s, you can actually imagine the globe warming weakly but continuously during that period... Hence, the only real evidence we have of a midcentury about-turn in global warming comes from the land data. Are there any similar data issues in the land data during the period ~1939-1960? Thanks, Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 2936. 2007-11-29 11:49:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:49:28 +0100 from: Bo Vinther subject: [Fwd: 2007GL032450 (Editor - Fabio Florindo): Decision Letter] to: Tom Melvin , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Lars Berg Larsen , "Henrik B. Clausen" , cuh@gfy.ku.dk, Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen , Rashit Hantemirov , Kurt Nicolussi , Bjorn.Gunnarson@natgeo.su.se, Hkan Grudd , Matti.Eronen@helsinki.fi, mukhtar@forest.akadem.ru Dear Colleagues Good news: Our paper on the A.D. 536 event has now been reviewed an we have been asked to submit a response to the comments made by the reviewers and a revised paper by December 12. I will circulate drafts before the weekend - so you will be able to have a weeks time to come with suggestions/additions..... The reviews can be seen below - but let me just correct one misunderstanding in the review: Reviewer #2 makes a lengthy review partly focused on discrediting Greenland ice core dating - claiming that the dating uncertainties are "guesstimates"! A cornerstone in his argument is that a volc. signal previously reported to have been dated to A.D. 572 now has been shifted to A.D. 567/68 - this is, however, not the case as the A.D. 572 signal and the A.D. 567/68 signal are two separate volc. signals in the ice core (A.D. 572 is a small signal containing significant amounts of fluoride and chloride - suggesting a local eruption - most probably Icelandic). Anyway I just wanted to point out that the fact that the A.D. 572 and A.D. 567/68 have nothing to do with each other mutes the claim of reviewer #2 with respect to uncertainties in ice core dating....and therefore we have no scientific basis for moving the Greenland ice core dating 7 years as suggested by reviewer #2. Cheers......Bo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 2007GL032450 (Editor - Fabio Florindo): Decision Letter Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:47:01 UT From: [1]grlonline@agu.org Reply-To: [2]grlonline@agu.org To: [3]bo@gfy.ku.dk Dear Dr. Vinther: Your paper, 2007GL032450, entitled "New Ice Core Evidence for a Volcanic Cause of the A.D. 536 Dust-veil" will require moderate revision before publication in Geophysical Research Letters. Attached below are the review comments. We will need to receive the following: (1) a Response to Reviewer letter addressing all of the identified problems and (2) a copy of the manuscript with the changes noted (e.g., highlighted, "track changes," italics or bold changes) [PLEASE BE SURE TO UPLOAD YOUR ARTICLE WITH TRACKED/HIGHLIGHTED CHANGES AS A RESPONSE TO REVIEWER FILE] and (3) a copy of the manuscript with same changes incorporated by December 12, 2007. While you are preparing your files, keep in mind that publication is contingent upon your preparation of a publication-ready version that corrects these and meets GRL's length restrictions. GRL has a strict length requirement. For information, please see our Web site: [4]http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/wc/length_tool.cgi Articles that exceed the length requirement cannot be processed. The Editor will review these, in coordination with the reviewers. Please consult the reviewers' comments (below) for more information. When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below. [5]http://grl-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A2K6DcLf5A3BHNB4I6A9zUPbdtKao6DloCwqjSfaA Z I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Sincerely, Fabio Florindo Editor, Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer Comments Reviewer #1 Evaluations: Science Category: Science Category 2 Presentation Category: Presentation Category A Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Highlight: No Reviewer #1 (Formal Review): Comments to the paper "New Ice Core Evidence for a Volcanic Cause of the A.D. 536 Dust-veil" of Larsen and co-authors. The paper regards the interpretation of the depositions of volcanic material on polar ice sheets in a climatic context. Interesting the authors compare data from ice cores drilled in both hemispheres and temperature reconstructions from tree rings in a common time scale, in order to link temperature anomalies and volcanic emissions. Considerations about the actual climatic impact of volcanic emissions not only are addressed to the case of the 536 A.D. event, but useful notes also regard other events, providing precious information toward the understanding of the actual climatic significance of volcanic depositions in ice cores. The data sets used and/or produced by the authors are highly reliable, as well as the synchronization between glaciological time-series from Greenland and Antarctica. Similarly, most of the conclusions inferred from the data provide interesting and strong evidences for people interested in the climatic impact of volcanic activity, i.e. for people working in different scientific fields: glaciology, tree rings studies, climate modelling, atmospheric processes, dating of paleo-records. The paper is well written, following a clear scheme that helps in understanding the conclusions proposed by the authors. For all these reasons the paper deserves to be published on GRL, even if in some sections there are some aspect that in my opinion should be discussed and/or considered in a different optic in order to increase the scientific value of the paper. I suggest the authors to consider the comments here below listed, modify, in case, the text accordingly and/or discuss the points here below raised. Detailed comments: Lines 28-30: this sentence is not exact since sulfate data from ice cores here presented can't indicate the existence of a dust veil, but only of an acidic veil: eliminate the word "dust" in line 30 or re-word the sentence. Lines 81-83: it looks to me that, while the mean of the concentrations of the GRIP, NGRIP and Dye-3 signatures of the 529 events is quite similar to the mean of the two 17th century Haruna events, the single depositions do not show a clearly similar shape, except for the GRIP signature. In any case, all this discussion is in my opinion too qualitative and descriptive and an explanation of why three different eruptions from a same source should show this similar pulsed shape, is missing. Are indications of multiple eruptions for the two events historically known presented in Figure 3c present in literature? Alternatively, is it possible to imagine mechanisms of atmospheric transport at the base of this common shape? Line 83: please specify in the text where the events presented in Figure 3c are measured (NGRIP, I think). Line 91: this sentence is really misleading and should be deleted. At least the signatures assigned to the Haruna eruptions show a very typical pulsed shape, but the other events (533-4 and Tambora) do not show nothing particular that permit to define their shape "very similar". Line 114: The peak in the EDC ice core corresponding to the 542 event is listed in Severi et al. 2007 and Ruth et al. 2007 supplementary data, but not in the table provided by Castellano et al., 2005, JGR. This means that there is a small signal, but below the threshold between volcanic and non volcanic signals. The authors should mention that actually the signal is not detected in the EDC ice core. This of course could/should be due to loss of the signal at Dome C, likely because of post-depositional effects. Line 120: Interestingly the two couples of events lined up after the synchronization proposed by the authors are well defined in all the cores (the shallow cores drilled at DML and the two EPICA cores) and show quite high deposition fluxes (you can associate the events in the different cores by comparing the tables presented in Traufetter et al, 2004, Ruth et al., 2007 supplementary data and Castellano et al., 2005), close to the Tambora flux. A very interesting point to rise here is that these two events, very likely produced by tropical eruptions (considering that their signatures are recorded in both hemispheres) did not produce any significant effect on Northern Hemisphere climate unlike the 536, the Tambora and the 1601 event. This point should be here emphasized, discussed or commented even if rises complications to the interpretation of the climatic impact of volcanic eruptions, and is, in my opinion, an important point to consider. Of course it still remains the possibilities of two couples of synchronous volcanic events, i.e. four distinct eruptions, occurred in the two hemispheres, but, as the authors suggest, it is hard to believe that this good accord between the two records is coincidental. Line 133: I do not think that a difference of only 400 km between the two sources can explain a so marked difference in deposition at the two poles, i.e. data provided by the authors cannot be used to discriminate between two sources located relatively so close in space. Stochastic processes of atmospheric transport of single event's clouds could dramatically affect depositions. This not means that the association of the 536 signal to the Rabaul eruption is not plausible. Reviewer #2 Evaluations: Science Category: Science Category 1 Presentation Category: Presentation Category B Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: No Referrals: No Highlight: Yes Reviewer #2 (Formal Review): Review of Larsen et al. Introduction No need to pussy-foot around on this review. Given that I know most of the authors there is not much point in trying to be anonymous, especially as one aspect of the paper is the suggested elimination of my "AD 540 cosmic impact" ideas. However a few words of explanation are necessary at the beginning. Recommendations are at the end. 1) The event that some people, including the current authors, refer to as the "AD 536 event" has been described by me as the "AD 540 event, i.e. the 536-545 event" because it is much more than a single event and the aftermath of a single event. It is clearly two stage (more detail below) and the real question relates to what caused the second part of the event in the years 540, 541, 542 and even 543. It is interesting that in the current paper a single cause around 535 is seen to initiate effects that last until at least 550. 2) The event appears to have been global because its effects are seen in tree-ring chronologies from the Old World and from both N and S America 3) Why was a cosmic (comet) vector ever suggested, by me, for the broader AD 540 event? It was suggested because the various ice cores (Dye3, GRIP, NGRIP and GISP2) failed to identify a clear (large and environmentally effective) volcanic acid spike in Greenland records in the 536-545 time window indicated by tree-rings. With no volcanic signal it was reasonable to suggest that the environmental effects had been caused by loading of the earth's atmosphere from space. 4) The current paper is interesting because it pits ice cores (claimed, but not proven, to be near calendrical in character) against tree-rings that are known, and proven, to be exactly dated to the calendar year. The following review looks at several aspects of the paper and suggests areas that would benefit from re-working. Some of the information may not be welcomed by the authors. Overview The current paper makes some bold claims. Re-evaluation of the three main Danish ice cores Dye3, GRIP and NGRIP across the 6th century indicates that there are three spaced volcanic eruptions at or around 529, 533.5 and 567.5. Of these, the second is claimed to have been the cause of the well-known 536 dust-veil event, and its effects are claimed to have run on until at least 550. This would of course make the 533.5+/-2 volcanic event the most environmentally effective in recent millennia. A subtext of the paper is that, by making the whole 536-550 environmental downturn a response to a single massive volcanic eruption, there is no need to allow the suggestion that the second component of the environmental downturn - that around 540-543 - might have an extraterrestrial cause, i.e. a cause due to loading of the atmosphere from space, most probably by comet debris. Main points Problem 1 The authors appear not to recognise that the focus of the extraterrestrial-loading scenario (put forward by Baillie 1999) is not AD 536 but relates to the more notable downturn in Irish oaks and other world tree-ring chronologies in the time window 540-542. For example, Baillie (cited by the authors) states: "So 536 is a year of very widespread reduced growth, but it is notably separate from the real downturn which affects the oaks at AD 540" (Baillie 1999; 66) Again, D'Arrigo et al. building on the same issue, state (source cited by the authors): "In AD 536 the Index value is 0.645, relative to the long-term mean of 1.0. Standard deviation (SD) is 0.204 over the full length of the chronology. This low growth value signals the onset of an unusually cold decade (AD 536-545) in which the mean ring-width index is 0.670 (SD 0.240), with a minimum of 0.37 in AD 543. AD 538 shows a brief recovery with an index value of 1.223. As noted, this two stage pattern is also evident in the European oak and other tree-ring series and may signify a delayed climatic response to one event (as is typical for many volcanic eruptions - e.g., Stothers (2000) or possibly two separate events (Baillie, 1994, 1999b)"(D'Arrigo et al. 2001, 241) So, not only do the authors ignore any previous comments relating to the two-stage nature of the environmental event, they ignore the evidence of their own Figure 1, where the two-stage nature is clear, especially in the lower panel. Moreover, Briffa, Grudd and others have observed this two stage nature in Fennoscandian chronologies where 541 is only slightly less bad than 536. Salzer and Hughes indicate similar clusters of narrow and frost damaged rings at 536 and in the early 540s. I do not think the two-stage nature of the downturn can realistically be ignored. Problem 2 A knock-on effect of ignoring the two-stage nature of the 536-550 event is evident in the authors' text. They are forced to make a weak statement: "...summer cold lasting from 536 to at least 550. ...These results suggest an eruption in 535 (or successive eruptions in and shortly after 535) of unparalleled magnitude in the last two millennia" (current paper page 5) Thus it is implicit in their text that their newly discovered massive eruption "around 535" gave rise to fifteen years or more of environmental effects. This leads to problem 3. Problem 3 Two of the current authors are well known as having undertaken a superposed-epoch analysis of the effects of known volcanoes wherein they concluded that the main effects of eruptions were over within a few years. (Jones PD, Moberg A, Osborn TJ, Briffa KR (2004) Surface climate responses to explosive volcanic eruptions seen in long European temperature records and mid-to-high latitude tree-ring density around the Northern Hemisphere. In: Robock A, Oppenheimer C (eds) Volcanism and earth's atmosphere. AGU Geophysical Monograph, Washington, DC, pp 239-254). Recently this has been up-dated by Fischer et al. (2007) who conclude that "The average influence of 15 major volcanic eruptions over the last 500 years is a distinct European summer cooling during two post-eruption years" (Fischer et al. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L05707, doi:10.1029/2006GL027992, 2007). Now, in the current paper we are led to believe that a 6th century eruption can have up to 15 years of effects without any explanation as to how this is possible. Problem 4 If there were large eruptions at 529, 533.4 and 567.5 (errors are hardly relevant as the layers of acid are spaced) how is it that only the middle one has any obvious environmental effects? It seems not to worry the authors that one eruption can cause 15 years of environmental effect while two others appear to have no effects whatsoever. I'll come back to this below. Problem 5 Moving to the ice cores. The whole impact of the paper rests on the dating accuracy of the three Danish ice cores. Only if the suggested date ranges are realistic can the comparisons be made with the tree-ring records which are undoubtedly absolutely dated. So, what does 533-34 +/-2 actually mean? It means only that the ice scientists, studying the internal detail of three parallel ice cores (Dye3 GRIP and NGRIP) have satisfied themselves that their dating is almost absolute back in the 6th century AD. The main problem with this situation is that there is no independent replication. In dendrochronology the final truthing of a long chronology is when it agrees with a chronology constructed independently by independent workers. This is known as 'tertiary replication'. In the case of the ice cores the only hope of truly independent replication rested with the American GISP2 core. In this core 14 metres of ice were lost in the 6th century AD, thus no independent replication of the Greenland results is currently possible. Studies on the GRIP and GISP2 ammonium records show that these two series are in good agreement back to AD 1030; earlier than this they increasingly diverge so that by AD 700 the offset is around 19 years; the GRIP dates being older than the GISP2 dates. This means that the internal procedures used by the European ice-core workers have to be internally very robust. We now know (the current paper) that there were initially problems with the Dye 3 chronology. In 1980 Hammer et al. noted a first result from the Dye 3 core in a footnote. "Note added in proof: In a new ice core from South Greenland, a strong acidity signal was found and preliminarily dated to AD 540+/-10". In 1982 Herron published more details which included statements about a "535 acid layer". To any reader of the Herron paper this would have been interpreted as a more refined date for the 540+/-10 layer mentioned in 1980. However doubts about this could be generated from information given by Hammer in a paper in 1984. In Herron's 1982 paper a visible dust layer was given the date AD 196. Hammer (1984) mentions this same layer but with a new date, namely 174-5; in addition he does not mention 540 or 535 but instead 516. To an interested reader it could be assumed that a whole section of Dye3 had been moved back in time by around 19 years (535 to 516) or 21 years (196 to 175). The current authors confirm that Herron's AD 535 date was indeed moved back in time to AD 516 sometime between 1982 and 1984. This 19/21-year movement of a section of the Dye3 core is particularly interesting. In his 1982 paper Herron dated the 10th century Eldgja eruption in the Dye 3 core to 934. That date (variously ECM signal 932; acid signal 934) is still used in the major ice-core papers, e.g. Clausen et al. 1997. In addition, Herron pointed out an acid signal at around 40 BC. By 1984 Hammer records this date as 50 BC which is still the current dating for this acid layer. So now we can see the comment in the current paper in proper context. In Dye3 between 1982 and 1984: Acid layer at AD 932/4 remained at same date Acid layer at AD 535 moved back to AD 516 Dust layer at AD 196 moved back to AD 174/5 Acid layer at around 40 BC moved back to 49/50 BC So we now know that a major section of the Dye 3 core had dating problems somewhere between AD 932 and AD 516. The interesting thing being that by 1984 all the key (AD 932, AD 516, AD 175 and 50 BC) dates were fixed in time, purely on the basis of the Dye 3 core. The existence of the GRIP and NGRIP cores has not moved these dates. If we go to Clausen et al. 1997 the Dye 3 and GRIP date lists are padded out: Dye 3 GRIP 932 934 895 898 889 - 871 871 755 757 743 744 674 675 - 645 - 622 (in Crte core as 623) 585 - 572 572 534 532 530 527 516 514 We are interested in errors. Note that in 1997 the key 6th century ice-core dates are given as 572, 534/32, 530/27 and 516/14. In the current paper these dates are given as 529+/-2, 533-34 +/-2 and 567-568 +/-2. Let's look at these dates: Dye 3 GRIP Current paper 674 675 674/75 +/-2 572 572 567/68 +/-2 534 532 533/34 +/- 2 530 527 529 +/-2 An interested observer might ask why the replicated 572 date has become 567.5 +/-2 in a period when everything else stays the same, i.e. are these quoted errors anything other than guesstimates? This may be seen as minor quibbling but it is being used to show that the ice core dates are not 'set in stone' they are somewhat flexible. As an outside observer what intrigues me is how the very first cores got the dates so exactly correct. Subsequent cores have not really altered the dates since the time the Dye 3 error was corrected. Thus the possibility has to exist that the errors in the Dye 3 record in the 6th century AD are larger than those quoted by the authors. Because the ice-core workers do not have external ice-core replication, is there anything that might provide such replication? One possibility has to be the frost-ring record in Californian bristlecone pines. LaMarche and Hirschboeck (1984) originally raised the issue of frost rings sometimes being the result of large explosive volcanic eruptions. This work has more recently been elaborated by Salzer and Hughes (2006). Here is a list of all the AD frost rings in bristlecone pines (not narrowest rings, just frost rings) between 484 and 681, and the best available list of ice-core acid dates. Frost Ice-acid 484 514/16 522 529 532 533.5 536 567.5 541 585 574 622.5 627 645 674 674.5 681 If we re-jig this list a pattern emerges: Frost Ice-acid 522 515 (ice 7 years too old) 532 - 536 529 (ice 7 years too old) 541 533.5 (ice 7.5 years too old) 574 567.5 (ice 7.5 years too old) 627 622.5 (ice 4.5 years too old) 674 674.5 (ice correct) OR 681 674.5 (ice 6.5 years too old) So in the 6th century there are four consecutive acid layers whose spacing is exactly the same as the spacing between four bristlecone frost events...with the ice-core dates consistently 7 years too old. Given that the original problem with the Dye 3 core seems to have been in the 6th century, is it possible that the 535 to 516 move was simply larger than it should have been by about 7 years? This seems like a perfectly reasonable question, the alternative being that the similar spacings are simply 'coincidence'. Moving to European tree-rings. Pentti Zetterberg supplied me with the 6th century data for his (presumably temperature sensitive) Finnish pine chronology. It is plotted in Figure 1. Similarly Hakan Grudd and Keith Briffa supplied me with their temperature sensitive Fennoscandian pine chronology; plotted in Figure 2. It is clear that both chronologies show extreme negative growth departures in 536, and in 541/42 and in 574/75. These growth events mimic the spacing of the ice acidity layers at 529, 533/34 and 567/68 almost exactly given the quoted +/-2 year error on the ice core dates. Viz. Pines 536...5 or 6 years...541/42...33 years...574/75 Acid 529...4 or 5 years...533/34...34 years...567/68 So, as with the bristlecone pine frost ring data, temperature sensitive European pines also suggest that the ice core chronology in the 6th century be moved forward in time by around 7 years; 529 becoming 536, 533.5 becoming 540.5 and 567.5 becoming 574.5. Again, the only alternative is to invoke 'coincidence'. Fig 1 Fig 2 Conclusion: In the current paper, as presented, the authors have two major difficulties: 1) Their 529 and 567.7 acid layers produced no environmental effects, while their 533.5 acid layer had massive effects. This seems illogical. 2) Currently their 533.5 volcano has to produce 15 years of environmental effect - a decade longer than the effects of any other volcano. By moving their acid dates forward in time by seven years the effects would become: 1) consistent, in that each volcano produces clear environmental effects in both Europe and America. 2) the move could explain the long-drawn-out effects as follows. The second eruption around 541/42 hits before the effects of the first eruption are over. This has always been a possible explanation for the really big environmental events such as the "540 event"; i.e. it is caused by multiple big volcanoes. Overall, such a new dating scenario would remove the necessity of invoking a cosmic vector to explain the effects around AD 540. I have no problem with this scenario, however some explanation will have to be found as to why so many veiled references to comets and sky gods occur just at that time (see for example McCafferty and Baillie 2005 The Celtic Gods: comets in Irish mythology. Tempus). Recommendations: 1) The authors need to consider providing proper detail of the two-stage nature of the 536-550 environmental event. 2) The authors need to explain how an eruption can have up to 15 years of environmental effect unless they accept some of the later recommendations in this list. 3) A clearer statement on the nature of the glitch in the original Dye 3 dating (relating to the first half of the first millennium AD) would help to clarify the issue of dating error. 4) The authors have to decide whether the spaced tree-ring events at 536, 541/42 and 574/75 (as detailed above) are in fact related to the effects of the volcanoes that produced the acid layers in Greenland ice at "529, 533/34 and 567/68". That is, should they move the ice core dates forward by about 7 years? 5) If recommendation 4 is accepted then the authors should attempt to delineate exactly where the ice-core problems (giving rise to the 7-year offset) actually occur. Presumably these relate to years of multiple snowfall which would be important to know about. 6) If recommendation 4 is not accepted obviously I will be at liberty to present the above evidence in detail in a future publication.,..also 7) If recommendation 4 is not accepted it leaves open the question of the cause of the 540-543 secondary downturn. In fact, if the recommendation is not accepted the clear absence of a volcanic signal in the years around 540-543 would actually reinforce the need for an alternative cause (probably a cosmic one) for the second stage environmental effects. On a personal note. If the ice-core dates have to be shifted by seven years obviously that is 'the sting in the tail' for the current authors. The 'sting in the tail' for me is the demise of the inherently interesting comet scenario. What is most interesting about this current paper is the revelation that all the initial ice-core work missed the cause of the largest environmental event in the last two millennia. As it was only found by detailed re-analysis, it leaves open the question of what other major events have been missed. Reviewer #2 (Highlight): This is a very important paper because it presents data relevant to a major research question, namely what caused the global environmental event across the period AD 536 to AD 545 and beyond. HOWEVER The paper CANNOT be published as it stands for a series of reasons given in my review below and attached. It requires significant re-thinking by the authors and quite possibly revision of their chronology. All relevant detail is given in the review. I would encourage the authors to take on board my recommendations and to revise the paper accordingly. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2_reviewer_attachment_1_1196255893.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2_reviewer_attachment_2_1196255893.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2_reviewer_attachment_3_1196255894.pdf" 1349. 2007-11-29 15:30:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:30:43 -0000 from: "John Davies" subject: FW: UN Secretary General's Reference to Slide Out Risks of Ice to: Dear Dr Phil Jones, I think you may wish to see this. I doubt whether the Arctic will be ice free in late summer by 2009 but the immediacy suggested in this paper is something which should be examined. . Scroll down to comment No.797257 dated 22/11/ 2007 . All the Best, John B Davies personal. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: owner-climate_change@foe.co.uk [mailto:owner-climate_change@foe.co.uk] On Behalf Of John Davies Sent: 29 November 2007 14:40 To: climate_change@foe.co.uk Cc: Fiona Davis Subject: FW: UN Secretary General's Reference to Slide Out Risks of Ice Sheets Hello Campaigners, I think there is a lot of new information on Global warming in the north polar regions in this document. Very Urgent. Scroll down to comment No.797257 dated 22/11/ 2007 All the Best, John B Davies personal. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kallio@hotmail.com] Sent: 28 November 2007 21:24 To: John Davies Subject: FW: UN Secretary General's Reference to Slide Out Risks of Ice Sheets Dear John, If you did not receive FIPC view on importance on the Arctic, please find here our statement. Many thanks for you letter and MS Word Article. I found a few spelling and lay out problems, so have enclosed revised layout of your letter and article. You mentioned in MS Word doc Smith_decadal_science2007.pdf and Smith_decadal_SOM.pdf files, and possibility of forwarding copies of these two files as attachment. Kind regards, Albert ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: albert_kallio@hotmail.com To: jar@email.unc.edu Subject: UN Secretary General's Reference to Slide Out Risks of Ice Sheets Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:00:16 +0000 Dear Jose, Please find enclosed: 1. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's statement. He was persuaded to issue this strong statement by the Chilean glaciologists who expressed their gut feeling that the Larsen B disease was to spread to Ronne and Ross and ice on land as wel. This backs Al Gore's hypothesis of sudden sea surges in 'An Inconvenient Truth' posing a massive risks to modern society. 2. The Guardian conducted a poll with Royal Geographical Society and The EarthWatch of which global ecosystem is least disposable. I enclose FIPC point why (due to a higher degree of teleconnectivity) the preservation of the polar regions is far more important than any of the other ecosystems, even more important than the tropical rainforests. Unfortunately, the lack of understanding of geophysics shows here distinctly as only 14% thinks the polar regions are worth saving. FIPC responded to this devastaing poll pointing a high degree of teleconnectivity in the Arctic. FIPC think the ball of positive feedbacks will start rolling just from the polar regions: not the vice versa! As we were such an underdog in the debate as 86% thinking other ecosystems are more important, we put out our nearly full arsenal of argument both published and unpublished, which all can however be further checked out. See also the link to The Wall Street Journal in the text. 3. I also enclose a report on UN in The Guardian as the athmospheric carrying capacity of CO2 will be used up in the next 7-8 years time after which the positive feedbacks, releases of gas from melting permafrost and gas fields ect oceans could overtake human emissions (after which a sustainded runaway global warming is a possibility). If someone accuses for alarmism, it is useful now to ask them to go to the UN Secretary General who accepted the tentative evidence by the Chilean glaciologists as sufficient to suspect that a major danger lies within wet ice! I trust the above articles will be very interesting as they contain such strong statements and new material as well. I hope your works are in good progress. Did you have time to contact Antoon Koojpers at the Danish Polar Centre who also has observed some events that are also suggestive of sudden major ice discharges to oceans. Kind regards, Veli Albert Kallio ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Please find enclosed the statement by the UN Secretary General: 18 November 2007 "If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet broke up, sea levels could rise by six meters. It may not happen for 100 years - or it could happen in 10. We simply do not know. But when it happens, it could occur quickly, almost overnight. It sounds like the script of a disaster movie. But this is science, not science fiction." Ban Ki Moon Secretary General of the United Nations, King George Island, Antarctica. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. VeliAlbertKallio Comment No. [1]797257 [2]November 22 11:28 Dear Sirs, I do agree that all ecosystems require protection; however, there are ecosystems with a higher degree of teleconnectivity than some of the others. I would see the mountain eco and geological systems least connected. The Round North Pole Sea Ice Cap was reduced in summer 2007 to an Arctic Sea Ice Crescent that resided behind north of Canada, Greenland and Svalbard Islands. The loss of the round polar ice cap that always used to be centred on the north pole was lost due to increased intensity of ocean waves causing the erosion of the sea ice, mixing of cold surface water with the warm water from the deep, and hugely increased sea ice migration on the newly opened ocean. The cold, dense and dry air pillow that hovered above the snow and ice covered ocean expanded due to the immense Arctic Ocean snow cover turning into warm sea water that made the ultra dry polar air to warm up, and push the margins of the Artic air mass and streams above Greenland and England. FIPC predicted occurrence of the 2007 sea ice loss (about 4 million square km) back in 2005 against the projections of the Arctic Council who projected such a degree of sea ice loss only sometime after year 2040. But their concept was based on faulty idea that all sea ice loss would be due to increasing air temperature and the albedo change as snow covered sea turns into dark water absorbing much more of sun's heat. FIPC projections of correct degree of sea ice loss was why we were presenting at a summit convened by HE Kofi Annan, HE Jose Barroso and HAH Bartholomev I in September on the stability and the Arctic teleconnections. FIPC expect the sea ice cover to break up in 2008 as the morphology of lunar crescent shaped multiyear sea ice is far more volatile to the forces of sea than the rounded polar ice cap on the North Pole which always was until now. The forces of ocean will start tearing up next year the remains of the crescent shaped multiyear (thick) sea ice as soon as the seasonal sea ice has melted away. There could be delaying negative feedbacks such as much larger precipitation on and around the Arctic Ocean which could keep climate colder and delay the onset of summer season, making the melt season shorter and therefore less intense. But such a hope of negative feedback may be too wishful. The Arctic Ocean's sea ice scattering would be complete by 2009 if events of 2007 are repeated. The sea ice travelling to-and-fro between warm and cold parts of ocean are very destructive as the thermal inertia transfer into migratory sea ice is huge in comparison to relatively stationary sea ice. The siege of Greenland by an open dark oceans on all its sides in combination with the 24 hour arctic sunshine season will mean massive flash floods and thunderstorms in Greenland (similar to July's in England) that were already experienced in this year and what was reported to the multimillion pound RSE expedition in the public hearings held in Narsarssuaq, South Greenland in 12.09.2007. The ice-free Arctic Ocean will mean loss of permafrost and these hold huge amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, sometime held back from entering the atmosphere only by thin lid of frozen ice or permafrost mud. This is a situation in parts of northern Russia and some gas fields will begin to leak out methane in sudden burst, in addition to the widespread emissions from newly decomposing melted permafrost grounds. These emissions (i.e. methane is 100 times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) invariably raise the Arctic as among one of the most teleconnected and volatile parts of the earth system. The loss of the North Pole Sea Ice Cap will also mean more flash floods washing Greenland's fairly sizable ice sheet. In the past most of the Greenland ice sheet melting was Type 1 ice melting where the crevasses and moulins ultimately drain to the ocean removing the water as heat agent from amongst the body of ice. However, recently the melting has advanced further to inland where the sub glacial terrain has slopes with inward ground inclination and the water and heat with it will never escape to the surface once water is fallen into ice. This kind of Type 2 melting in Greenland is accumulative and builds a pillow of water under the ice and loosens the partially permafrost cementing of ice with rocks and levels the rough ups and downs under the ice. As result the weight loading is removed from rocks below ice increasingly against the ice and topographic obstacles in downstream. As a result, large boulders of ice are moving causing ice quakes when the loosened ice moves downhill. The increased discharges of ice via fjord systems increase these. The changes of the Arctic ice mass balance has many more teleconnections by causing promoted earthquakes as the reduced weight of Alaska allows the Pacific tectonic plate to turn easier beneath the west Alaska and the connections to the liquid rocks produce increased volcanism. See the Wall Street Journal article on these: [3]http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114981650181275742-sOx58NXvfKz2szefZXutgTSbaDI_20 070608.html?mod=rss_free In addition, the changes in Greenland ice mass balance are destructive to the earth systems even at its very basins. Parts of Greenland have lost about 5 metres of ice, this amount to a pressure change of 4,250 kg/m2. It is well known that the Earth's axis responds to the air pressure variations across the Arctic Ocean between north Russia and Canada: when the low and high air pressure systems swap the other way round across the Arctic Ocean, the earth's axis turns 3-6 metres to that direction. Because the land masses are also asymmetrically distributed around the Geographic North Pole (= rotation axis), the snow and rain load on land during various seasons produce varying ground pressure load to which the weight distribution (point of balance change) the axis adjusts known as the Seasonal Wobble (12 month period). In addition there is the Chandler Wobble (14 month period) which results from same due to morphological resonance that is amplified by variable interaction with the faster spinning earth's core and overlying rock layers. In year 2000 the Magnetic North Pole started a sudden movement of 1,0-1,5 kilometres per week. This movement started back in 1850's when it was very tiny migration indeed. The old maps showing the magnetic field lines show no need for any corrections in period 1400-1850. With current rates this would be very noticeable. The 1850's coincide with the onset of glacial retreat worldwide. Even back in 1600's the magnetic field was about 9 times its current strength. So, what is the teleconnection here? As Greenland has changed weight distribution in much larger amounts than the air pressure variations above the island can do, the equilibrium state has changed. The earth's core generates static electricity which starts running along the metallic mineral currents that lie just beneath the lighter non-conductive mineral layers above it. Due to electrons having the same negative charge they move always outwards to the maximum electricity conductive surface known as the Faraday's Cage. This layer is very thin and it carries all the electricity the core is generating. (If it were not for the reduced conductivity drop of the overlying rock layers, the electricity generated by the earth's faster spinning core would raise right up to the surface below our feet.) The non-conductive minerals rubbed into the Faraday's Cage of the Earth's Core is both stopping the electricity passing beneath Greenland and also re-directing it to go elsewhere where electricity conducting layers are still existing at the right altitude to form the cage. The punch hole in the Faraday's Cage beneath Greenland is the cause of the sudden migration of the Magnetic North Pole from the west side of Ellesmere Island to the north side of Greenland and why the compass needle has recently been turning, especially since year 2000 when Greenland's ice sheet increased its ice discharge to ocean nearly 200%. FIPC have reminded that earth's magnetic field is an important part of the earth's protective system creating the Northern Lights as a result of this. Tampering with this system means that millions of tonnes of harmful particulate matter and radiation (solar winds) are currently deflected from hitting the earth surface. The Melville Bugt (the Melville Bay) coastal mountains that already subsided towards the sea during the Last Glacial Maxium (LGM) are currently holding back the growing pressure from the increasingly loose and leaning Greenland Ice Dome (ice height of 3,150 metres). If this were to collapse, there would be the sudden 'almost overnight' sea surges as suggested 18.11.2007 by the United Nations' Secretary General Ban Ki Moon (on advice of the Chilean glaciologists who think the west Antarctic land ice and ice shelves are also showing signs to collapse - following the course occurred in the Larsen B ice shelve). Ref.: International Herald Tribune, p. 6., Sunday 18.11.2007. A 7-metre sea surge would cause coastal flooding and this would make both industry and cars stop immediately as oil refineries and many power stations build on sea side would be flooded. The teleconnection from this is due to global dimming: increase in air temperatures above land as the cooling aerosols from traffic and industry will flush quickly out leaving in the heat capturing CO2 pollution. In the meanwhile, the ocean temperatures would be reduced due to large amount of fragmentary floating ice bergs from the ice sheet that had collapsed to sea. The Greenland ice cooled ocean and hot continental air would produce cloudless skies on across America and Europe, this failing our agriculture and causing massive forest fires and droughts that can destroy our forests here completely. Thus, FIPC iterate that although we would not subscribe that the collapse of Greenland and West Antarctic were the end of the world, the damage underway is very substantial due to the list of above teleconnections in earth system. If you have any queries FIPC are more than happy to forward more details on our research and lobbying activities. Veli Albert Kallio FIPC Co-Ordinator, Fellow of Royal Geographical Society Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans 119 Mount Pleasant Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 9EA, ENGLAND. [4]albert_kallio@hotmail.com ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. 1.30pm GMT 10 years to change our ways, warns UN report [5]Mark Tran [6]Guardian Unlimited Tuesday November 27 2007 The world has less than a decade to change course to avoid irreversible ecological catastrophe, the UN warned today. The stark warning from the [7]UN's Human Development report came just ahead of next month's climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto protocol. In a repeat of previous warnings from scientific panels, the 400-page report said that simply ignoring climate change would lead to unprecedented reversal in human development in our lifetime, and acute risks for our children and their grandchildren. The report, commissioned by the UN Development Programme, said climate change would hit the least-developed countries the hardest. 'The poorest countries and most vulnerable citizens will suffer the earliest and most damaging setbacks, even though they have contributed least to the problem,' the report says. 'Looking to the future, no country - however wealthy or powerful - will be immune to the impact of global warming.' The panel says the greatest financial responsibility lies with the US and the other well-developed countries most responsible for the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, mainly from the use of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. As the world's richest countries bear the greatest responsibility, the UN Development Programme called on them to bear the largest burden in cutting emissions and in providing financial aid to the poor. Developed countries, the UN said, should cut emissions by at least 30% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. Developing nations should cut emissions by 20% by the year 2050. The UN said the world must spend 1.6% of global economic output each year until 2030 to stabilise carbon levels and to limit a rise in global temperature to 2C to avoid the catastrophic impact of climate change. Without the money, the panel said, a warmer world 'could stall and then reverse human development' in the countries where 2.6 billion people live on $2 (96p) a day or less. The consequences include women and young girls having to walk further to collect water in the Horn of Africa, people erecting bamboo flood shelters on stilts in the Ganges delta, and others planting mangroves to protect themselves against storm surges in the Mekong delta. 'The world lacks neither the financial resources nor the technological capabilities to act,' the UN report said. 'What is missing is a sense of urgency, human solidarity and collective interest.' ------------------ The above highlighting the urgency of the situation. Kind regards, Veli Albert Kallio, FIPC Co-ordinator ********************************************************************* Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans Veli Albert Kallio, Esq., FRGS, BBAM, BAR Telephone (Int.): + 44 - 7794 - 981 238 E-mail: albert_kallio@hotmail.com Address: 119 Mount Pleasant Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 9EA ENGLAND ********************************************************************* FIPC campaigns for both sea and land ice conservation across the entire Northern Cryosphere. It is not involved in the Antarctic or the Southern Cryospheric research or environmental campaigning. Its purpose is to advocate temperature, sea level and magnetic field stability by limiting CO2 emissions. FIPC lobbies for better shipping practises and against the practise of sea ice demolition for the purposes of microclimatic reconditioning which fastens the overall loss of the Arctic Ocean's sea ice. On land FIPC campaign for the conservation of the Faraday's Cage beneath Greenland to keep the strength and traditional location of the Magnetic North Pole unchanged by the climatic control, lobbies for the studies of glacial earthquake monitoring on Melville Bugt coastal depression section, and prepares for submersible expeditions to study the ancient towns that became flooded when the last ice age ended if the settlements were abandoned gradually or suddenly. FIPC plan research to resolve whether the last ice age ended gradually by ice melting, or catastrophic ice sheet slides. No person involved with FIPC will receive money as a remuneration all the work is on voluntary basis. ********************************************************************* The Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign has been nominated to the international Nanak Prize by: Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, science director of the Eden project Cornwall and previously the director Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, London; Dr. Steve Kadivar, a former lecturer at Stanford University environmental engineering and University of California, Berkeley, this nomination endorsed by Lord Swift of Windsor; Joel Yoyo, PhD expert in ancient linguistics and lexicography of African and Middle Eastern languages; Professor Gary Chartier of La Sierra University, School of Law, and Matti Lappalainen, Finnish Councillor of State on Environment, limnologist. ############################################################# The information contained herein is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any alteration, distribution, copying or re-use of this information is not permitted without the express consent of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans (FIPC) 44 7794 981238 and destroy this message. ############################################################# This message has been scanned by McAfee Anti-Virus for Microsoft Hotmail. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Are you the Quizmaster? [8]Play BrainBattle with a friend now! ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Do you know a place like the back of your hand? Share local knowledge with [9]BackOfMyHand.com ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Are you the Quizmaster? [10]Play BrainBattle with a friend now! -- [11]Support Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth Limited - Company No 1012357 Friends of the Earth Trust - Company No 1533942 Registered Charity No 281681 Registered Office - 26 - 28 Underwood Street, London. N1 7JQ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\GLOBAL_TEMPERATURE_UP_UNTIL_2014[1].doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\GLOBAL_TEMPERATURE_UP_UNTIL_2014__JOHN_B_DAVIES[1].doc" 4895. 2007-11-30 13:30:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David Sexton" , "Geoff Jenkins" , "Phil Jones" date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:30:24 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: Note of Defra meeting with Lenny Smith to: "C G Kilsby" Dear All, In Spain, back in Monday. A few initial thoughts interspersed. Phil > Geoff, Phil, David > > Rather concerned at the tone of this note (which may or may not be a > good record of meeting etc.) > > 1. "senior members in both MOHC and UKCIP (John Mitchell and Roger > Street) had serious concerns with the validity of the underlying > modelling for UKCIP08" . Really? I know John has piped up > belatedly, but not Roger! John belatedly, but he's fully behind the project. Surprised that DW and KH didn't correct this point re Roger. > > 2. "LS warned that if not given a chance before the launch of UKCIP08 to > feed in his views to tone down the deliverables, he would criticise the > UKCIP08 methodology in the scientific literature after launch. " > Sounds like blackmail to me, or at least a clumsy attempt to get funding > (see later...) This is the essence of conversations I had with Lenny. He went further to say that if he didn't get anything, he would react more strongly. It does seem like blackmail. > > 3. "LS had been asked to produce a worked example on how not to use the > weather generator." I think we would like to see this first! He said he would do this, when he sees the guidance material. > > 4. "He also felt that the utility of the weather generator was being > over-emphasised before release. He highlighted text from the UKCIP08 > website ;"The weather generator will allow future time daily (and > sub-daily) weather to be simulated, which will be of use to any user who > is interested in daily weather variables, thresholds and sequences or > extreme events" as being over-promising. " > > I agree this is actually rather loose, and could be "over-promising" ! Just shows we will have to be very careful with the wording. This is partly why I suggested a meeting to go through the guidance material before it goes out beyond the SG. In a way, we need to go through this line by line like the IPCC SPM is gone through. > > > 5. "LS in particular pointed to the 5km. resolution of the WG as being > too high to be justifiable given the spatial quality of the actual data. > " > > I thought Phil had dealt with this - the spatial quality of the > climatological means does support 5km res, and in fact I would argue > strongly that for e.g. temperature or rainfall, where strongly > topogaphically influenced, you bring in more error by decreasing > resolution! The change factors of course are not resolved to 5km, but > this is still a coherent strategy of "downscaling" which is well > established worldwide! This all relates to how we describe what we've done. We're doing things consistently across the domain. If we don't do this, then people will go ahead and do it themselves. We are doing the whole community a service - in a consistent way. This aspect needs to come across somewhere. > > Engagement with Lenny (and I had not been aware, but also DS and any > other vested interest critics) may well be best earlier rather than > later, but not at the expense of delivery and not on their terms as > intimated in this note! > > Chris > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) > [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] > Sent: 29 November 2007 16:37 > To: Ag Stevens; Anna Steynor; Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian > (CEOSA); C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham; David Sexton; Geoff Jenkins; > Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Kevin Marsh; Mark Elkington; Philip James; > Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Sue Latham > Subject: Note of Defra meeting with Lenny Smith > > > > Dear all, > > I thought it would be good to send round a quick note of the > meeting between David Warrilow, me and Lenny Smith/David Stainforth > earlier in the week so you can reference against any conversations you > have had with them. David is considering whilst in Bali if he wants to > have any further meetings on the modelling behind UKCIP08 (for example, > Geoff has suggested that maybe he could have a discussion with John > Mitchell and Brian Hoskins to go through some of the concerns raised in > the note attached). > > Pls note that this record has not been cleared by David as yet, > so do not take it as a formal note. If he makes any changes I'll send > round an updated version. > > Kind Regards, > > Kathryn > > <<2007-11-29 Meeting Between David Warrilow and Lenny > Smith.doc>> > Kathryn Humphrey > Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Team, Defra > Zone 3F Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 3JR > tel 0207 238 3362 fax 0207 238 3341 > > Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) > > This email and any attachments is intended for the named > recipient only. > If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, > disclose, > store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and > inform > the sender. > Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been > checked > for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no > responsibility once it has left our systems. > Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored > and/or > recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for > other > lawful purposes. > > 4709. 2007-12-03 08:40:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:40:01 +0800 from: subject: RE: CRUTEM data set to: Thanks Phil - much appreciated. Best Regards John John Church Development Leader Seria North Flank Tel : +673-3374745 E-mail : j.church@shell.com -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 30 November 2007 21:57 To: Church, John BSP-DPE/5 Subject: RE: CRUTEM data set John, Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. The IPCC WG1 Report is on the Boulder web site of Wg1. You need Ch 3. Paper is too large to eamil - even if I was in Norwich. Can be got from AGU site - if you have a subscription. There are no corrections/adjustments for urbanization applied. We have removed a few stations (~50) which were badly affected. Most are in the USA. How we allow for urbanization is described in the paper. It is done by expanding the error range - one-sidedly. There are several papers in th IPCC WG1 Ch3 that show that urbanization isn't an issue. They are referred to. We are essentially following the conclusions of a paper from 1990. Papers by David Parker (2004,2006), Peterson (US work) and Jones et al. (1990). I am working on a paper looking for urbanization effects in China. If I plot eastern Chinese land temps vs HadSST2 for the seas just east/SE of China, they have hardly any difference in trends. This is despite some Chinese work showing there is a big effect. There are loads of site moves at Chinese sites, which you need to take into account. IN China also there are no rural sites - by western standards. Finally I wouldn't put any faith in talks you might have heard that say you can show urban trends by looking at NCEP data. Read this paper to find out why Simmons, A.J., P.D. Jones, V. da Costa Bechtold, A.C.M. Beljaars, P.W. Kllberg, S. Saarinen, S.M. Uppala, P. Viterbo and N. Wedi, 2004: Comparison of trends and low-frequency variability in CRU, ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR analyses of surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D24115, doi:10.1029/2004JD006306. Again this is too large to email. I don't have it with me either. I may be able to squeeze this one into an email when back next week. Cheers Phil > Phil > Thanks for yur speedy reply. Much appreciated. Is it possible you can > give me the links to the references you describe below ? > > Also just to clarify - ther are NO CORRECTIONS applied to the land based > CRUTEM data set ? On any global locations ? So the question is : how do > you take account of urbanisation in these temperatures measurements ? > > Thanks > John > > > > John Church > Development Leader Seria North Flank > Tel : +673-3374745 > E-mail : j.church@shell.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 29 November 2007 02:16 > To: Church, John BSP-DPE/5 > Subject: Re: CRUTEM data set > > > > John, > In Spain. The details should be in Brohan et al. (2006) > in JGR. > No corrections are applied. The error range (one sided) > gets enlarged by the amount that is given in the paper > and also in Ch 3 of AR4. Error range is just for the SH, NH > and global - it may be in locally at each grid box, but > it will be exactly the same. Nothing depends on location. > > Back in Norwich on Monday. > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Phil >> I was given your e-mail address byt someone in the UK Met office. I had >> a >> query about the corrections that are applied to the land based datasets >> to >> account for the 'urban heat island' effect..... >> >> Given that the dataset is global (various countries etc) I was curious >> as >> to how this is done, what are the error bars around the corrections. >> Are >> the corrections standard or is there varying error bars depending on >> where >> the measurement is taken. >> >> Thanks for any insights. >> >> Regards >> John Church >> >> >> >> John Church >> Development Leader Seria North Flank >> Tel : +673-3374745 >> E-mail : j.church@shell.com >> >> > > > > 2888. 2007-12-03 13:06:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Phil Jones'" date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:06:46 +0100 from: "Heinz Wanner" subject: AW: Wengen paper to: "'Thorsten Kiefer'" , "'Keith Briffa'" , "'Tim Osborn'" , "'Caspar Ammann'" Dear Thorsten, thank you very much for your initiative. It is important to react immediately because of the future financial support! This is also crucial for the PAGES/CLIVAR process. Very best regards, Heinz ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Thorsten Kiefer [mailto:thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch] Gesendet: Montag, 3. Dezember 2007 12:56 An: Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Caspar Ammann Cc: Phil Jones; Heinz Wanner Betreff: Fwd: Wengen paper Dear Keith, Tim, Caspar, please see below the note of Larry Williams. The situation with this paper is getting extremely uncomfortable! So I hope that you will be able to act NOW to get this done and avoid further damage. Please coordinate with Phil. Best regards, Thorsten Begin forwarded message: From: "Williams, Larry" <[1]LJWILLIA@epri.com> Date: 1 December 2007 00:07:37 GMT+01:00 To: <[2]kiefer@pages.unibe.ch> Subject: Wengen paper Thorsten, How goes the Wengen paper? I am guessing that you would have told me if it were completed and submitted. If it is close to that goal please convey to the authors that we are getting close to my final deadline. All I need is evidence that the paper was completed and submitted to a journal--it doesn't even have to be accepted-just submitted. I will need a copy of the paper and submission letter - electronic copies of paper and submission letter are fine. It would be nice but not mandatory to have this in December. January is ok. Then I start getting really nervous. Thanks, Larry Larry Williams Electric Power Research Institute Office: 650-855-2695 Fax: 650-855-1069 [3]ljwillia@epri.com 2609. 2007-12-03 16:41:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:41:23 -0000 from: "Lockwood, M (Mike)" subject: RE: Climate trends and variability nonsense to: "Phil Jones" I know - I teach 2 courses during semester 2 at Southampton so right now I'm in the relatively free phase (doesn't feel like that tho'!) and will be inundated from Feb onwards thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 03 December 2007 16:38 To: Lockwood, M (Mike) Subject: Re: Climate trends and variability nonsense Mike, Will try and respond soon, but time quite limited this week. Problem of working in a Uni and being away last week. Cheers Phil At 14:55 03/12/2007, you wrote: > Phil > >A few bits of very light very easy bedtime reading for you > > >Firstly, The Royal Society publishing folk were quite shocked to find >out - to use your phrase - what its like to publish on climate change >nowadays. So they invited me to write an editorial. The file >Lockwood_comment.doc contains a first stab at this. In it I think that >I've borrowed the above phrase already. Any comments are most welcome - >but I did wonder if anything you've had to deal with could/should be >added and I'd be happy to share co-authorship. Have a think about it. > >They are also going to let me use the attached "Paper 2" and "Paper 3" >as a way of countering some of the blogosphere nonsense that has >appeared - particularly from Svensmark and from a pressure group in the >US. Paper 2 mainly deals with a solar issue but paper 3 may be of >greater interest to you. I'll attach them to the next two messages. >Again comments are most welcome. > >Cheers >Mike > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 4244. 2007-12-03 20:00:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Andy Buddington" date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:00:29 -0600 from: "George Stone" subject: Invited paper for 2008 GSA symposium (Houston) to: "Phil Jones" Dear Dr. Jones, Andy Buddington and I have organized a proposal for a symposium at the Houston GSA next October (5-9). The title of the proposed session is Global Warming Science: Implications for Geoscientists, Educators, and Policy Makers (please see attachment). You were highly recommended to us by Joe Koch. As noted in the proposal rationale, the principal goal of this session is to provide geoscientists and geoscience educators reviews of hard science that document global warming and its current and projected impacts, and clarify policy implications for mitigation and adaptation. Through its program of authoritative papers, the session will tacitly emphasize the importance of rigorous standards of scientific objectivity. (An unstated purpose is to counter presentations of disinformation and contrarian non-science that have been foisted on GSA -- and, frankly, detracted from the Society' reputation -- the past two annual meetings!) We are greatly heartened by the enthusiastic response of our invited sponsors. Confirmed sponsors to date are the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA), and GSAs Geology and Health, Geoscience Education, and Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology divisions. Additional invited sponsors are GSAs Geology and Society Division and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT). Jim Hansen has agreed to keynote the symposium. Because of your stature and the relevance of your research, we respectfully request that you consider giving an invited paper in the proposed session. We are confident that you recognize the importance and urgency of communicating current global warming science throughout our diverse geoscience community, particularly to researchers, educators, students, and policy makers. Please let us know your initial response to our invitation at your very earliest convenience. Of course, we will be delighted if you can confirm your intention to participate, or if you can indicate tentative confirmation. We apologize for this short notice. (GSAs earlier-than-usual proposal deadline, Tuesday, December 4 -- tomorrow! -- did creep up with a rush after this years recent Denver meeting!) If you feel that you will be unable to commit at this time, we will be disappointed but certainly understanding. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yours for the betterment of GSA and the geosciences, and for a highly successful Houston meeting! Sincerely, George Stone and Andy Buddington George T. Stone, Ph.D. Instructor of Natural Science Milwaukee Area Technical College 700 West State Street, Rm. C472 Milwaukee, WI 53233-1443 (414) 297-7430 [1]stoneg@matc.edu FAX (414) 297-6329 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Proposal for a Technical Session.doc" 727. 2007-12-04 09:00:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:00:07 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis] to: Phil Jones Hey Phil, thanks--nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 graphic will be discussed in this review paper, right? Perfect, I'll let Gavin know. Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP. I don't read E&E, gives me indigestion--I don't even consider it peer-reviewed science, and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don't cite, and if journalists ask us about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor, has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda! I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here. So didn't see this recent paper, nor have I heard about the IJC paper, Christy and Spencer continue to lose more and more scientific credibility with each awful paper they publish. Gavin is planning to do something on the Loehle paper on RealClimate, I'm staying away from it. I have a revised set of hemispheric reconstructions which I'll send you soon, its basically what I showed at AGU last year. Submitted to PNAS--more soon on that, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Some text came last night from Caspar. Keith/Tim writing their parts still. I have text from Francis, so almost all here now. Still need to find some time - maybe the Christmas/New Year break here - to put it all together. There is so much else going on here at the moment with other papers, it will be hard to find some time. I wish they had all responded much sooner! As for AGU - just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine. I take it you've seen the attached in E&E. I've not heard any more from Wei-Chyung in the past couple of months. I'm working on a paper on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected. Will send for you to look over when I have it in a form that is sendable. Would appreciate your thoughts on how I will have said things. Have another awful pdf of a paper accepted in IJC !! It ws rejected by all three reviewers for GRL! It is by Douglass, Christy , Singer et al - thus you'll know what it is on. Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 02:07 04/12/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil, I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died down. seems like some time since I've heard from you. Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this? By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I've been told that the Ewing medal wouldn't be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you'd like me to investigate... thanks, mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:59:58 -0500 From: Gavin Schmidt [1] To: Michael E. Mann [2] References: [3]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@mail.skybest.com> [4]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@mail.skybest.com> [5]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@mail.skybest.com> [6]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@mail.skybest.com> [7]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@mail.skybest.com> [8]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@mail.skybest.com> [9]<3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@mail.skybest.com> [10]<475457F3.9070102@meteo.psu.edu> this reminds me. What's the status of Phil Jones and Caspar's investigation of the IPCC90 curve? Phil wanted us to hold off for some reason, but is that done with? That's a great story that needs to be told. Gavin On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 14:24, Michael E. Mann wrote: > thanks Eric, > > That's great. I've again copied in Gavin so that he has this info too. > > Will keep you in the loop! > > mike > > Eric Swanson wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > I do hope you all are able to put this all together. > > There were several comments on CA about RealClimate, suggesting that > > RC wouldn't say anything, as E&E publication has such a bad rap. > > > > Perhaps my biggest complaint was also one mentioned by another > > poster > > on CA. I don't like using a simple linear interpolation between > > data points for these series where there are many years between > > samples. > > Here's the other fellow's comments: > > > > [11] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478 > > [12] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654 > > [13] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665 > > > > I would go further than that. These data sets represent samples of > > time records. The sampling does not produce a value for a single > > year. > > Rather, each sample represents some number of years of the variable > > as averaged in the process of collecting the material to be > > analyzed. > > > > Consider an ocean sediment core, such as Keigwin's data. The > > subcores > > are sampled every 1.0 cm. Assume the material is taken with a device > > that > > collects mud from a 0.4 cm area along the core. Thus, the sample > > would > > contain 4/10 of the material deposited at that 1 cm per sample rate > > of > > change in time. If the age/depth model at that point yields a 100 > > year > > per cm rate, then the sample would represent an average over 40 > > years. > > Simple linear interpolation assumes a continuously varying change > > between > > the points, while the sampling process would give a brief 40 year > > value > > with the other 60 years being unknown. What if the entire cm of the > > core > > were analyzed? One would not know unless one had contacted each > > research > > group that did the analysis and requested more information than that > > which > > might be found in the published reports. > > > > NOTE: I looked at Keigwin's data when I wrote a comment on Loehle's > > 2004 paper > > > > Comments on "Climate change: detection and attribution of trends > > from long-term > > geologic data" by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4) (2004) > > 433-450], > > Ecological Modelling 192 (2006) 314-316 > > > > You may add my name to the list for what it's worth. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Eric Swanson > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > At 01:18 PM 12/3/07 -0500, you wrote: > > >>>> > > Eric--this is great, thanks for all of the info. I've taken > > the liberty of forwarding to Gavin, as we're thinking of > > doing an RC post on this, and this would be very useful. We > > should certainly list you as a "co-author" on this, if thats > > ok w/ you? > > > > Looking forward to hearing what else you find here! > > > > mike > > > > > > > > -- > Michael E. Mann > Associate Professor > Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) > > Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 > 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 > The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@psu.edu > University Park, PA 16802-5013 > > [15] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [16]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [17] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [18]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [19]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [20]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2798. 2007-12-04 14:35:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:35:35 +0100 from: Thorsten Kiefer subject: Re: sectoin 4 to: Phil Jones Phil, do you think that you will be able to submit in January, as Larry strongly suggested? With respect to funding perspectives, I would like to think of January as a very firm deadline. What do you think about that w.r.t. Keith/Tim and your own availability to finish the manuscript? Regards, Thorsten On 4 Dec 2007, at 13:48, Phil Jones wrote: Caspar, Thanks. Why is it that I have little time to work on this for the next couple of weeks - other things and the build up to Christmas! So, if you want to add something on the best forcing histories along with a figure then fine. A para on greenhouse gases and aerosols would be useful, if just for completeness. Need the best latest one - so Lean's latest for solar, and whatever you think the best one on volcanoes. I'd hope the latter was the one without any mention of 1259! Cheers Phil At 09:12 04/12/2007, Caspar Ammann wrote: Phil and Thorsten, here an attempt on section 4, merged with Gavins part. Note, corrected some typos and changed a few words within Gavins section. Actually, switched 4.1 and 4.2. Seem to make a bit more sense since Gavin actually writes quite a nice intro into the forcings themselves. Talking about the time evolution is then better as a next step. I'm not sure where you are with figures. But it would not hurt to show the primary time series, one for solar and one for volcanic. Maybe I should add a short paragraph on greenhouse gases? Caspar  Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [1]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 Phil and Thorsten, here an attempt on section 4, merged with Gavins part. Note, corrected some typos and changed a few words within Gavins section. Actually, switched 4.1 and 4.2. Seem to make a bit more sense since Gavin actually writes quite a nice intro into the forcings themselves. Talking about the time evolution is then better as a next step. I'm not sure where you are with figures. But it would not hurt to show the primary time series, one for solar and one for volcanic. Maybe I should add a short paragraph on greenhouse gases? Caspar Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [2]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [3]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2877. 2007-12-04 15:59:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: carl mears , Phil Jones , santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley , "Thorne, Peter" , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:59:43 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: Karl Taylor Good points, Karl. (Boy -- lucky our K/Carls have different spellings.) We can talk about this when I'm at PCMDI on Thursday. Tom. =================== Karl Taylor wrote: > Dear all, > > To expand on what Carl and Tom have said, what Douglass et al. show, I > think, is that the *mean* of model results is inconsistent with > observations above the surface, under the assumptions that > > 1) the individual models are taken as independent, and > 2) unforced variability hasn't dominated the observations. > > Note that in the models, unforced variability is not as much of an > issue because Douglass et al. have considered the ensemble mean when > more than 1 realization was available from a model and across models > the unforced variability will tend cancel out. One could look at the > inter-ensemble variations from individual models to get an idea on the > likely magnitude of unforced variability. > > Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in > fact inconsistent with the observations. If the spread of individual > model results is large enough and at least 1 model overlaps the > observations, then one cannot claim that all models are wrong, just > that the mean is biased. > > My own gut feeling is that models as a group probably do indeed have a > significant bias in simulating upper air temperature trends (but I > don't know if that has influenced the climate sensitivity in a > systematic way). As I recall, however, some individual models appear > to be reasonably consistent with observations (within likely > observational errors and variability). It remains an interesting > problem then to track down why there is a mean bias and check whether > that bias has any important implications. > > A response to Douglass et al. should certainly point out the reason > why it is appropriate to look at the range of model results for > purposes of determining whether individual models are consistent with > observations. > > cheers, > Karl > > > The observations, if > > Tom Wigley wrote: > >> All, >> >> Depends on whether the runs are independent. Are models independent? >> >> A billion runs would indeed reduce the statistical uncertainty to near >> zero. What is left (if one compared with absolutely correct observed >> data) >> is the mean model bias. >> >> Tom. >> >> ++++++++++++++++++ >> >> carl mears wrote: >> >>> Hi Ben, Phil and others >>> >>> To me, the fundamental error is 2.3.1. Expecting the observed >>> values to lie within >>> +/- 2*sigma(SE) (i.e. sigma/(sqrt(N-1)) of the distribution of N >>> model trends) is just >>> wrong. >>> If this were correct, we could just run the models a lot of times, >>> say a billion or so, and have a >>> very, very, very small sigma(SE) (assuming the sigma didn't grow >>> much) and we'd never >>> have "agreement" with anything. Absurd. >>> >>> Does IJC publish comments? >>> >>> -Carl >>> >>> At 02:09 AM 12/4/2007, Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Ben, >>>> It sure does! Have read briefly - the surface arguments are wrong. >>>> I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this >>>> one >>>> pass is awful - and IJC was improving. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> At 17:53 30/11/2007, Ben Santer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> I'm forwarding this to you in confidence. We all knew that some >>>>> journal, somewhere, would eventually publish this stuff. Turns out >>>>> that it was the International Journal of Climatology. Strengthens >>>>> the need for some form of update of the Santer et al. (2005) >>>>> Science paper. >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Benjamin D. Santer >>>>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison >>>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >>>>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 >>>>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. >>>>> Tel: (925) 422-2486 >>>>> FAX: (925) 422-7675 >>>>> email: santer1@llnl.gov >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> X-Account-Key: account1 >>>>> Return-Path: >>>>> Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) >>>>> by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; >>>>> Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:39:49 -0800 >>>>> Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83]) >>>>> by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.6 $) >>>>> with ESMTP id lAUGdl5E004790 >>>>> for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:39:48 -0800 >>>>> X-Attachments: DCPS-proofs_IJC07.pdf >>>>> X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5173"; a="21323766" >>>>> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.23,235,1194249600"; >>>>> d="pdf'?scan'208,217";a="21323766" >>>>> Received: from nsziron-1.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.81]) >>>>> by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2007 08:39:47 -0800 >>>>> X-Attachments: DCPS-proofs_IJC07.pdf >>>>> X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5173"; a="6674079" >>>>> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.23,235,1194249600"; >>>>> d="pdf'?scan'208,217";a="6674079" >>>>> Received: from smtp-nv-vip1.nytimes.com (HELO nytimes.com) >>>>> ([199.181.175.116]) >>>>> by nsziron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2007 08:39:43 -0800 >>>>> Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20071130111858.03540590@nytimes.com> >>>>> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 >>>>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500 >>>>> To: santer1@llnl.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, mears@remss.com >>>>> From: Andrew Revkin >>>>> Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of >>>>> this >>>>> singer/christy/etc effort >>>>> Mime-Version: 1.0 >>>>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; >>>>> boundary="=====================_67524015==_" >>>>> X-NYTOriginatingHost: [10.149.144.50] >>>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> for moment please do not distribute or discuss. >>>>> trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any >>>>> traction with this at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *_ ANDREW C. REVKIN >>>>> _*The New York Times / Environment >>>>> / Dot Earth Blog >>>>> 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY >>>>> 10018-1405 >>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 fax: 509/ /-357-0965 mobile: 914-441-5556 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>> University of East Anglia >>>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>> NR4 7TJ >>>> UK >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. Carl Mears >>> Remote Sensing Systems >>> 438 First Street, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 >>> mears@remss.com >>> 707-545-2904 x21 >>> 707-545-2906 (fax)) >>> >> > > > 174. 2007-12-05 11:37:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:37:40 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis] to: Phil Jones well put Phil, I think you've put your finger right on it. JGR-Atmospheres has been publishing some truly awful papers lately; we responded (Gavin, me, James Annan) to the awful Schwartz sensitivity estimate paper, but there are so many other bad papers that are appearing there (Chylak, etc.) that its just impossible to respond to them all. I hadn't seen this latest one though. McKitrick and Michaels team up again, wow! maybe McKitrick has figured ou the difference between radians and degrees this time! talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Also I see him writing things - then people saying you should write this up for a paper, as though it can be knocked up in an afternoon. He realises he can't do this - as it takes much longer. Then we wastes more and more time opening up new threads. He doesn't seem clever enough to realise this. Gavin and Rasmus have seen the attached piece of garbage! UAH is correct, therefore the land surface must be wrong. Let's adjust it for a dodgy reason - ah, it now agrees with UAH. Let's forget that the land now disagrees with the ocean surface. If only I'd thought of that first, I could have not bothered with the awful analysis. If only I'd just believed RSS in the first place. Cheers Phil At 15:16 05/12/2007, you wrote: HI Phil, thanks--thats good. Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny--w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that it compromises the integrity of his own "work" even further. He can't distance himself from E&E much as he'd like to. He also seems to be losing lots of credibility now w/ all but his most loyal followers, which is good to see... mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Yes the 1990 graphic is in an Appendix. The last few are being regularly hassled by Thorsten. The guy from EPRI (Larry) really wants something submitted soon. So working here to get something in by end of Jan. Keith is going to get it fast-tracked through the Holocene - well that's the plan. The Loehle paper is awful as you know. So is another article on the IPCC process in E&E. I did look at Climate Audit a week or two back - I got the impression that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by saying we have to be equally skeptical about them as well. Cheers Phil At 14:00 04/12/2007, you wrote: Hey Phil, thanks--nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 graphic will be discussed in this review paper, right? Perfect, I'll let Gavin know. Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP. I don't read E&E, gives me indigestion--I don't even consider it peer-reviewed science, and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don't cite, and if journalists ask us about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor, has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda! I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here. So didn't see this recent paper, nor have I heard about the IJC paper, Christy and Spencer continue to lose more and more scientific credibility with each awful paper they publish. Gavin is planning to do something on the Loehle paper on RealClimate, I'm staying away from it. I have a revised set of hemispheric reconstructions which I'll send you soon, its basically what I showed at AGU last year. Submitted to PNAS--more soon on that, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Some text came last night from Caspar. Keith/Tim writing their parts still. I have text from Francis, so almost all here now. Still need to find some time - maybe the Christmas/New Year break here - to put it all together. There is so much else going on here at the moment with other papers, it will be hard to find some time. I wish they had all responded much sooner! As for AGU - just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine. I take it you've seen the attached in E&E. I've not heard any more from Wei-Chyung in the past couple of months. I'm working on a paper on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected. Will send for you to look over when I have it in a form that is sendable. Would appreciate your thoughts on how I will have said things. Have another awful pdf of a paper accepted in IJC !! It ws rejected by all three reviewers for GRL! It is by Douglass, Christy , Singer et al - thus you'll know what it is on. Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 02:07 04/12/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil, I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died down. seems like some time since I've heard from you. Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this? By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I've been told that the Ewing medal wouldn't be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you'd like me to investigate... thanks, mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:59:58 -0500 From: Gavin Schmidt [1] To: Michael E. Mann [2] References: [3]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@mail.skybest.com> [4]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@mail.skybest.com> [5]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@mail.skybest.com> [6]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@mail.skybest.com> [7]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@mail.skybest.com> [8]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@mail.skybest.com> [9]<3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@mail.skybest.com> [10]<475457F3.9070102@meteo.psu.edu> this reminds me. What's the status of Phil Jones and Caspar's investigation of the IPCC90 curve? Phil wanted us to hold off for some reason, but is that done with? That's a great story that needs to be told. Gavin On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 14:24, Michael E. Mann wrote: > thanks Eric, > > That's great. I've again copied in Gavin so that he has this info too. > > Will keep you in the loop! > > mike > > Eric Swanson wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > I do hope you all are able to put this all together. > > There were several comments on CA about RealClimate, suggesting that > > RC wouldn't say anything, as E&E publication has such a bad rap. > > > > Perhaps my biggest complaint was also one mentioned by another > > poster > > on CA. I don't like using a simple linear interpolation between > > data points for these series where there are many years between > > samples. > > Here's the other fellow's comments: > > > > [11] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478 > > [12] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654 > > [13] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665 > > > > I would go further than that. These data sets represent samples of > > time records. The sampling does not produce a value for a single > > year. > > Rather, each sample represents some number of years of the variable > > as averaged in the process of collecting the material to be > > analyzed. > > > > Consider an ocean sediment core, such as Keigwin's data. The > > subcores > > are sampled every 1.0 cm. Assume the material is taken with a device > > that > > collects mud from a 0.4 cm area along the core. Thus, the sample > > would > > contain 4/10 of the material deposited at that 1 cm per sample rate > > of > > change in time. If the age/depth model at that point yields a 100 > > year > > per cm rate, then the sample would represent an average over 40 > > years. > > Simple linear interpolation assumes a continuously varying change > > between > > the points, while the sampling process would give a brief 40 year > > value > > with the other 60 years being unknown. What if the entire cm of the > > core > > were analyzed? One would not know unless one had contacted each > > research > > group that did the analysis and requested more information than that > > which > > might be found in the published reports. > > > > NOTE: I looked at Keigwin's data when I wrote a comment on Loehle's > > 2004 paper > > > > Comments on "Climate change: detection and attribution of trends > > from long-term > > geologic data" by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4) (2004) > > 433-450], > > Ecological Modelling 192 (2006) 314-316 > > > > You may add my name to the list for what it's worth. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Eric Swanson > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > At 01:18 PM 12/3/07 -0500, you wrote: > > >>>> > > Eric--this is great, thanks for all of the info. I've taken > > the liberty of forwarding to Gavin, as we're thinking of > > doing an RC post on this, and this would be very useful. We > > should certainly list you as a "co-author" on this, if thats > > ok w/ you? > > > > Looking forward to hearing what else you find here! > > > > mike > > > > > > > > -- > Michael E. Mann > Associate Professor > Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) > > Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 > 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 > The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@psu.edu > University Park, PA 16802-5013 > > [15] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [16]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [17] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [18]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [19]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [20] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [22]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [23] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [24]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [25]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [26]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3071. 2007-12-05 14:19:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: carl mears , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley , "Thorne, Peter" , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , peter gleckler date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:19:17 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, Just a quick response to the issue of "model weighting" which you and Carl raised in your emails. We recently published a paper dealing with the identification of an anthropogenic fingerprint in SSM/I-based estimates of total column water vapor changes. This was a true multi-model detection and attribution ("D&A") study, which made use of results from 22 different A/OGCMs for fingerprint and noise estimation. Together with Peter Gleckler and Karl Taylor, I'm now in the process of repeating our water vapor D&A study using a subset of the original 22 models. This subset will comprise 10-12 models which are demonstrably more successful in capturing features of the observed mean state and variability of water vapor and SST - particularly features crucial to the D&A problem (such as the low-frequency variability). We've had fun computing a whole range of metrics that might be used to define such a subset of "better" models. The ultimate goal is to determine the sensitivity of our water vapor D&A results to model quality. I think that this kind of analysis will be unavoidable in the multi-model world in which we now live. Given substantial inter-model differences in simulation quality, "one model, one vote" is probably not the best policy for D&A work! Once we've used Carl's method to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from the IPCC AR4 20c3m data (as described in my previous email), it should be relatively easy to do a similar "model culling" exercise with MSU T2, T4, and TLT. In fact, this is what we had already planned to do in collaboration with Carl and Frank. One key point in any model weighting or selection strategy is to avoid circularity. In the D&A context, it would be impermissible to include information on trend behavior as a criterion used for selecting "better" models. Likewise, if our interest is in assessing the statistical significance of model-versus-observed trend differences, we can't use model performance in simulating "observed" tropospheric or stratospheric trends (whatever those might be!) as a means of identifying more credible models. A further issue, of course, is that we are relying on results from fully coupled A/OGCMs, and are making trend comparisons over relatively short periods (several decades). On these short timescales, estimates of the "true" trend in response to the applied 20c3m forcings are quite sensitive to natural variability noise (as Peter Thorne's 2007 GRL paper clearly illustrates). Because of such chaotic variability, even a hypothetical model with perfect physics and forcings would yield a distribution of tropospheric temperature trends over 1979 to 1999, some of which would show larger or smaller cooling than observed. This is why it's illogical to stratify model results according to correspondence between modeled and observed surface warming - something which John Christy is very fond of doing. What we've done (in the new water vapor work described above) is to evaluate the fidelity with which the AR4 models simulate the observed mean state and variability of precipitable water and SST - not the trends in these quantities. We've looked at a model performance in a variety of different regions, and on multiple timescales. The results are fascinating, and show (at least for water vapor and SST) that every model has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. It is difficult to identify a subset of models that CONSISTENTLY does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales. My guess is that we would obtain somewhat different results for MSU temperatures - particularly for comparisons involving variability. Clearly, the absence of volcanic forcing in roughly half of the 20c3m experiments will have a large impact on the estimated variability of synthetic T4 temperatures (and perhaps even on T2), and hence on model-versus-data variability comparisons. It's also quite possible that the inclusion or absence of volcanic forcing has an impact not only on the amplitude of the variability of global-mean T4 anomalies, but also on the pattern of T4 variability. So model ranking exercises based on performance in simulating the mean state and variability of T4 and T2 may show some connection to the presence or absence of volcanic/ozone forcing. The sad thing is we are being distracted from doing this fun stuff by the need to respond to Douglass et al. That's a real shame. With best regards, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > All, > IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in > doing this > as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly > Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large backlog in > papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it would > be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear. > Better would be a submission to another journal (JGR?) which > would be quicker. This could go in before Douglass et al appeared in > print - it should be in the IJC early online view fairly soon based on > recent experiences. > A paper pointing out the issues of trying to weight models in some way > would be very beneficial to the community. AR5 will have to go down this > route at some point. How models simulate the > recent trends at the surface and in the troposphere/stratosphere and > how they might be ranked is a possibility. This could bring in the > new work Peter alludes to with the sondes. > There are also some aspects of recent surface T changes that could be > discussed as well. These relate to the growing dominance of buoy SSTs > (now 70% of the total) vs conventional ships. There is a paper in J. > Climate > accepted from Smith/Reynolds et al at NCDC, which show that buoys > could conceivably be cooler than ship-based SST by about 0.1C - meaning > that the last 5-10 years are being gradually underestimated over the > oceans. > Overlap is still too short to be confident about this, but it highlights a > major systematic change occurring in surface ocean measurements. As the > buoys are presumably better for absolute SSTs, this means models > driven with fixed SSTs should be using fields that are marginally cooler. > > And then there is the continual reference to Kalnay and Cai, when > Simmons et al (2004) have shown the problems with NCEP. It is possible > to add in the ERA-Interim analyses and operational analyses to > being results from ERA-40 up to date. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 23:40 04/12/2007, carl mears wrote: >> Karl -- thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say >> >> Some further comments..... >> >> At 02:53 PM 12/4/2007, Karl Taylor wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> 2) unforced variability hasn't dominated the observations. >> >> But on this short time scale, we strongly suspect that it has >> dominated. For example, the >> 2 sigma error bars from table 3.4, CCSP for satellite TLT are 0.18 >> (UAH) or 0.19 (RSS), larger >> than either group's trends (0.05, 0.15) for 1979-2004. These were >> calculated using a "goodness >> of linear fit" criterion, corrected for autocorrelation. This is a >> probably a reasonable >> estimate of the contribution of unforced variability to trend >> uncertainty. >> >> >> >>> Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in >>> fact inconsistent with the observations. If the spread of individual >>> model results is large enough and at least 1 model overlaps the >>> observations, then one cannot claim that all models are wrong, just >>> that the mean is biased. >> >> >> Given the magnitude of the unforced variability, I would say "the mean >> *may* be biased." You can't prove this >> with only one universe, as Tom alluded. All we can say is that the >> observed trend cannot be proven to >> be inconsistent with the model results, since it is inside their range. >> >> It we interesting to see if we can say anything more, when we start >> culling out the less realistic models, >> as Ben has suggested. >> >> -Carl >> >> >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1263. 2007-12-05 17:06:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Ag Stephens" , "Anna Steynor" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Geoff Jenkins" , "Mark Elkington" , "Richard Westaway" , "Hardy, Karl \(FM\)" , "Kay Jenkinson" , "Richard Lamb" date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:06:54 -0000 from: "Roger Street" subject: Re: UKCIP08 core brief to: "David Sexton" , "Humphrey, Kathryn \(GA\)" In the context of the core briefing, although it might be closed off, I offer the following comments that may inform its future developments: Under Key Messages Second message, last point - I would suggest "A Weather Generator tool will be available to produce daily and hourly data consistent with the probabilistic projections over land". Message identified as 6, third point - I understand that sub-surface projections will be available at grid-square scale (and may or may not be available at an aggregated level). Under Q&A Under What does "probablistic" mean in the context of UKCIP08 o Agree with David regarding not using absolute frequency. I would suggest - "Probablistic" in this case means something different from the probability you get from repeatedly rolling a set of dice for example, as the UKCIP08 probabilities are a measure..." The key difference for me is that probabilities asssociated with rolling a set of dice are based on frequency of occurrence whereas those within UKCIP08 are based on projections of occurrence as derived through the particular set of assumptions and procedures that are at the basis of UKCIP08. Under "What does UKCIP08 give me that UKCIP02 didn't? o Where there is reference to the time-slices, I would suggest "...(UKCIP02 only used three sequential time slices to cover the century)" In terms of your request for information on uses of UKCIP08, some which you may also want to consider include the following: Headline messages and maps are often used to demonstrate to board members and owners the need for more detailed consideration, as a basis for further work (e.g., when working with stakeholders and partners). These can also be used for communications to taxpayers, stakeholders and shareholders. Interpretatation as to behavioral changes being undertaken or proposed when talking to 'customers' (e.g., changes in level of services or products, withdrawal or change in availability of service or product) Customisable output o decisions related to investments (e.g., irrigation systems; changes in land-use, cropping or plant species; changes in budget to support maintenance activities. water company infrastructure) o more detailed validation of recommendations and decisions to regulators and shareholders (e.g., backing up recommendations related to proposed investments or changes in investment strategies). o basis for revised standards and regulations (e.g., built environment and concerns related to overheating). o basis for decisions related to spacial planning and flood management Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Sexton" To: "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)" Cc: "Phil Jones" ; "Ag Stephens" ; "Anna Steynor" ; "Chris Kilsby" ; "Geoff Jenkins" ; "Mark Elkington" ; "Richard Westaway" ; "Roger Street" ; "Hardy, Karl (FM)" ; "Kay Jenkinson" ; "Richard Lamb" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:15 PM Subject: RE: UKCIP08 core brief > Hi, > > sorry to be nit-picky but both types of probability are absolute. > Instead of "absolute probability" how about "frequency-based > probability" or just "probability" because the rest of the sentence > defines it. > > Cheers, David > > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:21 +0000, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Here's an updated version of the core brief based on your comments. Let >> me know if I've missed anything! (ignore spelling, grammar and numbering >> errors). >> >> Kathryn >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: 04 December 2007 10:31 >> To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); David Sexton >> Cc: Ag Stephens; Anna Steynor; Chris Kilsby; Geoff Jenkins; Mark >> Elkington; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Hardy, Karl (FM); Kay >> Jenkinson; Richard Lamb >> Subject: RE: UKCIP08 core brief >> >> >> Kathryn, >> No, it isn't! The first 2 sentences are OK, as is the last. >> The third is the crucial one. >> >> What you have is >> >> For UKCIP08, weather for future time periods is generated based on the >> probabilistic projections, so that the statistical properties are the >> same. >> >> What it needs to say is >> >> For UKCIP08, weather for future periods is generated based on >> perturbing the WG according to the probabilistic projections. >> >> A word like perturbing has to be there. The statistical >> properties of the WG get perturbed - based on the change >> factors from the probabilistic work. >> >> Can what I sent yesterday go in full into the glossary for WGs? >> >> I think the PMG will now be happy with this. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >> At 17:16 03/12/2007, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: >> >Thanks Phil. I've simplified this a bit for the core brief as if I >> give >> >"perturbations" and "trained" to a Minister they're not going to like >> >it! Is this still correct? >> > >> >Weather Generators (WGs) traditionally use existing weather data and >> >random number sampling to produce longer series of synthetic daily and >> >hourly weather data. The synthetic sequences will have similar >> >statistical properties as the observed data on which they are trained. >> >For UKCIP08, weather for future time periods is generated based on the >> >probabilistic projections, so that the statistical properties are the >> >same. The weather variables generated are: precipitation, mean >> >temperature, diurnal temperature range, sunshine duration, vapour >> >pressure and wind speed, as well as derived (from the above variables) >> >estimates of potential evapotranspiration and direct and diffuse >> >radiation. >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: 03 December 2007 16:36 >> >To: David Sexton >> >Cc: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Ag Stephens; Anna Steynor; Chris Kilsby; >> >Geoff Jenkins; Mark Elkington; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Hardy, >> >Karl (FM); Kay Jenkinson; Richard Lamb >> >Subject: Re: UKCIP08 core brief >> > >> > >> > David et al, >> > I thought this bit of text had almost been signed off !! Anyway >> >you raise a good point. >> > >> > So how's about this - for the glossary, and for Kathryn to add the >> >UKCIP08 core brief. >> > >> > Weather Generator: Weather Generators (WGs) traditionally use >> >existing >> > weather data and random number sampling to produce longer series of >> >synthetic daily >> > and hourly weather data. The synthetic sequences will have similar >> >statistical >> > properties as the observed data on which they are trained. For >> >UKCIP08, weather for future time >> > periods is generated based on perturbations to the precipitation >> >and temperature >> > parameters of the WG where the perturbations are sampled from >> >probabilistic projections >> > of these key driving parameters . The weather variables generated >> >are: precipitation, >> > mean temperature, diurnal temperature range, sunshine duration, >> >vapour pressure and >> > wind speed, as well as derived (from the above variables) estimates >> >of potential evapotranspiration >> > and direct and diffuse radiation. >> > >> > This is essentially David's option 1, but I've been much more >> >specific as to which >> > parameters are perturbed in the WG. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >At 14:20 03/12/2007, David Sexton wrote: >> > >Sorry to be pain. Can I propose a tweak to the following wording. >> > > >> > >On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:25 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: >> > > > Weather Generator: Weather Generators (WGs) traditionally use >> > > > existing >> > > > weather data and random number sampling to produce longer series >> of >> > > > synthetic daily >> > > > and hourly weather data. The synthetic sequences will have >> similar >> > > > statistical >> > > > properties as the actual data on which they are trained. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > For UKCIP08, weather for future >> > > > time periods is generated based on perturbations to the internal >> > > > parameters of the WG >> > > > derived from changes in the probabilistic daily PDFs. >> > > >> > >I don't really understand last part of above sentence, partly because >> I >> > >think daily PDFs are PDFs for each day, and using both probabilistic >> >and >> > >PDFs is a tautology, and I am not sure what changes in PDFs means, >> and >> >I >> > >am not sure if perturbations refers to change factors or different >> >model >> > >variants. So how about... >> > > >> > >For UKCIP08, weather for future time periods is generated based on >> > >perturbations to the driving parameters of the WG where the >> > >perturbations are sampled from probabilistic projections of those >> > >driving parameters. >> > > >> > >OR >> > > >> > >For UKCIP08, weather for future time periods is generated by first >> > >calculating probabilistic projections of the driving parameters of >> the >> > >WG and then sampling these several times and using them to drive >> >several >> > >WG series. >> > > >> > > >> > >I admit it is tricky but hopefully you can see what I am getting at. >> > > >> > >Cheers, David >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > The weather variables generated are: >> > > > precipitation, mean temperature, diurnal temperature range, >> >sunshine >> > > > duration, vapour pressure >> > > > and wind speed, as well as derived (from the above variables) >> > > > estimates of potential >> > > > evapotranspiration and direct and diffuse radiation. >> > >-- >> > >David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist >> > >Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK >> > >Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 >> > >E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk >> > >> >Prof. Phil Jones >> >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> >University of East Anglia >> >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> >NR4 7TJ >> >UK >> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >---- >> >Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) >> > >> >This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient >> only. >> >If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, >> disclose, >> >store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform >> >the sender. >> >Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked >> >for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no >> >responsibility once it has left our systems. >> >Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or >> >recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other >> >lawful purposes. >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >> > -- > David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > 1982. 2007-12-06 10:48:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , carl mears , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley , "Thorne, Peter" , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , peter gleckler date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:48:26 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: Dian Seidel Dear Dian, Thanks very much for your email. I agree that the problem of partitioning a multi-model ensemble into groups that are "more reliable" and "less reliable" for some specific application is a difficult one. Our recent PNAS water vapor paper provided much of the motivation for our new work on "model culling". The PNAS paper was our first attempt to use data from a large multi-model ensemble in a formal, pattern-based detection and attribution (D&A) study. It was obvious from this initial research that some models systematically underestimated the amplitude of month-to-month and year-to-year variability in < Wo > (the spatial average of total column water vapor over near-global oceans; see Figures 3A and 3B from our PNAS paper). Other model overestimated the amplitude of < Wo > variability by a factor of 2-3. Since model-based noise estimates from long control integrations were an integral part of our D&A study (and of any D&A study), the model variability errors led to persistent questions about the sensitivity of D&A results to "model quality". At almost every presentation that I gave on this stuff, I was asked, "What happens if you repeat the entire D&A analysis with a subset of the 22 original models - a subset which performs better in simulating the observed low-frequency variability of < Wo >? Do you still obtain detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in the SSM/I data" This is a tough question to answer, particularly given the short length (20 years) of the SSM/I water vapor data. However, we do know that there's a fairly tight coupling (at least over fairly large space and time scales) between variability in tropical SSTs and variability in total column water vapor (see Fig. 3C in our PNAS paper). So in our "model culling" work, we've looked at BOTH SST and water vapor data - not at water vapor data only. Given the availability of observational SST records that are significantly longer than the SSM/I water vapor record, we've been able to look at the fidelity with which models simulate the observed decadal-timescale SST variability (both in terms of the amplitude and pattern) in a variety of different regions (AMO, PDO, tropical oceans, various NINO regions, etc.) We've also considered how well models simulate the observed climatological annual-mean mean patterns of SST and water vapor, as well as the spatial patterns of the climatological seasonal cycle. As you noted, the variability information is not totally orthogonal from information about the amplitude of the response to anthropogenic forcing (see, e.g., an early paper on this subject by Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper in Nature in 1990). But it's clearly important to include some form of variability information in the "model culling" exercise, since we are using model-based natural variability estimates to determine the statistical significance of D&A results. Use of information on the mean state alone would be inadequate. Some AR4 models still use flux correction, and so do a relatively good job in capturing the mean state of SST and water vapor, but have significant problems in their representation of variability. What we are finding so far is that there are "horses for courses". As I mentioned yesterday, there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we've applied. If we looked at a completely different application, as you suggested (such as a D&A study involving storm tracks or cloud cover), I strongly suspect we'd arrive at a very different model ranking. With best regards, Ben Dian Seidel wrote: > Hello Ben and Colleagues, > > I've been following these exchanges with interest. One particular point > in your message below is a little puzzling to me. That's the issue of > trying to avoid circularity in the culling of models for any given D&A > study. > Two potential problems occur to me. One is that choosing models on the > basis of their fidelity to observed regional and short term variability > may not be completely orthogonal to choosing based on long-term trend. > That's because those smaller scale changes may contribute to the trends > and their patterns. Second, choosing a different set of models for one > variable (temperature) than for another (humidity) seems highly > problematic. If we are interested in projections of other variables, > e.g. storm tracks or cloud cover, for which D&A has not been done, which > group of models would we then deem to be most credible? I don't have a > good alternative to propose, but, in light of these considerations, > maybe one-model-one-vote doesn't appear so unreasonable after all. > > With regards, > Dian > > Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear Phil, >> >> Just a quick response to the issue of "model weighting" which you and >> Carl raised in your emails. >> >> We recently published a paper dealing with the identification of an >> anthropogenic fingerprint in SSM/I-based estimates of total column >> water vapor changes. This was a true multi-model detection and >> attribution ("D&A") study, which made use of results from 22 different >> A/OGCMs for fingerprint and noise estimation. Together with Peter >> Gleckler and Karl Taylor, I'm now in the process of repeating our >> water vapor D&A study using a subset of the original 22 models. This >> subset will comprise 10-12 models which are demonstrably more >> successful in capturing features of the observed mean state and >> variability of water vapor and SST - particularly features crucial to >> the D&A problem (such as the low-frequency variability). We've had fun >> computing a whole range of metrics that might be used to define such a >> subset of "better" models. The ultimate goal is to determine the >> sensitivity of our water vapor D&A results to model quality. I think >> that this kind of analysis will be unavoidable in the multi-model >> world in which we now live. Given substantial inter-model differences >> in simulation quality, "one model, one vote" is probably not the best >> policy for D&A work! >> >> Once we've used Carl's method to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures >> from the IPCC AR4 20c3m data (as described in my previous email), it >> should be relatively easy to do a similar "model culling" exercise >> with MSU T2, T4, and TLT. In fact, this is what we had already planned >> to do in collaboration with Carl and Frank. >> >> One key point in any model weighting or selection strategy is to avoid >> circularity. In the D&A context, it would be impermissible to include >> information on trend behavior as a criterion used for selecting >> "better" models. Likewise, if our interest is in assessing the >> statistical significance of model-versus-observed trend differences, >> we can't use model performance in simulating "observed" tropospheric >> or stratospheric trends (whatever those might be!) as a means of >> identifying more credible models. >> >> A further issue, of course, is that we are relying on results from >> fully coupled A/OGCMs, and are making trend comparisons over >> relatively short periods (several decades). On these short timescales, >> estimates of the "true" trend in response to the applied 20c3m >> forcings are quite sensitive to natural variability noise (as Peter >> Thorne's 2007 GRL paper clearly illustrates). Because of such chaotic >> variability, even a hypothetical model with perfect physics and >> forcings would yield a distribution of tropospheric temperature trends >> over 1979 to 1999, some of which would show larger or smaller cooling >> than observed. This is why it's illogical to stratify model results >> according to correspondence between modeled and observed surface >> warming - something which John Christy is very fond of doing. >> >> What we've done (in the new water vapor work described above) is to >> evaluate the fidelity with which the AR4 models simulate the observed >> mean state and variability of precipitable water and SST - not the >> trends in these quantities. We've looked at a model performance in a >> variety of different regions, and on multiple timescales. The results >> are fascinating, and show (at least for water vapor and SST) that >> every model has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. It is >> difficult to identify a subset of models that CONSISTENTLY does well >> in many different regions and over a range of different timescales. >> >> My guess is that we would obtain somewhat different results for MSU >> temperatures - particularly for comparisons involving variability. >> Clearly, the absence of volcanic forcing in roughly half of the 20c3m >> experiments will have a large impact on the estimated variability of >> synthetic T4 temperatures (and perhaps even on T2), and hence on >> model-versus-data variability comparisons. It's also quite possible >> that the inclusion or absence of volcanic forcing has an impact not >> only on the amplitude of the variability of global-mean T4 anomalies, >> but also on the pattern of T4 variability. So model ranking exercises >> based on performance in simulating the mean state and variability of >> T4 and T2 may show some connection to the presence or absence of >> volcanic/ozone forcing. >> >> The sad thing is we are being distracted from doing this fun stuff by >> the need to respond to Douglass et al. That's a real shame. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> All, >>> IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in >>> doing this >>> as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly >>> Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large >>> backlog in >>> papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it >>> would >>> be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear. >>> Better would be a submission to another journal (JGR?) which >>> would be quicker. This could go in before Douglass et al appeared in >>> print - it should be in the IJC early online view fairly soon based on >>> recent experiences. >>> A paper pointing out the issues of trying to weight models in some >>> way >>> would be very beneficial to the community. AR5 will have to go down >>> this >>> route at some point. How models simulate the >>> recent trends at the surface and in the troposphere/stratosphere and >>> how they might be ranked is a possibility. This could bring in the >>> new work Peter alludes to with the sondes. >>> There are also some aspects of recent surface T changes that could be >>> discussed as well. These relate to the growing dominance of buoy SSTs >>> (now 70% of the total) vs conventional ships. There is a paper in J. >>> Climate >>> accepted from Smith/Reynolds et al at NCDC, which show that buoys >>> could conceivably be cooler than ship-based SST by about 0.1C - meaning >>> that the last 5-10 years are being gradually underestimated over the >>> oceans. >>> Overlap is still too short to be confident about this, but it >>> highlights a >>> major systematic change occurring in surface ocean measurements. As the >>> buoys are presumably better for absolute SSTs, this means models >>> driven with fixed SSTs should be using fields that are marginally >>> cooler. >>> >>> And then there is the continual reference to Kalnay and Cai, when >>> Simmons et al (2004) have shown the problems with NCEP. It is possible >>> to add in the ERA-Interim analyses and operational analyses to >>> being results from ERA-40 up to date. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 23:40 04/12/2007, carl mears wrote: >>>> Karl -- thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say >>>> >>>> Some further comments..... >>>> >>>> At 02:53 PM 12/4/2007, Karl Taylor wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> 2) unforced variability hasn't dominated the observations. >>>> >>>> But on this short time scale, we strongly suspect that it has >>>> dominated. For example, the >>>> 2 sigma error bars from table 3.4, CCSP for satellite TLT are 0.18 >>>> (UAH) or 0.19 (RSS), larger >>>> than either group's trends (0.05, 0.15) for 1979-2004. These were >>>> calculated using a "goodness >>>> of linear fit" criterion, corrected for autocorrelation. This is a >>>> probably a reasonable >>>> estimate of the contribution of unforced variability to trend >>>> uncertainty. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in >>>>> fact inconsistent with the observations. If the spread of >>>>> individual model results is large enough and at least 1 model >>>>> overlaps the observations, then one cannot claim that all models >>>>> are wrong, just that the mean is biased. >>>> >>>> >>>> Given the magnitude of the unforced variability, I would say "the >>>> mean *may* be biased." You can't prove this >>>> with only one universe, as Tom alluded. All we can say is that the >>>> observed trend cannot be proven to >>>> be inconsistent with the model results, since it is inside their range. >>>> >>>> It we interesting to see if we can say anything more, when we start >>>> culling out the less realistic models, >>>> as Ben has suggested. >>>> >>>> -Carl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1267. 2007-12-06 10:49:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:49:05 -0500 from: Andrew Revkin subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Dot Earth: Climate Panel May Not Have Time to to: Phil Jones , revkin@nytimes.com don't suppose you'd be willing to post that as a comment, phil?? : ) would help jog folks a bit. At 10:37 AM 12/6/2007, Phil Jones wrote: Andy, You hit the nail on the head in your last few sentences. There will be less science done on climate change if govts of the world ask for another review. Hardly any of the scientists who did the last one will want to do it again. Also the conclusions aren't going to change. This talk just seems like a delaying tactic to put off decisions till a later date. The message isn't going to change. It's about time they started doing something as opposed to talking about it. The issue isn't like most normal things they deal with. Let's set up a committee and wait for it to report. The issue might then go away and our electorate think we're doing something. They have the report now - 2007 - they need to act. Cheers Phil At 15:18 06/12/2007, you wrote: [] [1]The New York Times E-mail This This page was sent to you by: revkin@nytimes.com Message from sender: Don't spend too much time in those tuxedos, all ye Nobelists. SCIENCE | December 6, 2007 [2]Dot Earth: Climate Panel May Not Have Time to Celebrate Andrew C. Revkin Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary managing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, gave his latest update to the press today in Bali on negotiations over next steps under that faltering 1992 climate treaty. Some excerpts are here: Among other things, he said, several countries suggested that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which [...] [] [] Most E-mailed 1. [3]Op-Ed Columnist: Intercepting Irans Take on America 2. [4]Mind: Unhappy? Self-Critical? Maybe Youre Just a Perfectionist 3. [5]A Liquor of Legend Makes a Comeback 4. [6]Well: Aspergers Syndrome Gets a Very Public Face 5. [7]Study Shows Why the Flu Likes Winter [8]Go to Complete List [9]Copyright 2007 [10]The New York Times Company | [11]Privacy Policy Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [12]ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment / [13]Dot Earth [14]Blog 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018-1405 phone: 212-556-7326 fax: 509 -357-0965 mobile: 914-441-5556 1703. 2007-12-06 13:48:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:48:49 +0100 from: Rasmus Benestad subject: Re: Apologies fro spoiling your day! to: Phil Jones Hi, I have made a stab at drafting an RC-post. If you wish or have time to comment it, I'd be happy to get some feedback... Cheers! Rasmus Phil Jones wrote: > > Rasmus, > > 1 site on Svalbard > > Just sent this to someone else. > > If you redid this analysis with RSS it would all likely go away! > > Cheers > Phil > > > Did I say JGR would be a better outlet for a paper ! I thought it was a > good journal with sound refereeing! Just been sent the attached by a > journalist. No idea when it is coming out - but it seems as though it has > passed their peer review. > I know they have done this sort of thing before, but they weren't in > very good > journals. > > Basic premise - let's find a way to adjust the surface and we'll > sort of > hope we'll get something like the UAH MSU distribution of trends. > > When reading it, you may be saying to yourself - I don't recall > that paper > coming to this or that conclusion. You will be right - the papers don't. > Seems as though you can fool at least 3 reviewers, by adding in token > references for totally invalid reasons. > > Although it will make no difference if they had used a more up to date > reference, the three lines at the start of paragraph starting on p15. > It is > good to remember and occasionally reference Roy Jenne, but his being > the latest source they could find for the mean pressure in each grid cell > has to be a wind up! Did they not consider NCEP - they refer to > Kalnay and Cai copiously. Then there is ERA-40, HadSLP2. Can anybody > think of a pressure climatology before Jenne (1974)! > > Oh yes - when saying that the land temperature trends have to be > reduced (to remove these extraneous effects) did they ever consider > what the ocean (particularly the tropical ones) has done over the same > period. Of course not!! > > Seems no mention of RSS - or uncertainty in the MSU measurements. > > > At 13:18 05/12/2007, you wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> Thanks. I received a copy from Gavin, and plan to write a RealClimate >> post to it for starters. It provides a good opportunity to rip into >> their response in CR on my criticism (which was even more extreme). No >> need to appologise, as you didn't manage to spoil my day after all :-). >> >> By the way, how many series did you use for Svalbard in the gridded data? >> >> Cheers! >> >> Rasmus >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Rasmus, >>> Apparently this paper is coming out in JGR - >>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> Can't express my feelings without invoking the mood aspects of the >>> emailer. >>> There is just so much wrong with it, it is laughable. >>> They appear to be sending it around to journalists. No idea when it's >>> coming out. JGR has gone downhill by several steps! >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t.pdf" 3250. 2007-12-07 10:08:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:08:40 +0000 (GMT) from: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov subject: McK & Michaels to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi, Phil, Yesterday Chris F. asked me to talk to David P. about a response to McK & Michaels that Chris thought you and David and perhaps me should be writing. I'd love to be involved, but I doubt if I would have enough free time during the next 6 months to contribute significantly. David didn't seem certain that he'd be involved. So I thought I should pass on a few ideas I had for your consideration (I won't feel hurt if you toss out all of them). The bottom of page 14 says that de Laat and Maurellis (2004, 2006) have presented evidence that even MSU data exhibit some contamination by socioeconomic activity, so this first suggestion might not be helpful even though in the conclusions they write that "economic activity have significant explanatory power on the pattern of trends published climatic data measured at the Earth's surface, but not in trends measured in the lower part of the atmosphere". My first suggestion is to compare MSU TLT trends with sfc trends spatially to show how similar the patterns are. The second was to run a climate model driven solely by observed SSTs. Obviously, observed SSTs aren't influenced by the spatial distribution of world economies. So if the model reproduces most of the spatial features of observed land surface warming it would show local economies aren't driving the obs. The third would be to do a simple economy - MSU stratospheric temp spatial correlation. The farther we go away from the sfc, the harder it is for even unreasonable people to think the relationship is causal. Lastly, one might try normalizing all the trends based on the grid box variability. As I recall, you did this many years ago and on a normalized basis warming in the tropics shows up more while northern warming decreases. This makes sense to me as I recently normalized summer and winter changes in extremes for North America and they both show about the same amount of warming. The point I'm making by that in my paper is that it is not surprising that the most warming is occurring where the variability is greatest (as Fred Singer once implied that to me). The problem would then be explaining the meaning of normalized results and relevance to economic analyses. Anyway, those are my specific thoughts. It does seem like someone needs to write a paper on the topic in general to give clear scientific support for positions IPCC, etc., have to take ignoring such nonsense. I'd enjoy helping as time permits. But I'd also be happy to just sit back and wait for your to publish a paper on it. Warm regards from soggy Exeter (I'm leaving the Met Office at 1PM today), Tom 2423. 2007-12-07 23:48:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: carl mears , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , Phil Jones , Steve Klein , Steven Sherwood , "Thorne, Peter" , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 23:48:07 -0500 from: John Lanzante subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: santer1@llnl.gov, John Lanzante Dear Ben and All, Since I've been on travel for most of this week I haven't been able to focus on the various emails that have been flying to and fro. Now that I've returned, processing them collectively, things seem to be boiling down to several distinct issues (then again, maybe it's just exhaustion from not having gotten much sleep the last few days!). I think it's important to separate out two issues (perhaps this is something akin to optimal detection by rotating away from either scientific or political space). I think it's very important to separate as much as possible the scientific and political responses. Regarding the political aspect, there are few certainties in life, but the fact that no matter how rationally and exhaustively we respond as scientists, the contrarians are going to come back at us with half-truths, distortions, cherry-picking of facts, etc. is probably as certain as it gets. When Charlie Brown goes up to kick the football, Lucy is most surely going to pull it away at the last second. So I suggest that we carefully consider 2 separate activities: (1) the political response to the recent contrarian paper(s) (2) the scientific response to new developments in the field. I don't think it is very fruitful to get worked up into a frenzy in an attempt to deal with (1) in a largely scientific way. The fact is, prior to CCSP SAP1.1 Santer et al. (2005), and other contemporary studies we had good scientific reason to believe there was no real discrepancy (sfc vs. upper warming, models vs. obs). These related studies greatly strengthened the argument, and, subsequently a number of recently published and developing works strengthen the case even more. But little of this is relevant to (1). Steve Sherwood said: > I'm not sure I agree that it's worth wasting a lot of time doing more > work and writing responses in the scientific literature, motivated only > by this, unless you think there would be real scientific value there. > But a short review piece or commentary to Science might make sense, if > they are interested in it, once there are enough new studies to include. I agree with this. I think this would be much more fruitful and timely than if a lot of new scientific work is to be done, and since in fact it is not necessary to do any new scientific work to refute what is being said. Steve Sherwood said: > I suggest disseminating this tidbit to Revkin and any other reporters we > come across. I think it qualifies as scientific fraud. Maybe we could > get the Times to do a story on that. I'm tired of this crap. To some extent I see some merit in this approach. In addition, one could point out, matter of factly, that it is rather odd that John Christy, who signed off on the conclusions of CCSP SAP1.1 as a co-author is now the co-author of a paper that contradicts SAP1.1. At the same time I think any such actions would have to be done very, very, carefully, taking the high road, and sticking to the facts as conscientiously as possible, to avoid being dragged into a mud-slinging contest. As far as (2) is concerned I would suggest thinking very carefully about what new and emerging findings are of scientific relevance and charting a strategy to exploit them. The plan that Ben laid out looks pretty good, although I haven't had the time to really ponder it as much as I'd like. I think the biggest factor is that there are new datasets, and I believe these almost universally support the contention that models and obs are not in disagreement. Dian Seidel said: > Second, choosing a different set of models for one > variable (temperature) than for another (humidity) seems highly > problematic. If we are interested in projections of other variables, > e.g. storm tracks or cloud cover, for which D&A has not been done, which > group of models would we then deem to be most credible? I don't have a > good alternative to propose, but, in light of these considerations, > maybe one-model-one-vote doesn't appear so unreasonable after all. I think the notion of selecting "good" vs. "bad" models is a very knotty one. When this issue is brought up I'm reminded of an analogy presented by my former GFDL colleague and long-time friend Tony Broccoli. During the development phase of the new GFDL modeling system (fms) a lot of diagnoses were presented on various aspects of new model configurations. Tony likened the effort to create the "best possible model" to that of packing the car for vacation (he even had cute little graphic to illustrate it). In trying to pack the car you discover that there is something that won't fit. So you remove everything from the trunk and repack so as to fit the left-out item, only to discover that now something else won't fit. One can repeat the exercise ad infinitum without resolution of the problem. What it boils down to is that if you try to "fix" a particularly deficiency in a given model, there is a non-trivial chance that you are going to degrade something else. The relevant point is that if one considers various variables, metrics, standards, etc., some models are going to be good at some things, and poorer at others. While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus. So while there may be merit in identifying and either eliminating or down-weighting models based on some criteria developed with a specific application in mind, there is probably also merit in the "one model one vote" approach. Finally, let me apologize in advance for slow responses during the next few weeks as I expect to be taking time off in perhaps a haphazard fashion, having additional "use or lose" annual leave to burn as well as the time period from Christmas to the week after New Years. Best regards, ______John 3444. 2007-12-10 13:44:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:44:21 GMT from: UKCIP (UK Climate Impacts Programme) subject: UKCIP news for December to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Colleague, 1. UKCIP08 first report launched 2. UKCIP Climate Digest 3. New report from Local Government Associations Climate Change Commission 4. Job vacancy Environment Agency, Policy Advisor 5. IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report 6. UN Climate Change Conference Bali 7. Forthcoming events 8. Happy Christmas! 1. UKCIP08 first report launched The first report of the five that will be published under the UKCIP08 umbrella, The climate of the UK and recent trends was launched by Defras Secretary of State, Hilary Benn MP, last week. This report describes observed climate in the UK, setting the scene for the other elements of UKCIP08 which will look at possible climate change for the UK over this century. To request a copy of the report, or to download an electronic version, please go to http://www.ukcip.org.uk/climate%5Fimpacts/ukciP08_Trends.asp . http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/071207a.htm 2. UKCIP Climate Digest For the latest UKCIP Climate Digest, go to http://www.ukcip.org.uk/news_dets.asp?news_id=38 for a summary of recent research from journals from November 2007. Any comments or suggestions for improvements, and any tips for additional sources of information we may have overlooked, can be sent to alex.harvey@ukcip.org.uk. The UKCIP Climate Digest online archive is available at http://www.ukcip.org.uk/resources/climate_digest.asp. 3. New report from Local Government Associations Climate Change Commission The LGAs Climate Change Commission has published a report which evaluates local governments achievements in addressing climate change and proposes further action. The Commission concluded that significant progress needs to be made in the local government response to climate change over the next two years, and the reporet suggests that few councils have begun to address adaptation to climate change. More information is available at http://campaigns.lga.gov.uk/climatechange/home/. 4. Job vacancy Environment Agency, Policy Advisor The Environment Agency is seeking a Policy Advisor to join its Climate Change Unit based in Bristol. The post will lead EAs work with local authorities and the English regions as well as provide technical advice to Head Office policy teams. The deadline for applications is the 7th January. For more details and an application pack please go to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/jobs/jobsearch/?jobtype=&contracttype=&hours=®ion=&keywords=&jobrefnum=WMEP044&search=yes&Submit=Search 5. IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has launched its Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report, providing an integrated view of climate change, based on the three IPCC reports launched earlier in the year. The full report, a summary for policy makers and other supporting material can be downloaded at http://www.ipcc.ch/. 6. UN Climate Change Conference Bali Many of the worlds environmental movers and shakers are in Bali this week, for the annual UNFCCC negotiations. Official coverage is at http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php or for what the UKs Ministers are up to http://blogs.defra.gov.uk/bali-diary/. 7. Forthcoming events * Sustaining Knowledge for a Changing Climate (SKCC) - Shaping Research for a Changing Climate, 28-29 January, West Bromwich (Booking deadline is Friday 11th January) This two-day workshop will help to shape the future of research into climate change adaptation within the UKs built environment. In anticipation of a call for proposals in spring 2008 this workshop will suggest how the new programme might be structured and what its priorities might be. The event will involve presentations and participative sessions. For more information, please see http://www.k4cc.org/ or contact graeme.sherriff@manchester.ac.uk. * Global Impacts of Climate Change: the human dimension, Ecology and Conservation Studies Society. Six free public evening lectures on Fridays, 8 February to 14 March, Birkbeck, London WC1. More information on 020 7679 1069, or e-mail: environment@fce.bbk.ac.uk. Full information will be on the Society's website early 2008 at: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ce/environment/ and follow the link to the Society page. * Ethical Corporations Climate Change Summit 2008, 12-13 February, London The event will have speakers from high profile business including: British Gas, ASDA, Vodafone, Tesco, Lehman Brothers, IBM, Timberland, Procter & Gamble, The Co-operative Group and a host of others. For more information and the latest speaker line up go to: www.ethicalcorp.com/climate/14. Queries should be made to Ekaterina Kvasova, at ekaterina.kvasova@ethicalcorp.com or on +44 (0)207 375 72 26. Attendees who quote UKCIP when booking will get an additional 150 off the conference fee. 8. Happy Christmas! What will we call a snowman by the 2080s? A puddle! Festive good wishes for a peaceful Christmas and new year from all at UKCIP. Chris West Director, UKCIP Based at the University of Oxford and funded by DEFRA, UKCIP helps organisations assess how they will be affected by climate change, so they can prepare for its impacts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UKCIP (UK Climate Impacts Programme) - http://www.ukcip.org.uk If you would like to be removed from this list, please send a message to: stephanie.ferguson@ukcip.org.uk with Unsubscribe in the subject line. Please include your address (p.jones@uea.ac.uk) as there may be several variations of it and the exact one is needed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2277. 2007-12-10 17:17:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: carl mears , Frank Wentz , Tom Wigley , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , Melissa Free , Karl Taylor , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , "Thorne, Peter" , "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:17:14 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental to: santer1@llnl.gov Dear all, I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it. In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job -- a parallel is the South Korean cloning fraud case. I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be told about this. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++ Ben Santer wrote: > Dear folks, > > I knew this would happen. In my opinion, we should respond to this > continued misrepresentation of the science sooner rather than later. > > With best regards, > > Ben > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Benjamin D. Santer > Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 > Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. > Tel: (925) 422-2486 > FAX: (925) 422-7675 > email: santer1@llnl.gov > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > [Fwd: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project] > From: > "Thomas.R.Karl" > Date: > Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:23:12 -0500 > To: > _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors > > > To: > _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors > > > > FYI --- related to trop-sfc temps > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* George Marshall Institute [mailto:info@marshall.org] > *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM > *To:* info@marshall.org > *Subject:* Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project > > */Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project/**/ /* > > **Where & When** > > *The National Press Club* > > *529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor* > > *Lisagor Room* > > *Washington, DC 20045* > > ** > > **December 14, 2007 ** > > **8am-11am ** > > ** > > *Breakfast refreshments will be served.* > > ** > > **/To RSVP, please email info@sepp.org . /** > > // > > > > You are invited to a timely breakfast briefing > > on December 14, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. at the National Press Club, > organized by > > The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). > > As Al Gore collects his Nobel Prize and 15,000(more or less) in Bali > struggle to find a successor regime for the ineffective and unlamented > Kyoto Protocol, an 'inconvenient truth' has emerged: > > NATURE RULES THE CLIMATE: HUMAN-PRODUCED GREENHOUSE GASES ARE NOT > RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Therefore, schemes to control CO2 > emissions are ineffective and pointless, though very costly. > > Come and listen to the authors of a peer-reviewed scientific study, > just published in the International Journal of Climatology (of the > Royal Meteorological Society), present their startling findings. > > Presenters: > > *Prof. David Douglass*, University of Rochester: GH Models clash with > best observations > > *Prof. John Christy*, University of Alabama: How GH models > overestimate GH warming > > *Prof. S. Fred Singer*, University of Virginia: Changes in solar > activity control the climate. > > I am sure you will appreciate the importance of their new result. Once > one accepts the documented evidence that CO2 is insignificant in > warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically: > > * * Unburdened by climate fears, the US can pursue a more > > rational energy policy, leading to less dependence on oil/gas > > imports. > > ** The current legislative efforts to cap CO2, or to control its > > emission in other ways, are utterly useless. > > ** Ambitious programs claiming to reduce CO2 emissions (like > > ethanol, wind power, carbon sequestration, etc.) are a > > complete waste. > > ** The EPA can now deny California's request for a waiver on > > CAFE. > > ** The EPA can now respond properly to the Supreme Court > > ruling on CO2. > > ** International negotiations can assume a different dimension. > > SEPP has reserved the Lisagor Room at the National Press Club for > Friday December 14 from 8-11 am. Breakfast will be served. > > **_Please e-mail your acceptance to info@sepp.org._** > > > > *Forward email > * > > > > This email was sent to info@marshall.org, by info@marshall.org > > > Update Profile/Email Address > > | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe > > | Privacy Policy > . > > > > Email Marketing by > > > > The George C. Marshall Institute | 1625 K St. NW Suite, 1050 | > Washington | DC | 20006 > > > -- > > *Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* > > */Director/*// > > NOAAs National Climatic Data Center > > Veach-Baley Federal Building > > 151 Patton Avenue > > Asheville, NC 28801-5001 > > Tel: (828) 271-4476 > > Fax: (828) 271-4246 > > Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov > 458. 2007-12-11 17:24:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:24:17 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: EU proposal to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,s.raper@uea.ac.uk Sushma rang me about this on Friday and Gregor later emailed me. It is possible that Cubasch may be leading things from the German side. Sushma may also talk to Goswami at IITM, Pune. And I have a potentially useful contact with WWF India in Delhi. Have not heard about any other potential consortia (e.g., from UKIERI community). Thinking back to last year's meeting in Pune, Geoff Boulton could well be interested/involved in this. Clare X-Spam-Score: -4.3 () X-Spam-Flag: No X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on cgp1.gfz-potsdam.de X-Spam-Report-Full: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-GFZ-Filter: Scanned Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:30:49 +0100 To: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk From: Sushma Prasad Subject: EU proposal X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Goodess, I recently came across an unofficial version of the EU 2008 Work programme which included a section on India. It focuses primarily on the modelling aspect but models require data as well which is scarce in this region. I was wondering if you know someone who might be interested in submitting a proposal under this programme? Our group has identified modern varved lake sediments formed by retreating glaciers. These could potentially extend the available record by several hundred years. If there is interest in the modelling community to involve palaeoclimatologists then my group would also be interested in joining such an effort. many thnaks, Sushma ******************************************************************************** ENV.2008.1.1.6.1. Impacts of Himalayan glaciers retreat and monsoon pattern change on the water resources in Northern India, and adaptation strategies The aim is to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on the spatial and temporal distribution of water resources in Northern India and to provide recommendations for appropriate response strategies. The project should study the changes under various climate change scenarios and analyse consequential impacts on water resources by integrating available climate- and hydrological data, and state-of-the art regional models. Interactions between the Indian summer monsoon and the retreat of Himalayan glaciers should be explored, particularly in relation to water resources availability at different time scales. Research should address likely consequences on important sectors (e.g. public water supply, agriculture, hydropower, human health) under different climate change scenarios, and provide suggestions for effective adaptation measures. (Specific International Co-operation Action) (Policy relevant topic) Funding scheme: collaborative projects (small or medium-scale focused research projects) Expected impact: Present and future water resources availability in Northern India is dependent upon spatial/temporal changes of the Himalayan glaciers retreat as well as changes to the Indian summer monsoon. The project will assess in detail the impacts of these changes to water resources in Northern India under different climate change scenarios and quantify the consequences to related sectors (e.g. public water supply, agriculture, health, and energy). Furthermore, and based on the analysis mentioned above, it will provide recommendations for efficient adaptation and other response strategies. I -- Dr. (Ms) Sushma Prasad Climate Dynamics and Sediments Geoforschungszentrum Telegrafenberg D 14473 Potsdam Germany e-mail: sushma@gfz-potsdam.de Ph: +49 331 2881373 fax: +49-31-2881302 Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 4568. 2007-12-12 08:50:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:50:37 -0000 from: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" subject: FW: 2007 Global Temperatures PR - final to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Hello Phil. This is the final release which the Met Office is issuing this morning. Hope this is OK with you. Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Hammond, John (Press Office) [mailto:john.c.hammond@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:07 PM To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: 2007 Global Temperatures PR - final Hi Annie Please find attached what is hopefully the final version of the PR ready for pushing out tomorrow. I will give you a call in the morning before we hit the buttons. Cheers for now, John ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) [mailto:A.Ogden@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 December 2007 14:52 To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Hammond, John (Press Office) Cc: Parker, David; Hardwick, Jen; Kennedy, John; Gromett, Barry Subject: RE: 2007 Global Temperatures PR Dear all, Have just made a couple of minor suggestions - and one bigger one! As this is a joint release, it seems a bit unbalanced to have three quotes from the Met Office and one from UEA. Can I suggest attributing one of the Met Office quotes to Phil as well as his short point on temperatures? (Please see attached.) Happy to discuss. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:46 PM To: Hammond, John (Press Office); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Cc: Parker, David; Hardwick, Jen; Kennedy, John; Gromett, Barry Subject: Re: 2007 Global Temperatures PR Dear All, Annie thought I should add a quote, so I have. I also noticed that in the UK series, the last 6 years are the 6 warmest years, so added a sentence on that. Nearer the Dec 13 release date can someone check the CET series. I know we've had a warm start to December and we're only at the 6th, but if it continues at say an anomaly of about 2 deg C above 1961-90, the year would just creep into being second warmest in the CET series behind 2006. 2007 won't break 2006's record, but a statement that we've just had the warmest 2 years in the entire 349 year CET series would be good to add to the UK sentence I've added. This would need checking on the 12th and looking at the 10-day forecast at that point. This final bit could wait till the 2008 'forecast' press release in early Jan, if you're still going to do that. Cheers Phil At 11:32 06/12/2007, Hammond, John \(Press Office\) wrote: Morning Annie/Phil Attached is the latest version of the news release for the global 2007 figures: <<2007 global temperatures v1.6.doc>> I will leave it with you for now and speak to you on Tuesday. If there are any urgent requests before then, please contact Barry Gromett on (01392) 886844. Kind regards, John John C Hammond Press Office Met Office Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886269 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: john.c.hammond@metoffice.gov.uk [1]www.metoffice.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2007 global temperatures v2.1.doc" 3593. 2007-12-12 10:19:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:19:23 -0000 from: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" subject: RE: 2007 Global Temperatures PR to: "Hammond, John \(Press Office\)" Has release gone out yet, JOhn? Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:39 AM >To: Jennifer Hardwick; Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Hammond, John >(Press Office) >Cc: Beswick, Mark; Parker, David; Kennedy, John; Perry, >Matthew; Beswick, Mark >Subject: RE: 2007 Global Temperatures PR > > > Jen, > Thanks for the press release and the 2007 Annual >Statement. I'm now all set for > any press coverage later today. > > Just for background in case of any questions, here's the >GISS press release > below. GISS has 2007 higher in rank than we do, just like >2005 - which > they have top, instead of 1998. A quick look at their 2007 >spatial map > indicates why - their extrapolation of the warm Arctic >coastal data across > the Arctic Ocean. Despite the differences in base periods, >the maps (our Fig 3a > and their 1b) are quite similar over most of the world. >Their extrapolation also > makes Antarctica much warmer than it probably was. They also >infill our > gaps over Siberia and Canada, which is more reasonable. > > Cheers > Phil > > > New listing: GISS 2007 Temperature Analysis through November: >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf >has been added in response to requests. Analysis for the full >year will be available in mid January. 2007 is the second >warmest year in the period of instrumental data in our >analysis (if December is exceptionally cold it conceivably >could slip to third), which is notable given the fact that we >are at a solar minimum and a fairly strong La Nina has been in >place for most of the year. > > > >At 15:55 11/12/2007, Jennifer Hardwick wrote: >>Dear All, >> >>Please find attached an updated version of our End of Year Statement >>for 2007, from which our contribution to the WMO annual statement was >>derived. The Appendix is sent as a separate document. This >report will >>be updated at the end of January with final figures for 2007. We hope >>that it can be used as a basis for all our end of year reports, >> >>Additional comments are very welcome, >> >>Cheers >>Jen >> >> > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > > 3582. 2007-12-12 13:29:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: Clare Goodess , Phil Jones , C G Kilsby , S.L.Barr@ncl.ac.uk, H J Fowler , Richard Dawson , "Brown Virginia Miss (ENV)" date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:29:34 +0000 from: Mark McCarthy subject: RE: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects to: Jim Hall Hello Jim, Please find responses below. Kind regards, Mark On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 17:25 +0000, Jim Hall wrote: > Hi Phil, Mark > > A month or so has passed since we set things in motion for the Tyndall > component of the cities work. Here's a quick catchup. > > Mark: > Are you still on track for your runs 1 and 2 in Jan 08? Testing and bug fixing is taking frustratingly longer than planned, I am discovering why no one has done this before I think!! But I am still on track to submit a 20yr control run before I depart for the christmas week. This is important to act as the reference against the UKCIP control run to check the impact on equilibrium climate of the new land- surface scheme. This will mean that I am then ready to submit the first transient run in Jan, so late jan at earliest for results I think. > Have you agreed anthropogenic heat inputs for London or do you want me > to follow this up with Mike Davies? No. I have estimates of heat flux for London boroughs estimated from the London energy and CO2 inventory publication from the Mayor of London. As we discussed it would probably be beneficial to make sure what I use is consistent with LUCID. I will contact Mike and cc to you. > Have you finalised the scenario for your run 2? No. I was planning to submit a proposal for discussion ahead of the next SCORCHIO meeting on Jan 17th. I have also suggested to Clare Goodess that I visit UEA in the new year for further discussion, but we have not fixed a date yet. > Are you still ok to archive the hourly data for London and the pressure > data for weather type classification? > My understanding was that it was daily resolution fields, and hourly might be desirable but not essential. Hourly would provide significant additional overheads for data storage and extraction. Would the loss of hourly result in severe limitations of Tyndall work? > Phil: > Is the internal accounting with Tyndall sorted? > Does the methodology I described (reproduced below) coincide with your > understanding from our meeting? > What are your proposed timescales, e.g. to start assembling weather > station data and calibrating weather generator? > > Cheers > > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------- > Professor of Earth Systems Engineering > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research > School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences > Room 3.19 Cassie Building > Newcastle University > NE1 7RU > UK > > Phone: +44 191 222 3660 (Direct) > +44 191 222 6319 (Secretary) > Fax: +44 191 222 6669 > Email: Jim.Hall@ncl.ac.uk > http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/profiles2/njh57 > > MSc in Flood Risk Management: > http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/flexiblelearning/frm.php > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jim Hall > >Sent: 09 November 2007 13:52 > >To: 'Clare Goodess'; 'Phil Jones' > >Cc: C G Kilsby; 'Stuart Barr (S.L.Barr@ncl.ac.uk)'; H J > >Fowler; Richard Dawson; 'Brown Virginia Miss (ENV)' > >Subject: RE: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > > > > > >Dear Clare, Phil, Stuart, Hayley et al. > > > >Sorry it has taken me so long to get notes out from the > >meeting with Phil et al on 26 October. In this message I will > >try to summarise the methodology we are proposing and then > >address the timescale, responsibilities and financial matters > >for implementation for the Tyndall Cities work. > > > > > >The background to this work is: > > > >In the Scorchio project Stuart Barr is developing a method for > >obtaining spatial temperature patterns in urban areas from > >satellite data. Clare, Chris and Phil are extending the > >Betwixt weather generator and peturbing it with outputs from > >the new Had runs. We wish to combine the spatial and temporal > >perspectives in order generate spatial-temporal scenarios (the > >extent to which this needs to be developed in Scorchio is open > >to interpretation in the propsal). > >We wish to apply this same approach to London for Tyndall. We > >have an allocation of 17k in 07/08 and 17k in 08/09 for CRU to > >contribute to this work. We have plans to direct some RA time > >onto this in Newcastle for Stuart's area of the work (see below). > > > > > >The Hadley Centre runs: > > > >I just had a very useful conversation with Mark McCarthy at > >HC. His programme is as follows: > >Run 1: Transient run (1950 to 2100) A1B scenario with const > >anthropogenic heat source (7W/m2 for Manc). To be done "for > >Jan 08"... Vague about whether this would be beginning or end of Jan. > >Run 2: Same run with linearly increasing heat flux. Not yet > >specified what this will be, but representing quite a strong > >increase in heat flux. Could be run at about the same time as > >Run 1 i.e. Jan next year. > >Run 3: To be decided at a Scorchio stakeholder meeting in > >March. Could be midway between 1 and 2 i.e. some adaptation. > > > >The urban anthropogenic heat fluxes will be applied for all > >urban areas in the HadRM3 domain (i.e. we get London as well > >as Manc and Shef). He was originally intending to apply the > >Manc heat flux (i.e. 7W/m2) for all urban areas, but we > >discussed the possibility of applying something different > >(higher) for London and he agreed that this would be possible. > >In London the grid cells allow some differentiation between > >inner (Westminster has 60-100W/m2) and outer (about 10W/m2) London. > > > >The land surface tiling is based on 9 surface types, urban > >being one of them. > > > >He can save daily pressure data for weather type > >classification if required. > > > >He mentioned the LUCID work and was enthusiastic about the > >Tyndall application providing a comparison for London with the > >the LUCID outputs (on a 1km grid 100km*100km but can only be > >run for 1 year due to computational cost). > > > > > >Outline of the proposed methodology: > > > >For present climate: > >Newcastle: Obtain AVHRR satellite images. Process to obtain > >temperature patterns for each satellite image. > >UEA: Obtain weather station data for London (Heathrow, St > >James, Holburn, and couple of outside London sites: Gatwick? > >Others?). Calibrate weather generator (with Chris K). > >Establish method for scaling Newcastle temperature patterns > >from selected weather station data. Cross-validate with other > >weather stations. Examine the improvement gained if the > >scaling relationship is conditioned on WG persistence > >variables (WW, WD, DW, DD). This will deliver hindcast spatial > >patterns of temperature (for comparison with any other > >observations that my become available through LUCID) and > >synthetic time series patterns of present day temperature. > > > >For future climate scenarios: > >We have three anthropogenic heat source scenarios from Hadley > >(runs 1 to 3 above). Because the runs are transient and are > >based on the UKCIP08 ensemble, for any desired climate > >scenario and time slice from the UKCIP08 ensemble we can match > >the non-urban temperatures to extract the corresponding time > >slice from these new urban runs (though we won't be able to > >access the highest climate changes even at 2100). > >UEA: Extract corresponding temperature change factors and > >other stats for WG from Had runs. Run WG and scale spatial > >temperature patterns as previously, conditioning as > >appropriate on persistence variables. > >Newcastle: Develop scenarios of changing land use and > >anthropogenic heat sources. Use these to modify temperature > >patterns used in the scenario generation. > > > >Hope that makes sense. > > > > > >Next steps: > >UEA: confirm funding arrangement with Virginia Brown. Tyndall > >Phase 2 is pre-FEC so the funds can all go to Colin's salary. > >UEA: confirm that methodology makes sense and confirm > >timescales for delivery, given Had proposed timescale for RCM > >runs (above). > >UEA: start assembling weather station data and calibrating > >weather generator > >Stuart: start assembling AVHRR images and processing temperatures > >Jim: email Mark McCarthy to confirm arrangements > >Jim: confirm UCL Lucid heat flux estimate for London (I'll see > >Mike Davies on 22 Nov) > > > >Is that all? > > > > > > > >Best regards > > > >Jim > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > >> Sent: 01 November 2007 19:15 > >> To: Jim Hall > >> Subject: Fwd: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > >> > >> Hi Jim > >> > >> Phil, Colin and I met today to discuss the Tyndall urban work > >> - and it sounds like you had a useful meeting with Phil last week. > >> > >> One thing that emerged from our meeting today, is how to handle the > >> financial aspects. Is the money earmarked for us in the Newcastle > >> budget? Will this be a subcontract? > >> Presumably it will be full economic costs, but hopefully we > >can ensure > >> that the bulk goes on Colin's salary rather than having to cost in > >> Phil's time. > >> > >> Is it Virginia Brown we need to liase with here? > >> > >> Best wishes, Clare > >> > >> > >> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 > >> >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:44:14 +0000 > >> >To: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk,c.harpham@uea.ac.uk > >> >From: Phil Jones > >> >Subject: SCORCHIO and Tyndall projects > >> > > >> > Clare, > >> > The attached is a summary of discussions I had with Jim > >> Hall and > >> > others last Friday in Newcastle. > >> > > >> > Cheers > >> > Phil > >> > > >> > > >> >Prof. Phil Jones > >> >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >> >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >> >University of East Anglia > >> >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >> >NR4 7TJ > >> >UK > >> >------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ---------- > >> >----- > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Dr Clare Goodess > >> Climatic Research Unit > >> School of Environmental Sciences > >> University of East Anglia > >> Norwich > >> NR4 7TJ > >> UK > >> > >> Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > >> Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > >> Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- Mark McCarthy Climate Impacts Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB Tel: +44(0)1392 884672 Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 email: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk web: www.metoffice.gov.uk 537. 2007-12-12 13:52:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:52:11 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: UKCIP08 to: t.lenton@uea.ac.uk,a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk Tim, Andy, Tim Osborn mentioned to me this morning that you were a little skeptical about what UKCIP08 is trying to do. Rather than knock it without knowing, I would be happy to explain it to you. I'm attaching a press release about the first of the reports (one what has happened to climate up to the present). Future climate change is uncertain, and this will be fully expressed in the remaining reports which will come out with the launch in October 08. However, if organizations of whatever kind are to react or do anything, they need to know what is most likely. UKCIP have discussed extensively with user communities across the country and in most cases UKCIP08 will be giving them the best information currently available (with our current range of uncertainties). You will note I've referred to UKCIP and UKCIP08. Between us these are two different things. UKCIP doesn't fully understand what UKCIP08 will provide and this is a problem. UKCIP are going around the country finding out what is wanted and saying what UKCIP08 will provide. UKCIP08 is developing what it will provide trying to incorporate as much as the users want, but if we know we will have no confidence to say anything we won't. UKCIP will have to educate the user community on how to use the UKCIP08 portal and more importantly how the 'output' should be used. No-one at UKCIP realises this. In essence, users want spatially detailed (5km) and high-temporal (sometimes hourly) information that users claim they need. We do ask the obvious questions on what are they using now! The HC produce this at 25km (monthly) from RCM runs, then emulated in the way David Sexton presented at a seminar in ENV back in October. This gives pdfs of variables which the Weather Generator (which CRU and Newcastle are developing) transforms into future weather. Users will then get 100 possible 30 year realizations (they won't be able to get less than this) of the percentile range they choose (e.g. 90th percentile of the single pdf for precip or a joint one with another variable, such as T). So users should then put these data through their impact model (say a crop model for wheat) to develop a pdf of their result (say yield). So from one pdf (precip/temp - depending on emissions scenario) to another pdf (of the effect on yield). This is the bit users will and are finding difficult. There are users, big and small in loads of sectors. With this approach, they will all get consistent scenarios (termed probabilistic projections - but not probabilistic is sense of dice throwing). They need something for planning purposes - it might as well be done by groups best able to do it and explain it. UKCIP08 is only 4 groups and only 4 people who know how and why it is being done the way it is. It is a quantum leap in scenario provision. You're not alone in knocking UKCIP08. The second attachment really is in confidence. I hope you won't be going down to DEFRA to complain about what UKCIP08 is doing. I spent two fruitless hours explaining what UKCIP08 will do to Lenny Smith in November. He clearly didn't listen. Maybe he thinks his expertise will be sidelined by what UKCIP08 will supply, but we need people to interpret to the impacts community what we've done (we don't have much written so far) rather than gripe and say they'll go public if they don't get a piece of the cake! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\0512ClimateChange1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\2007-11-29 Meeting Between David Warrilow and Lenny Smith.doc" 661. 2007-12-12 19:51:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Tom Wigley date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:51:32 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Douglass paper to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim, Thanks for the "heads up". As Phil mentioned, I was already aware of this. The Douglass et al. paper was rejected twice before it was finally accepted by IJC. I think this paper is a real embarrassment for the IJC. It has serious scientific flaws. I'm already working on a response. Phil can tell you about some of the other sordid details of Douglass et al. These guys ignored information from radiosonde datasets that did not support their "models are wrong" argument (even though they had these datasets in their possession). Pretty deplorable behaviour... Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christy sure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators... With best regards, Ben Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Ben, > > I guess it's likely that you're aware of the Douglass paper that's just > come out in IJC, but in case you aren't then a reprint is attached. > They are somewhat critical of your 2005 paper, though I recall that some > (most?) of Douglass' previous papers -- and papers that he's tried to > get through the review process -- appear to have serious problems. > > cc Phil & Keith for your interest too! > > Cheers > > Tim > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4322. 2007-12-13 13:39:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: denniswheeler@beeb.net date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:39:08 -0700 (MST) from: Astrid Elisabeth Ogilvie subject: Greenland Norse to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, Hope all is well. I'm just sending a quick note now because Dennis Wheeler has asked if I could provide a good image re. the Greenland Norse story for your article forthcoming in "Weather". I have asked Tom McGovern as I think he will have something appropriate. If you like I could take a look at your text re. the Norse in Greenland - I think Tom and colleagues have a rather different perspective now than a few years ago - it would be nice for you to have the latest thoughts incorporated. Best, Astrid Dr Astrid E.J.Ogilvie Research Fellow, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) University of Colorado 1560 30th Street, CB 450 Boulder CO 80309-0450 Tel: 303 492 6072 Fax: 303 492 6388 Email: Astrid.Ogilvie@colorado.edu http://instaar.colorado.edu/ Professor Adjunct, Department of Anthropology, Hunter College, CUNY Senior Affiliate Scientist, Stefansson Arctic Institute, Akureyri, Iceland Senior Visiting Scientist, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK 2917. 2007-12-13 18:58:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: SHERWOOD Steven , Tom Wigley , Frank Wentz , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Karl Taylor , Steve Klein , John Lanzante , "Thorne, Peter" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , Melissa Free , Leopold Haimberger , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Thomas R Karl , Tim Osborn , "David C. Bader" , 'Susan Solomon' date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:58:12 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: carl mears Dear folks, I've been doing some calculations to address one of the statistical issues raised by the Douglass et al. paper in the International Journal of Climatology. Here are some of my results. Recall that Douglass et al. calculated synthetic T2LT and T2 temperatures from the CMIP-3 archive of 20th century simulations ("20c3m" runs). They used a total of 67 20c3m realizations, performed with 22 different models. In calculating the statistical uncertainty of the model trends, they introduced sigma{SE}, an "estimate of the uncertainty of the mean of the predictions of the trends". They defined sigma{SE} as follows: sigma{SE} = sigma / sqrt(N - 1), where "N = 22 is the number of independent models". As we've discussed in our previous correspondence, this definition has serious problems (see comments from Carl and Steve below), and allows Douglass et al. to reach the erroneous conclusion that modeled T2LT and T2 trends are significantly different from the observed T2LT and T2 trends in both the RSS and UAH datasets. This comparison of simulated and observed T2LT and T2 trends is given in Table III of Douglass et al. [As an amusing aside, I note that the RSS datasets are referred to as "RSS" in this table, while UAH results are designated as "MSU". I guess there's only one true "MSU" dataset...] I decided to take a quick look at the issue of the statistical significance of differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends. My first cut at this "quick look" involves only UAH and RSS observational data - I have not yet done any tests with radiosonde datas, UMD T2 data, or satellite results from Zou et al. I operated on the same 49 realizations of the 20c3m experiment that we used in Chapter 5 of CCSP 1.1. As in our previous work, all model results are synthetic T2LT and T2 temperatures that I calculated using a static weighting function approach. I have not yet implemented Carl's more sophisticated method of estimating synthetic MSU temperatures from model data (which accounts for effects of topography and land/ocean differences). However, for the current application, the simple static weighting function approach is more than adequate, since we are focusing on T2LT and T2 changes over tropical oceans only - so topographic and land-ocean differences are unimportant. Note that I still need to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from about 18-20 20c3m realizations which were not in the CMIP-3 database at the time we were working on the CCSP report. For the full response to Douglass et al., we should use the same 67 20c3m realizations that they employed. For each of the 49 realizations that I processed, I first masked out all tropical land areas, and then calculated the spatial averages of monthly-mean, gridded T2LT and T2 data over tropical oceans (20N-20S). All model and observational results are for the common 252-month period from January 1979 to December 1999 - the longest period of overlap between the RSS and UAH MSU data and the bulk of the 20c3m runs. The simulated trends given by Douglass et al. are calculated over the same 1979 to 1999 period; however, they use a longer period (1979 to 2004) for calculating observational trends - so there is an inconsistency between their model and observational analysis periods, which they do not explain. This difference in analysis periods is a little puzzling given that we are dealing with relatively short observational record lengths, resulting in some sensitivity to end-point effects. I then calculated anomalies of the spatially-averaged T2LT and T2 data (w.r.t. climatological monthly-means over 1979-1999), and fit least-squares linear trends to model and observational time series. The standard errors of the trends were adjusted for temporal autocorrelation of the regression residuals, as described in Santer et al. (2000) ["Statistical significance of trends and trend differences in layer-average atmospheric temperature time series"; JGR 105, 7337-7356.] Consider first panel A of the attached plot. This shows the simulated and observed T2LT trends over 1979 to 1999 (again, over 20N-20S, oceans only) with their adjusted 1-sigma confidence intervals). For the UAH and RSS data, it was possible to check against the adjusted confidence intervals independently calculated by Dian during the course of work on the CCSP report. Our adjusted confidence intervals are in good agreement. The grey shaded envelope in panel A denotes the 1-sigma standard error for the RSS T2LT trend. There are 49 pairs of UAH-minus-model trend differences and 49 pairs of RSS-minus-model trend differences. We can therefore test - for each model and each 20c3m realization - whether there is a statistically significant difference between the observed and simulated trends. Let bx and by represent any single pair of modeled and observed trends, with adjusted standard errors s{bx} and s{by}. As in our previous work (and as in related work by John Lanzante), we define the normalized trend difference d as: d = (bx - by) / sqrt[ (s{bx})**2 + (s{by})**2 ] Under the assumption that d is normally distributed, values of d > +1.96 or < -1.96 indicate observed-minus-model trend differences that are significant at the 5% level. We are performing a two-tailed test here, since we have no information a priori about the "direction" of the model trend (i.e., whether we expect the simulated trend to be significantly larger or smaller than observed). Panel c shows values of the normalized trend difference for T2LT trends. the grey shaded area spans the range +1.96 to -1.96, and identifies the region where we fail to reject the null hypothesis (H0) of no significant difference between observed and simulated trends. Consider the solid symbols first, which give results for tests involving RSS data. We would reject H0 in only one out of 49 cases (for the CCCma-CGCM3.1(T47) model). The open symbols indicate results for tests involving UAH data. Somewhat surprisingly, we get the same qualitative outcome that we obtained for tests involving RSS data: only one of the UAH-model trend pairs yields a difference that is statistically significant at the 5% level. Panels b and d provide results for T2 trends. Results are very similar to those achieved with T2LT trends. Irrespective of whether RSS or UAH T2 data are used, significant trend differences occur in only one of 49 cases. Bottom line: Douglass et al. claim that "In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends." (page 6, lines 61-62). This claim is categorically wrong. In fact, based on our results, one could justifiably claim that THERE IS ONLY ONE CASE in which model T2LT and T2 trends are inconsistent with UAH and RSS results! These guys screwed up big time. SENSITIVITY TESTS QUESTION 1: Some of the model-data trend comparisons made by Douglass et al. used temperatures averaged over 30N-30S rather than 20N-20S. What happens if we repeat our simple trend significance analysis using T2LT and T2 data averaged over ocean areas between 30N-30S? ANSWER 1: Very little. The results described above for oceans areas between 20N-20S are virtually unchanged. QUESTION 2: Even though it's clearly inappropriate to estimate the standard errors of the linear trends WITHOUT accounting for temporal autocorrelation effects (the 252 time sample are clearly not independent; effective sample sizes typically range from 6 to 56), someone is bound to ask what the outcome is when one repeats the paired trend tests with non-adjusted standard errors. So here are the results: T2LT tests, RSS observational data: 19 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2LT tests, UAH observational data: 34 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, RSS observational data: 16 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, UAH observational data: 35 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. So even under the naive (and incorrect) assumption that each model and observational time series contains 252 independent time samples, we STILL find no support for Douglass et al.'s assertion that: "In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends." Q.E.D. If Leo is agreeable, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to perform a similar trend comparison using synthetic MSU T2LT and T2 temperatures calculated from the RAOBCORE radiosonde data - all versions, not just v1.2! As you can see from the email list, I've expanded our "focus group" a little bit, since a number of you have written to me about this issue. I am leaving for Miami on Monday, Dec. 17th. My Mom is having cataract surgery, and I'd like to be around to provide her with moral and practical support. I'm not exactly sure when I'll be returning to PCMDI - although I hope I won't be gone longer than a week. As soon as I get back, I'll try to make some more progress with this stuff. Any suggestions or comments on what I've done so far would be greatly appreciated. And for the time being, I think we should not alert Douglass et al. to our results. With best regards, and happy holidays! May all your "Singers" be carol singers, and not of the S. Fred variety... Ben (P.S.: I noticed one unfortunate typo in Table II of Douglass et al. The MIROC3.2 (medres) model is referred to as "MIROC3.2_Merdes"....) carl mears wrote: > Hi Steve > > I'd say it's the equivalent of rolling a 6-sided die a hundred times, and > finding a mean value of ~3.5 and a standard deviation of ~1.7, and > calculating the standard error of the mean to be ~0.17 (so far so > good). An then rolling the die one more time, getting a 2, and > claiming that the die is no longer 6 sided because the new measurement > is more than 2 standard errors from the mean. > > In my view, this problem trumps the other problems in the paper. > I can't believe Douglas is a fellow of the American Physical Society. > > -Carl > > > At 02:07 AM 12/6/2007, you wrote: >> If I understand correctly, what Douglass et al. did makes the stronger >> assumption that unforced variability is *insignificant*. Their >> statistical test is logically equivalent to falsifying a climate model >> because it did not consistently predict a particular storm on a >> particular day two years from now. > > > Dr. Carl Mears > Remote Sensing Systems > 438 First Street, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 > mears@remss.com > 707-545-2904 x21 > 707-545-2906 (fax)) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\douglass_reply1.pdf" 4887. 2007-12-14 08:48:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:48:41 +0000 (GMT) from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" subject: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate to: Dear Phil, thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming to fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this. In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there have might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer strictly confidential). I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot and co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www.copernicus. org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as they argue that the others are not getting the right point around climate change. May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent you are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I may think of. I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there is agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a pre industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt shift since the 80ies. Thank you again, Jacopo ----Messaggio originale---- Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Data: 13.12.2007 18.29 A: Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate Jacopo, I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot paper by Bard and Delaygue. I was asked by Edouard Bard to try and locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their response to Bard/Delaygue. All this is at the end of the Bard/Delaygue comment on p5/6. This name of this file is not the way I name files here. It is also not on the CRU web site and a google search doesn't find it! The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use (Jones et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007) is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was unable to reproduce their diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't make much difference, but you wonder what other mistakes they have made. There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to explain the global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a solar series (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and anthropogenic sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) . I think if you want to refer to this subject at least refer to a good paper on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and well argued paper. The answers to all your questions will be in this paper. Frohlich is Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French person who doesn't understand the climate system! There are two problems/issues in the climate field 1. Journals publish papers by Courtillot et al (and probably shouldn't). They give some unscrupulous people an excuse to say there is disagreement amongst climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE are to blame. Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't understand the climate system. I don't try and publish on magnetism! People think they can publish in the climate field without knowing little about the literature. There are too many journals (and still growing) and all have difficulty finding qualified reviewers. 2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering solutions to the climate change issue. This gives the public and some politicians a belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't. The only way to slow the increase in temperature is to reduce emissions. Cheers Phil At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote: >I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I happen >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary Science >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought that >the >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there it is >offered >another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this >geomagnetic >perspective on climate. >I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would very >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in this >subject and because you are widely quoted in the paper). > >Courtillot claims that up to 1980, on 10-100 scale, and 1000- 10000 >scale climate change correlates well with changes in geomagnetic >field of earth (no causality). Correct? > >What would be the driver of the change in geomagnetic field? > >It seems Courtillot does not neglect the anthropogenic rise since >ca 1980. Correct? > >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation of >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential drivers of >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you please >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in this >field)? > >Is it really "increasingly recognised"? > >How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays could >effect the climate change? > >On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all >Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this direction. He >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he acceptes it for >the last few decades? > >What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims, would >these be proven to be correct? I mean with regards with IPCC >projections and alike. > > >Thank you and best regards (in case we may speak over the phone >tomorrow). >Jacopo Pasotti >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there is a >reply on the comment in the journal's website. >- >Jacopo Pasotti, MSc. >Science Communicator >Science Journalist > >Basel - Switzerland >Mobile: +41.(0)787627785 >Home: +41.(0)61.3611340 >jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch >www.scienceandnature.net > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 462. 2007-12-14 08:58:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:58:09 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: The first Nobel and other Christmas greetings to: Phil Jones , Tom Karl , Brian Hoskins , Jim Renwick , Roxana Bojariu , "Parker, David" , Albert Klein Tank , Brian Soden , David Easterling , Matilde Rusticucci Seasons greetings to you all, my fellow Nobel Laureates (even if we did not get to go to Oslo). I just want to wish you and your families all the best for the holiday season, and Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate that festival. As part of IPCC we have achieved something to be proud of. Thankyou for being a part of it with me. At NCAR at the Christmas party a group made up a song that mentions by name all the NCAR LAs in AR4. The song is below. You may appreciate it. (or not). All the best for 2008. Kevin Sung to tune of The first Noel Our First Nobel Our First Nobel, for the IPCC, Goes to Beth, Bette, Bill, Jerry, Kathy and Guy. Kevin, Linda, Paty, Re-to and so many more, And we're sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore. Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell, We hope our coworkers' egos don't swell. The First Working Group said to sound the alarm, Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm. Temperatures and greenhouse gas are racing up neck and neck, Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck. Nobel, Nobel, the planet's unwell, This is the future the models foretell. The Second Working Group said that change is assured, >From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds. >From loss of land and crops to habitats, How can they make it much clearer than that? Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell, Polar bears search for new places to dwell. We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three, Change from fossil consumption to clean energy. If we all do our share in reversing the trend, Our children might have a clean Earth in the end. Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell, Let's make a future where all can live well. Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day, Can an Oscar be far away? -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 274. 2007-12-14 17:22:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:22:29 +1100 from: David Thompson subject: the paper.... to: Phil Jones , John Kennedy Dear Phil and John, Thanks much for the quick and helpful comments... In the next version I'll include more details on the analysis procedure... hopefully that will clarify how the volcano results were calculated. As for the negative anomalies ~8-10 years before the eruption dates: they reflect the impact of the trends in temperature on the composite, not just the impact of El Chichon prior to Pinatubo. (You don't see the negative blips if you only go +/- 5 years). In the text I used the spurious negative chunks to motivate the detrending. I agree with Phil that the volcano text is still a little rough. And I like the idea of showing the results for each volcano separately. I've recently shown the results to a few folks heavily involved in the last IPCC, and they've suggested we consider a pair of companion papers: a longer JCL paper which focuses on the volcanos and provides the details of the filtering methodology; and a short, punchy Nature paper which focuses on the step in 45. I suppose it's possible the step in 45 could get lost in a longer volcano paper, and apparently the results clarify why the IPCC models are unable to capture SST variability in the middle of the 20th century... if you have strong thoughts on this, please let me know. And if you have any additional comments that come to mind over the next couple weeks, please send them along. I'll get a next draft to you soon after the New Year... it will incorporate all your ideas, will provide the analysis details, etc ... Thanks again, Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 2505. 2007-12-15 12:21:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: carl mears , SHERWOOD Steven , Tom Wigley , Frank Wentz , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Karl Taylor , Steve Klein , John Lanzante , "Thorne, Peter" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , Melissa Free , Leopold Haimberger , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Tim Osborn , "David C. Bader" , 'Susan Solomon' date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:21:48 -0500 from: "Thomas.R.Karl" subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: santer1@llnl.gov Thanks Ben, You have the makings of a nice article. I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly different by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). You found 3. With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you will find there is indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. amplification. Setting up the statistical testing should be interesting with this many combinations. Regards, Tom Ben Santer said the following on 12/14/2007 5:31 PM: Dear Tom, As promised, I've now repeated all of the significance testing involving model-versus-observed trend differences, but this time using spatially-averaged T2 and T2LT changes that are not "masked out" over tropical land areas. As I mentioned this morning, the use of non-masked data facilitates a direct comparison with Douglass et al. The results for combined changes over tropical land and ocean are very similar to those I sent out yesterday, which were for T2 and T2LT changes over tropical oceans only: COMBINED LAND/OCEAN RESULTS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS ADJUSTED FOR TEMPORAL AUTOCORRELATION EFFECTS; SPATIAL AVERAGES OVER 20N-20S; ANALYSIS PERIOD 1979 TO 1999) T2LT tests, RSS observational data: 0 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2LT tests, UAH observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, RSS observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, UAH observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. So our conclusion - that model tropical T2 and T2LT trends are, in virtually all realizations and models, not significantly different from either RSS or UAH trends - is not sensitive to whether we do the significance testing with "ocean only" or combined "land+ocean" temperature changes. With best regards, and happy holidays to all! Ben Thomas.R.Karl wrote: Ben, This is very informative. One question I raise is whether the results would have been at all different if you had not masked the land. I doubt it, but it would be nice to know. Tom Ben Santer said the following on 12/13/2007 9:58 PM: Dear folks, I've been doing some calculations to address one of the statistical issues raised by the Douglass et al. paper in the International Journal of Climatology. Here are some of my results. Recall that Douglass et al. calculated synthetic T2LT and T2 temperatures from the CMIP-3 archive of 20th century simulations ("20c3m" runs). They used a total of 67 20c3m realizations, performed with 22 different models. In calculating the statistical uncertainty of the model trends, they introduced sigma{SE}, an "estimate of the uncertainty of the mean of the predictions of the trends". They defined sigma{SE} as follows: sigma{SE} = sigma / sqrt(N - 1), where "N = 22 is the number of independent models". As we've discussed in our previous correspondence, this definition has serious problems (see comments from Carl and Steve below), and allows Douglass et al. to reach the erroneous conclusion that modeled T2LT and T2 trends are significantly different from the observed T2LT and T2 trends in both the RSS and UAH datasets. This comparison of simulated and observed T2LT and T2 trends is given in Table III of Douglass et al. [As an amusing aside, I note that the RSS datasets are referred to as "RSS" in this table, while UAH results are designated as "MSU". I guess there's only one true "MSU" dataset...] I decided to take a quick look at the issue of the statistical significance of differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends. My first cut at this "quick look" involves only UAH and RSS observational data - I have not yet done any tests with radiosonde datas, UMD T2 data, or satellite results from Zou et al. I operated on the same 49 realizations of the 20c3m experiment that we used in Chapter 5 of CCSP 1.1. As in our previous work, all model results are synthetic T2LT and T2 temperatures that I calculated using a static weighting function approach. I have not yet implemented Carl's more sophisticated method of estimating synthetic MSU temperatures from model data (which accounts for effects of topography and land/ocean differences). However, for the current application, the simple static weighting function approach is more than adequate, since we are focusing on T2LT and T2 changes over tropical oceans only - so topographic and land-ocean differences are unimportant. Note that I still need to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from about 18-20 20c3m realizations which were not in the CMIP-3 database at the time we were working on the CCSP report. For the full response to Douglass et al., we should use the same 67 20c3m realizations that they employed. For each of the 49 realizations that I processed, I first masked out all tropical land areas, and then calculated the spatial averages of monthly-mean, gridded T2LT and T2 data over tropical oceans (20N-20S). All model and observational results are for the common 252-month period from January 1979 to December 1999 - the longest period of overlap between the RSS and UAH MSU data and the bulk of the 20c3m runs. The simulated trends given by Douglass et al. are calculated over the same 1979 to 1999 period; however, they use a longer period (1979 to 2004) for calculating observational trends - so there is an inconsistency between their model and observational analysis periods, which they do not explain. This difference in analysis periods is a little puzzling given that we are dealing with relatively short observational record lengths, resulting in some sensitivity to end-point effects. I then calculated anomalies of the spatially-averaged T2LT and T2 data (w.r.t. climatological monthly-means over 1979-1999), and fit least-squares linear trends to model and observational time series. The standard errors of the trends were adjusted for temporal autocorrelation of the regression residuals, as described in Santer et al. (2000) ["Statistical significance of trends and trend differences in layer-average atmospheric temperature time series"; JGR 105, 7337-7356.] Consider first panel A of the attached plot. This shows the simulated and observed T2LT trends over 1979 to 1999 (again, over 20N-20S, oceans only) with their adjusted 1-sigma confidence intervals). For the UAH and RSS data, it was possible to check against the adjusted confidence intervals independently calculated by Dian during the course of work on the CCSP report. Our adjusted confidence intervals are in good agreement. The grey shaded envelope in panel A denotes the 1-sigma standard error for the RSS T2LT trend. There are 49 pairs of UAH-minus-model trend differences and 49 pairs of RSS-minus-model trend differences. We can therefore test - for each model and each 20c3m realization - whether there is a statistically significant difference between the observed and simulated trends. Let bx and by represent any single pair of modeled and observed trends, with adjusted standard errors s{bx} and s{by}. As in our previous work (and as in related work by John Lanzante), we define the normalized trend difference d as: d = (bx - by) / sqrt[ (s{bx})**2 + (s{by})**2 ] Under the assumption that d is normally distributed, values of d > +1.96 or < -1.96 indicate observed-minus-model trend differences that are significant at the 5% level. We are performing a two-tailed test here, since we have no information a priori about the "direction" of the model trend (i.e., whether we expect the simulated trend to be significantly larger or smaller than observed). Panel c shows values of the normalized trend difference for T2LT trends. the grey shaded area spans the range +1.96 to -1.96, and identifies the region where we fail to reject the null hypothesis (H0) of no significant difference between observed and simulated trends. Consider the solid symbols first, which give results for tests involving RSS data. We would reject H0 in only one out of 49 cases (for the CCCma-CGCM3.1(T47) model). The open symbols indicate results for tests involving UAH data. Somewhat surprisingly, we get the same qualitative outcome that we obtained for tests involving RSS data: only one of the UAH-model trend pairs yields a difference that is statistically significant at the 5% level. Panels b and d provide results for T2 trends. Results are very similar to those achieved with T2LT trends. Irrespective of whether RSS or UAH T2 data are used, significant trend differences occur in only one of 49 cases. Bottom line: Douglass et al. claim that "In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends." (page 6, lines 61-62). This claim is categorically wrong. In fact, based on our results, one could justifiably claim that THERE IS ONLY ONE CASE in which model T2LT and T2 trends are inconsistent with UAH and RSS results! These guys screwed up big time. SENSITIVITY TESTS QUESTION 1: Some of the model-data trend comparisons made by Douglass et al. used temperatures averaged over 30N-30S rather than 20N-20S. What happens if we repeat our simple trend significance analysis using T2LT and T2 data averaged over ocean areas between 30N-30S? ANSWER 1: Very little. The results described above for oceans areas between 20N-20S are virtually unchanged. QUESTION 2: Even though it's clearly inappropriate to estimate the standard errors of the linear trends WITHOUT accounting for temporal autocorrelation effects (the 252 time sample are clearly not independent; effective sample sizes typically range from 6 to 56), someone is bound to ask what the outcome is when one repeats the paired trend tests with non-adjusted standard errors. So here are the results: T2LT tests, RSS observational data: 19 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2LT tests, UAH observational data: 34 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, RSS observational data: 16 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, UAH observational data: 35 out of 49 trend differences are significant at the 5% level. So even under the naive (and incorrect) assumption that each model and observational time series contains 252 independent time samples, we STILL find no support for Douglass et al.'s assertion that: "In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends." Q.E.D. If Leo is agreeable, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to perform a similar trend comparison using synthetic MSU T2LT and T2 temperatures calculated from the RAOBCORE radiosonde data - all versions, not just v1.2! As you can see from the email list, I've expanded our "focus group" a little bit, since a number of you have written to me about this issue. I am leaving for Miami on Monday, Dec. 17th. My Mom is having cataract surgery, and I'd like to be around to provide her with moral and practical support. I'm not exactly sure when I'll be returning to PCMDI - although I hope I won't be gone longer than a week. As soon as I get back, I'll try to make some more progress with this stuff. Any suggestions or comments on what I've done so far would be greatly appreciated. And for the time being, I think we should not alert Douglass et al. to our results. With best regards, and happy holidays! May all your "Singers" be carol singers, and not of the S. Fred variety... Ben (P.S.: I noticed one unfortunate typo in Table II of Douglass et al. The MIROC3.2 (medres) model is referred to as "MIROC3.2_Merdes"....) carl mears wrote: Hi Steve I'd say it's the equivalent of rolling a 6-sided die a hundred times, and finding a mean value of ~3.5 and a standard deviation of ~1.7, and calculating the standard error of the mean to be ~0.17 (so far so good). An then rolling the die one more time, getting a 2, and claiming that the die is no longer 6 sided because the new measurement is more than 2 standard errors from the mean. In my view, this problem trumps the other problems in the paper. I can't believe Douglas is a fellow of the American Physical Society. -Carl At 02:07 AM 12/6/2007, you wrote: If I understand correctly, what Douglass et al. did makes the stronger assumption that unforced variability is *insignificant*. Their statistical test is logically equivalent to falsifying a climate model because it did not consistently predict a particular storm on a particular day two years from now. Dr. Carl Mears Remote Sensing Systems 438 First Street, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 [1]mears@remss.com 707-545-2904 x21 707-545-2906 (fax)) -- *Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* */Director/*// NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Veach-Baley Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Tel: (828) 271-4476 Fax: (828) 271-4246 [2]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov [3] -- Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D. Director NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Veach-Baley Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Tel: (828) 271-4476 Fax: (828) 271-4246 [4]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov 3098. 2007-12-16 14:39:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , santer1@llnl.gov, Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:39:09 +0100 from: Leopold Haimberger subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov Hello John and colleagues, My colleagues from Vienna and I have a paper under review in J. Climate, we submitted the second revision last week. The reviews of the first revision were quite positive. It tries to explain why versions 1.3 and 1.4 in particular are better than 1.2. It also explains a method that uses the breakpoint dates gained from RAOBCORE as metadata for a neighbor composite homogenization method similar to HadAT. This second method is much less dependent on possible inhomogeneities in the ERA-40 background. I sent it to Ben already but those interested may download it from [1]ftp://srvx6.img.univie.ac.at/pub/RSMSUBG_rev2.pdf but please keep it confidential. The paper shows that the radiosonde homogenization is making progress but of course ongoing work. At least it shows that there seem to be ways that remove much the pervasive bias in radiosonde temperatures. Time series from RAOBCORE v1.4 are already published in "Arguez et al (2007) Supplement to State of the Climate in 2006 BAMS 88 Nr 6, s1-s135" (I believe the plot numbers are 2.4 and 2.5). These plots were collected by J. Christy about the same time last year. I have to leave now but can you give details later. Regards, Leo John Lanzante wrote: Ben, Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have performed consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with each one of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". Significance of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain number of "hits". To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain the given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For each trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the "observation". >From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and perform 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many times to generate a distribution of "hits". The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that this could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to your method. You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series in the pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's trend? The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the autocorrelation in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this differencing would help remove the common externally forced variability, but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be needed. Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which yields only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you would get potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash so to speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would increase as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would make the whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since you would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current scheme, using a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X 49 = 2.45. For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would have an expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. I hope this helps. On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different versions of Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that the latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I recalled from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if we use the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can reference -- if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in submission? The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences in methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as compared to the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did changes occur to yield a stronger warming trend? Best regards, ______John On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: Thanks Ben, You have the makings of a nice article. I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly different by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). You found 3. With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you will find there is indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. amplification. Setting up the statistical testing should be interesting with this many combinations. Regards, Tom -- Ao. Univ. Prof. Dr. Leopold Haimberger Institut fr Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universitt Wien Althanstrae 14, A - 1090 Wien Tel.: +43 1 4277 53712 Fax.: +43 1 4277 9537 [2]http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~haimbel7/ 2792. 2007-12-17 13:35:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:35:45 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: R14080 01.01.2006 - 31.08.07 to: Phil Jones Phil, I am REALLY hoping to not get any further extensions! Is there anything worthwhile we can do with 2700 unspent money? If I go down to BADC again it'll be less than 200 so that's 2500 floating around.. Harry On 17 Dec 2007, at 13:28, Phil Jones wrote: > > Harry, > Whenever you get another extension tell this guy. > He really wants to finish the grant before the end of the > year - and we keep on getting an extension! > > Phil > >> Subject: RE: R14080 01.01.2006 - 31.08.07 >> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:22:15 -0000 >> X-MS-Has-Attach: >> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> Thread-Topic: R14080 01.01.2006 - 31.08.07 >> Thread-Index: Acg+dLJsu4xn1J5LT525+bVQoaSxMACOvSSg >> From: "Bamford Julian Mr \(FIN\)" >> To: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.4 >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> Afternoon, >> >> I wasnt aware but I am now. I have just had a word with Jason in >> RBS and as it has been extended til February next year please >> disregard my requests below. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Julian Bamford >> >> Research Finance >> University Of East Anglia >> j.bamford@uea.ac.uk >> 01603 593486 >> >> >> >> From: Phil Jones [ mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:14 PM >> To: Bamford Julian Mr (FIN) >> Cc: Harris Ian Mr (ENV) >> Subject: Re: R14080 01.01.2006 - 31.08.07 >> >> >> Julian, >> OK provided you're aware of this extension letter - attached. >> There is one more claim in the works from Ian Harris. >> >> I've signed the expense claim, so it should be with you soon. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> At 16:47 14/12/2007, you wrote: >>> Hi Philip, >>> >>> I am going to post the final invoice for this project at the end >>> of next week. >>> >>> If there is any further expenditure that is to be charged to this >>> project could you send me the details so I can include it in the >>> final invoice. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> >>> Julian Bamford >>> >>> Research Finance >>> University Of East Anglia >>> j.bamford@uea.ac.uk >>> 01603 593486 >>> >>> >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------- > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2194. 2007-12-19 12:20:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:20:02 +0000 (GMT) from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate to: ... and what do you think about all this issues of the changes done between the "comments on" in press and now published at EPSL? Best, Jacopo ----Messaggio originale---- Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Data: 14.12.2007 10.37 A: Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate Jacopo, I'm not suggesting fraud, just that Bard/Delaygue weren't able to reproduce what Courtillot et al claimed to have done. Courtillot et al may be considered high profile scientists, but this is in a non-climate field. The issue here is that they are not fully aware of all the literature in the climate field. They are very selective of the papers they cite and the journal EPSL isn't considered mainstream in the climate field. They tend to publish in what I would refer to as the non-climate literature. In this respect the editors have a harder time knowing they are getting access to the best climate reviewers. To get another (may be similar) view to mine, I'd contact Thomas Stocker in Bern. (stocker@climate.unibe.ch) Thomas like me was involved in the 2007 IPCC Report. These papers weren't considered for the IPCC as they were after the deadline of mid-summer 2007. I doubt they would have been referred to, as they are not in mainstream climate journals. The IPCC 2007 WG1 Report is the most authoritative document you can read on the subject. There is no dispute (see Ch 9) in the IPCC WG1 2007 that solar output changes explain some of the temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Why I was pointing out the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is that it shows natural forcing (the sun and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s. Lockwood/Frohlich realise this, but Courtillot et al don't seem to. As we have to invoke the positive effect of greenhouse gases and the negative effect of sulphate aerosols to explain recent warming, you can only ignore sulphate aerosols (as it is small) earlier in the 20th century. So the sun can't explain all the increase as greenhouse gases were going up then as well (albeit less so). When I say invoking above I mean giving best estimates of past forcing to climate model simulations of the 20th century. Cheers Phil At 08:48 14/12/2007, you wrote: >Dear Phil, >thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming to >fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this. >In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there have >might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer >strictly confidential). > >I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot and >co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www. copernicus. >org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an >example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as they >argue that the others are not getting the right point around climate >change. > >May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent you >are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I may >think of. > >I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there is >agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a pre >industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt shift >since the 80ies. > >Thank you again, >Jacopo > > > > >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >Data: 13.12.2007 18.29 >A: >Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate > > > Jacopo, > I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot paper > by Bard and Delaygue. I was asked by Edouard Bard to try and > locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their response >to > Bard/Delaygue. All this is at the end of the Bard/Delaygue > comment on p5/6. This name of this file is not the way I name > files here. It is also not on the CRU web site and a google >search > doesn't find it! > The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use >(Jones >et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007) > is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was >unable >to reproduce their > diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't make >much >difference, but > you wonder what other mistakes they have made. > > There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to explain >the > global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a solar >series > (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and >anthropogenic > sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) >. > I think if you want to refer to this subject at least refer to >a good paper > on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and well >argued paper. > The answers to all your questions will be in this paper. >Frohlich is > Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French >person > who doesn't understand the climate system! > > There are two problems/issues in the climate field > > 1. Journals publish papers by Courtillot et al (and probably >shouldn't). They give > some unscrupulous people an excuse to say there is disagreement >amongst > climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE are to >blame. > Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't >understand the > climate system. I don't try and publish on magnetism! People >think they can > publish in the climate field without knowing little about the >literature. There are > too many journals (and still growing) and all have difficulty >finding qualified > reviewers. > > 2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering solutions >to the > climate change issue. This gives the public and some politicians >a > belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't. The >only way to > slow the increase in temperature is to reduce emissions. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote: > >I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I >happen > >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with > >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary Science > >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought that > >the > >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there it >is > >offered > >another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this > >geomagnetic > >perspective on climate. > >I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would >very > >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in this > >subject and because you are widely quoted in the paper). > > > >Courtillot claims that up to 1980, on 10-100 scale, and 1000- >10000 > >scale climate change correlates well with changes in geomagnetic > >field of earth (no causality). Correct? > > > >What would be the driver of the change in geomagnetic field? > > > >It seems Courtillot does not neglect the anthropogenic rise since > >ca 1980. Correct? > > > >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation of > >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential drivers >of > >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you please > >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in this > >field)? > > > >Is it really "increasingly recognised"? > > > >How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays >could > >effect the climate change? > > > >On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all > >Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this direction. >He > >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he acceptes it >for > >the last few decades? > > > >What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims, >would > >these be proven to be correct? I mean with regards with IPCC > >projections and alike. > > > > > >Thank you and best regards (in case we may speak over the phone > >tomorrow). > >Jacopo Pasotti > >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there is a > >reply on the comment in the journal's website. > >- > >Jacopo Pasotti, MSc. > >Science Communicator > >Science Journalist > > > >Basel - Switzerland > >Mobile: +41.(0)787627785 > >Home: +41.(0)61.3611340 > >jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch > >www.scienceandnature.net > > > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2992. 2007-12-19 15:08:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:08:18 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Decisions, decisions to: Phil Jones , Kevin Marsh Please forward as necessary.. Hi, I need to make a number of decisions concerning the automation and packaging of the CRU TS Dataset. I can make them in isolation (and already have fallback positions) but I'd appreciate thoughts. 1. Station Counts. I am producing two sets of station counts - the traditional one, based on correlation decay distances ('spheres of possible influence'), and a new one which just counts the number of stations in each cell at each timestep. The former ranges from zero to over 800, the latter from zero to less than 10. Two questions: 1a. Are we happy to release both sets of data? (provisional answer: yes) 1b. Should the station counts be in the same NetCDF files as the data they refer to? (provisional answer: yes) 2. Update and Release Strategy We agreed some time ago that there would be monthly, incremental data releases. However this does not sit perfectly with the current file arrangements, which are decadal files plus a full file. The strategy can only work if we re-release the latest decadal file, *and* the full file, every month. It's not impossible but it's a bit excessive (each decadal file could have 120 releases!). There is a secondary issue, that of when to republish updated material. If, say, all Moroccan data is replaced with improved versions, at what stage should we re-release the existing published data to take account of this? If we are republishing the full database every month to include the new month's data, should we include all new data for previous years? If not, how do we manage this? And if we do it, the full file and decadal files will have different data in them! I know we have covered some of this before, but it was a long time ago.. Two questions: 2a. Are we happy to release new full and latest-decadal files every month? (provisional answer: no, I suggest we only update the latest decadal file with the new month, and the full file is updated once a year). 2b. When do changes in past years get processed? (provisional answer: once a year, the full file is reprocessed and any changed decadal files are reissued) As you can see the issues are more complex than they seem. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1885. 2007-12-20 15:07:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:07:00 -0000 from: "Bob Ward" subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, Thanks for responding so comprehensively. I have plotted the data before, and as you observe, the trend is up but the result isn't statistically significant, which I think makes it open to attack. I think the problem is that NOAA made the following statement in its report on the 2006 data: "However, uncertainties in the global calculations due largely to gaps in data coverage make 2006 statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and several other recent warm years as shown by the error bars on the [1]global time series." I'm not sure how to argue against this point - it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years. Best wishes, Bob Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [2]www.rms.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58 To: Bob Ward Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change Bob, Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I'm getting at you. I'm not - just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. It isn't an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal. I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the CRU web site. I'll see how I feel after the Christmas Pud. I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here. What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up. This is a linear trend - least squares. This is how statisticians work out trends. They don't just look at the series. The simpler way is to just look at the data. The warmest year is 1998 with 0.526. All years since 2001 have been above 0.4. The only year before 2001 that was above this level was 1998. So 2cnd to 8th warmest years are 2001-2007 The reason 1998 was the warmest year was that it resulted from the largest El Nino event of the 20th century in 1997/8. We've not had anything resembling a major El Nino event since - they have all been minor. Using regression, it is possible to take the El Nino event into account (with a regression based on the Southern Oscillation Index). This accounts for about 0.15 deg C of 1998's warmth. Without that 1998 would have been at about 0.38. There is a lot of variability from year-to-year in global temperatures - even more in ones like CET. No-one should expect each year to be warmer than the previous. The 2000s will be warmer than the 1990s though. This is another way of pointing out what's wrong with their poor argument. The last comment about CET is wrong. 2007 will be among the top 10 warmest CET years - it will likely be 2cnd or 3rd. Cheers Phil At 12:32 20/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Phil, I was wondering whether you have seen the article by David Whitehouse in the latest edition of 'New Statesman'? [3]http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 It would be great if somebody could respond to the article. I would be happy to do so if somebody can supply me with the ammunition. Any thoughts? Best wishes, Bob Bob Ward Director, Global Science Networks Risk Management Solutions Ltd Peninsular House 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 [4]www.rms.com This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. 4370. 2007-12-20 16:39:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:39:06 -0000 from: "Robert Matthews" subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine to: "Phil Jones" Great - thanks ! I see the story has been picked up on CC-NET; perhaps you should post this really handy rebuttal on there, before this story "gets legs" and is picked up by all the usual suspects (It's the Christmas silly season, and the papers are desperate for stories.....). Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Phil Jones To: [2]Robert Matthews Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:32 PM Subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine Robert, This story has been doing the rounds for the last 18 months. There is nothing new in it. It's been wrong every time it's been used. It comes from people who have no comprehension of the climate system. I was surprised this time, as I thought this writer ought to have know better. Just look at the global temperature series that you now have the associated errors for. There is a lot of variability on the annual timescale. A lot of this is just natural variability of the climate system. The trend is upwards. Some of the variability of the global temperatures is caused by El Nino/La Nina events. El Nino tends to make the world warmer and La Nina cooler. A measure of El Ninos is the Southern Oscillation Index (the difference in pressure between Darwin and Tahiti). When you regress this against global temperature you can explain quite a bit of the high-frequency variance due to the major El Ninos and La Ninas that have occurred since the mid-19th century. I wrote about how to do this in 1990 (see the pdf). The upshot of this is that 1998 is about 0.15 deg C too warm because of the 1997/98 El Nino influence - this El Nino being the biggest of the 20th century. So 1998 could be considered the problem, not the later years. There hasn't been much of an influence either way for the last 6-7 years. So if 1998 is reduced by 0.15, we would have all 7 warmest years as the warmest 7. Another way of looking at this is that all 7 years (2001-7) have a global temperature anomaly above 0.4 deg C. The only year before this with a value above 0.4 is 1998 (with 0.52). The last 7 years contain the second through eight warmest years in the series. Finally, as a climatologist, I wouldn't look at a temperature trend over such a short period as 10 years. I know, as you now do, that the global temperature series has error estimates. Given these errors, it would be impossible to get a statistically significant trend for any 10 year set of global temperature data chosen from any period in the global temperature record. It is likely that you will get a few periods that might be significant, but then you have to consider that you'd expect about 5% of samples significant. So, knowing this, put the global T numbers for 1998 to 2007 into an excel spreadsheet and calculate the trend. It isn't significant - it definitely isn't allowing for the errors. Despite this the trend is POSITIVE. So despite starting with the warmest year, a linear trend fit through the 10 years from 1998 to 2007 gives a POSITIVE trend. So the world is warming.... It will continue to, it just won't be a monotonic increase. It hasn't been like this in the past, and it won't be like that in the future. There is a case for the temps to have risen in a series of steps --- well to my eye anyway. The 1998 record will get broken - we just need the next reasonable sized El Nino. Cheers Phil At 16:07 20/12/2007, you wrote: Hi Phil Thanks again for your help with the global warming figures. As it happens, the New Statesman has just published a piece about whether global warming is still continuing (it's here: [3]http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 ). I'd very much welcome your views on it. Best wishes Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: [4]Phil Jones To: [5]Robert Matthews Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:07 AM Subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine Robert, The attachment has the information you are after. This also has the full press release - all the background information that journalists could have asked for on Dec 13. This should have gone out from the World Met Organization from Geneva on Dec 13 as well. The error ranges are shown in 2 different ways. 1 . Figure 1 (95% confidence values - so 'true' value will be in the range 19 times out of 20) with the global T values ranked from highest to lowest. 2. Figure 2 (top panel for the Globe, but also with the NH and SH there as well). These are the same values (and ranges) as in Figure 1 but plotted as a time series (the usual way). You'll see the errors are larger further back in time - especially in the 19th century. This is because there are fewer obs and the coverage gets sparser as regions drop out. 2007 has slightly wider error bars as we've estimated December. There are plots for smaller regions - the tropics, extratropics (30-90degrees N or S), arctic and antarctic sea ice areas, and some more local series for the UK. Cheers Phil At 18:24 17/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Professor I'm putting together a piece about the current rate of global warming, and was very interested in the data presented at Bali as summarised by the BBC News website here: [6]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm As the values are point-estimates extracted from a large number of measurements, presumably they should have some kind of standard deviation error bars associated with them. I wondered if you either knew the approximate size of these error bars (or even a graph showing them)? Thanks so much for your help with this. Best wishes Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Matthews Science Consultant, BBC Focus Magazine 47 Victoria Road, Oxford, OX2 7QF UK Email: [7]rajm@physics.org [8]www.focusmag.co.uk Tel: (+44)(0)1865 514 004 / Mob: 0790-651 9126 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________ NOD32 2729 (20071218) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. [9]http://www.eset.com Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________ NOD32 2738 (20071220) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. [10]http://www.eset.com 3673. 2007-12-20 16:58:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:58:39 +0000 (GMT) from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate to: Dear Phil, I am getting many contrasting views about this story. I would like to be sure that my reporting is correct. I normally do not circulate manuscripts beforehand, but if you think that you can check it for me -and not circulate at this stage- I will be happy to send you some paragraph to see if they are correct or not. This, furthermore, should be done the soonest - otherwise the editors will hang me. Best, Jacopo ----Messaggio originale---- Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Data: 19.12.2007 14.02 A: Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate Jacopo, Well, a responder (the original authors) to a comment on a paper, shouldn't be able to revise their response at the proof stage. It is a difficult issue and I doubt journals have rules about it, but maybe they will come in the future. What I hadn't realised was that the editor of EPSL had spent a year's sabbatical at EPSL! Cheers Phil At 12:20 19/12/2007, you wrote: >... and what do you think about all this issues of the changes done >between the "comments on" in press and now published at EPSL? >Best, >Jacopo > > > >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >Data: 14.12.2007 10.37 >A: >Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate > > > Jacopo, > I'm not suggesting fraud, just that Bard/Delaygue weren't >able >to reproduce > what Courtillot et al claimed to have done. > > Courtillot et al may be considered high profile scientists, but >this is > in a non-climate field. The issue here is that they are not fully >aware of > all the literature in the climate field. They are very selective >of >the papers > they cite and the journal EPSL isn't considered mainstream in >the > climate field. They tend to publish in what I would refer to as >the >non-climate > literature. In this respect the editors have a harder time >knowing they are > getting access to the best climate reviewers. > > To get another (may be similar) view to mine, I'd contact >Thomas > Stocker in Bern. (stocker@climate.unibe.ch) > > Thomas like me was involved in the 2007 IPCC Report. > > These papers weren't considered for the IPCC as they were after >the > deadline of mid-summer 2007. I doubt they would have been >referred to, > as they are not in mainstream climate journals. > > The IPCC 2007 WG1 Report is the most authoritative document you > can read on the subject. There is no dispute (see Ch 9) in the >IPCC > WG1 2007 that solar output changes explain some of the >temperature > increase in the first half of the 20th century. Why I was >pointing out > the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is that it shows natural forcing (the >sun > and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s. > Lockwood/Frohlich realise this, but Courtillot et al don't seem >to. > > As we have to invoke the positive effect of greenhouse gases >and the >negative effect of sulphate aerosols to explain recent warming, you >can > only ignore sulphate aerosols (as it is small) earlier in the >20th century. > So the sun can't explain all the increase as greenhouse gases >were going > up then as well (albeit less so). > > When I say invoking above I mean giving best estimates of past >forcing to > climate model simulations of the 20th century. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 08:48 14/12/2007, you wrote: > >Dear Phil, > >thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming >to > >fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this. > >In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there have > >might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer > >strictly confidential). > > > >I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot >and > >co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www. >copernicus. > >org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an > >example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as they > >argue that the others are not getting the right point around >climate > >change. > > > >May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent >you > >are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I may > >think of. > > > >I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there >is > >agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a >pre > >industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt >shift > >since the 80ies. > > > >Thank you again, > >Jacopo > > > > > > > > > >----Messaggio originale---- > >Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >Data: 13.12.2007 18.29 > >A: > >Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate > > > > > > Jacopo, > > I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot >paper > > by Bard and Delaygue. I was asked by Edouard Bard to try and > > locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their >response > >to > > Bard/Delaygue. All this is at the end of the Bard/Delaygue > > comment on p5/6. This name of this file is not the way I name > > files here. It is also not on the CRU web site and a google > >search > > doesn't find it! > > The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use > >(Jones > >et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007) > > is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was > >unable > >to reproduce their > > diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't make > >much > >difference, but > > you wonder what other mistakes they have made. > > > > There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to >explain > >the > > global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a >solar > >series > > (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and > >anthropogenic > > sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) > >. > > I think if you want to refer to this subject at least refer >to > >a good paper > > on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and >well > >argued paper. > > The answers to all your questions will be in this paper. > >Frohlich is > > Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French > >person > > who doesn't understand the climate system! > > > > There are two problems/issues in the climate field > > > > 1. Journals publish papers by Courtillot et al (and probably > >shouldn't). They give > > some unscrupulous people an excuse to say there is >disagreement > >amongst > > climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE are >to > >blame. > > Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't > >understand the > > climate system. I don't try and publish on magnetism! People > >think they can > > publish in the climate field without knowing little about the > >literature. There are > > too many journals (and still growing) and all have difficulty > >finding qualified > > reviewers. > > > > 2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering >solutions > >to the > > climate change issue. This gives the public and some >politicians > >a > > belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't. The > >only way to > > slow the increase in temperature is to reduce emissions. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > >At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote: > > >I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I > >happen > > >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with > > >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary Science > > >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought >that > > >the > > >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there it > >is > > >offered > > >another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this > > >geomagnetic > > >perspective on climate. > > >I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would > >very > > >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in this > > >subject and because you are widely quoted in the paper). > > > > > >Courtillot claims that up to 1980, on 10-100 scale, and 1000- > >10000 > > >scale climate change correlates well with changes in >geomagnetic > > >field of earth (no causality). Correct? > > > > > >What would be the driver of the change in geomagnetic field? > > > > > >It seems Courtillot does not neglect the anthropogenic rise >since > > >ca 1980. Correct? > > > > > >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation >of > > >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential >drivers > >of > > >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you >please > > >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in >this > > >field)? > > > > > >Is it really "increasingly recognised"? > > > > > >How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays > >could > > >effect the climate change? > > > > > >On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all > > >Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this >direction. > >He > > >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he acceptes >it > >for > > >the last few decades? > > > > > >What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims, > >would > > >these be proven to be correct? I mean with regards with IPCC > > >projections and alike. > > > > > > > > >Thank you and best regards (in case we may speak over the phone > > >tomorrow). > > >Jacopo Pasotti > > >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there is >a > > >reply on the comment in the journal's website. > > >- > > >Jacopo Pasotti, MSc. > > >Science Communicator > > >Science Journalist > > > > > >Basel - Switzerland > > >Mobile: +41.(0)787627785 > > >Home: +41.(0)61.3611340 > > >jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch > > >www.scienceandnature.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >NR4 7TJ > >UK > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1012. 2007-12-21 12:05:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Clare Goodess" , date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:05:14 -0000 from: "Jake Hacker" subject: RE: FW: Invitation to Tender - Design Summer Guidance for London to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil, Yes, great news about the EPSRC proposal. It looked a bit iffy when we got the referees reports, but they clearly saw the light. I thought it was a strong proposal and definitely the strongest team! On the GLA proposal that all sounds great. For the sites I'm thinking we need two, maybe three: a central urban, a peri-urban, and something in between, to make allowance for UHI. Depends a bit though how much extra work that will mean for you and if you have time to do it. I think though that the return period analysis should be just done for one site, and the same year(s) used for the other sites. Heathrow - what we have at the moment - is something in between. LWC is the obvious choice for the central site. I'm not sure yet on the peri-urban site. We have the hourly BADC data files here used for our last project with the GLA up to 2006, although have only looked at temperature. We had approval to use this for the last project, but we (Arup) may have to ask for permission from the Met Office to use them - they're a bit funny about us using the BADC data as we're 'commercial'. The sites we have are: Longest records: Heathrow and LWC, 1975-2006 (pretty complete, at least for temperature). Shorter records, with some missing data: St James' Park: 1996-2006 (this is central urban park, we guess, but haven't been able to find out exactly where the station is!) Beaufort Park: 1988-2002 Wisley: 2001-06 Gatwick: 1971-1988 As far as I know, that is all the hourly weather data for the London area that BADC/UKMO hold. Talk more in the New Year. I think I'll be back on the 3rd. Have a great Christmas. Best wishes, Jake ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 21 December 2007 10:20 To: Jake Hacker Cc: Clare Goodess; c.harpham@uea.ac.uk Subject: RE: FW: Invitation to Tender - Design Summer Guidance for London Jake, Good news re the EPSRC project! Have Chris in some advisory role would be useful. Happy to be as sub-consultants to you. Fine re IPR. On the DSYs presumably we'll just be doing Heathrow, or are other London sites (say LWC) being considered? Happy for you to do option A. Colin Harpham will be downloading the most up-to-date data for Heathrow and other London sites. This will be daily, but we can get what we can for hourly - through BADC - for Heathrow. If LWC has hourly then we'll get that. Most of the other sites don't have hourly except Gatwick. Reattached Heathrow, so Colin has the details of what needs to be in the file(s). Option A for the future, may end up with something mixing 2003 and 2006/7. Getting up to date hourly data is an issue. I don't think that 1975/76 for Heathrow are available hourly, so availability may dictate choice somewhat. Option B would essentially be based on the WG for UKCIP08, but the same type of return period analysis as A . I probably won't be checking email after this coming Sunday am, until maybe New Year's Eve/Day. Should be back in on Jan 2. Cheers Phil At 17:41 20/12/2007, Jake Hacker wrote: Phil, That's good to hear that you'd like to go in with us. I'm happy to co-ordinate the proposal and to take on the general project management/admin issues. I think the consortium would just be us, maybe with some formal advisory input from Chris Kilsby. On contracts, we can sort this out later on if and when we're appointed. For the last project we did with Glenn for GLA, King's acted as subconsultants to Arup, and the previous one we had two separate contracts with GLA; it's largely a matter of who carries the risk. On the IPR issues, all the background IPR (such as the WG) would rest with relevant parties under standard GLA contracts. We have also negotiated a clause previously that all methodological IPR generated on the project should rest with the consultants not the GLA, only the results. On the DSYs - they are composed of hourly data. I've attached the current one for London (you may already have this). There are not 14 CIBSE sites across the UK (since 2006) and the data was produced by Geoff Levermore . As far as I understand, this was done using BADC for the synoptic variables (including wind, I think) and the solar was synthesized from the cloud cover data using Tariq Muneer's algorithms. Prior to 2006, there were only three CIBSE weather year sites, and the solar was from observations. At the moment, I'm thinking that the diagnostic for summer warmth will be a combination of hours over a discomfort temperature threshold (e.g. 28C) and number of degrees over the threshold - a cooling degree hour type concept although the weighting might not be linear. For the adaptative comfort theory CIBSE are advocating, the discomfort temperatures change from day to day according to the running mean outdoor temperature. So we'll need hourly data or at least an approximation of hourly data for the summer warmth diagnostic/probability analysis. For the future years/change factors, I think GLA would be happy if we take a deterministic UKCIP02 approach. I don't think they're envisaging that the probabilistic nature of UKCIP08 needs to be incorporated until after UKCIP08 comes out; maybe informed by the EPSRC projects. In a way, this project is a 'stop gap' until UKCIP08 is finalised and digested. On the scope, I think there are two ways of approaching it: OPTION A - using only observations: estimate 'return' periods from historical data (e.g. last 30 years at the site) aauming stationarity; select 'present day' DSYs based on return periods, synthesising solar from cloud cover as in current DSYs; morph current DSYs under UKCIP02 (which supposes morphed years have same 'return periods' for the future timeslices. OPTION B - using WGs: return period analysis and present-day DSYs based on WGs; future DSYs determined in similar way using the WG, with deterministic change factors based on UKCIP08 for 2020s and 2050s. In either approach, I guess there's no way around assuming stationarity? I'd like us to pursue both options, as the first is 'safe', but a little pedestrian, whereas the second in more innovative and extendable to UKCIP08; and if both pan out ok as we expect we can compare and cross-validate. I'm quite interested to pursue Option A at Arup. Would that be ok? CRU would obviously need to do Option B. Let me know if you think that sounds ok. Jake ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 December 2007 14:03 To: Jake Hacker Cc: Clare Goodess Subject: RE: FW: Invitation to Tender - Design Summer Guidance for London Jake, I don't think we want to submit our own bid, so would like to join your consortium. So we do need to think about project management and contractual issues. The WG within UKCIP08 is essentially up and running now, or very soon. We have to calculate a load of results for measures like Heating/Cooling degree days through the WG for the report - across the whole country. These will be quite time consuming, so we can't be changing the WG (at least the daily part) from what we have now. The PMG of UKCIP08 have to set a cut-off date fairly soon to begin this work - probably at the next PMG on Jan 17. Thanks for the reasons for wind direction and pressure data being required. Observationally, we can get these quite easily from gridded pressure data, from Reanalysis products in fact. These are on a 2.5 by 2.5 degree grid. This is fine for pressure - easy to show. For wind direction we can calculate the large-scale wind direction (at this grid scale) from the pressure data, which should be fine. This could then be added to the station observations for the other variables. I am assuming a few things 1. DSYs are just based on daily average data. This would include Tx, Tn, but for other variables it is an average or a total for the day (the 09-09day). Wind direction would only vary from day to day. 2. Selecting a DSY is based on say temperature. The rest of the variables are those that were recorded for that choice. This way you get a 'real' sequence that occurred. So we can add pressure and wind direction for the choice. If different sites across London were needed, most of the variables would be similar (the choice being year or season Y), but if we go with the way of getting Pressure and wind direction, then these wouldn't vary much spatially. 3. If hourly were wanted we could use our hourly WG to disaggregate the daily DSY sequence to hourly. This is what UKCIP08 will be doing. Just daily would be simplest. How to perturb this is the problem. One possibility is to take the perturbations from UKCIP02 - and select a season (or months) from those that have occurred to get the future DSY. If the DSY for now was the 3rd warmest year/season then the future one might be just like the warmest one. With UKCIP08 you'd be able to do this for more possibilities. I think in all this the emphasis has to be on real and generated sequences. For the GLA, they will get extremish and very extremish 'real' sequences. Cheers Phil At 11:26 19/12/2007, Jake Hacker wrote: Phil, Thanks for your thoughts. I guess a key issues is whether one needs a WG to do this project or not. I'm not sure one does - the aim is to redefine the basis for the DSY selection; potentially that can be done using obs, as for the existing procedures. I also agree that WGs are the future, but using the WGs to actually produce the DSYs is an additional step. With regard to UKCIP08 - can we fully compatible with UKCIP08 prior to March, or is additional work needed later in the year? With regard to wind direction and pressure: Wind direction is used to calculate (along with wind speed) wind pressures on facades; this affects infiltration and natural ventilation rates. There are situations where naturally ventilated buildings are actually purposefully orientated (also streets) or have different sized ventilation openings on different facades to take account of prevailing wind directions (rightly or wrongly). Atmos p is used in psycrometric calculations (dry bulb-wet bulb-moisture content relationships) - very important for designing and simulating air conditioning systems; the pressure affects are generally minor in the calcs but some engineers might object to having to use a standard reference value. Can you let me know how you want to take this forward? Do we want to form a consortium? - if we do we need to think about the project management and contractual structures - or do you want to submit your own tender? Best wishes, Jake ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 18 December 2007 16:25 To: Jake Hacker; Clare Goodess Subject: Re: FW: Invitation to Tender - Design Summer Guidance for London Jake, Both Clare and I received this overnight. Clare is in Singapore this week and will be back on Jan 4 - as you'll have seen from her automatic response system. She did email this morning and I gave her the deadline for submission and a few other things as she wasn't able to open the files. Some thoughts on your thoughts 1. We will have downloaded from BADC all the weather data we can get for a number of London sites - by the first week of January. We will be getting/updating Heathrow, Gatwick, LWC, St James's Park, Wisley, High Beach and Rothamsted. This is all for another project(s) - Tyndall/SCORCHIO, so we will have what there is. We will be getting all the variables listed in the tender. 2. We will get MSLP and wind direction, although the latter isn't often measured. Not sure why MSLP is needed. If it is to use Muneer's formulae for getting direct/diffuse it makes no difference. We have his formulae within the UKCIP08 WG and have verified that they work well against the only two long-term series of diffuse and direct radiation we could find in the BADC archives (for Hemsby and Eskdalemuir). Formula uses sunshine and wet bulb temp. 3. We both got the tender here as you did. I suspect Geoff will have got it and maybe Chris Kilsby and the Met Office also. There is no need to involve Glenn McGregor - he's leaving for Auckland in March, so ought to say no, even if asked. 4. Useful to involve Chris Kilsby. He's not been responding to email in the last few days. Not sure what Stephen Belcher will do? 5. CIBSE are correct that WGs are the future - because of UKCIP08. We have the UKCIP08 WG (at least for daily) finalised and not much to do on the hourly part. What we could do is use this, but perturb it with UKCIP02 factors instead of the latter ones. This doesn't make much difference - we will probably have to use the CRU rainfall generator as opposed to the Newcastle one to do this. WGs have to be the future - as there is no way to use the MOHC probabilistic projections otherwise. 6. Your nagging in the back of your mind! The WG is conditioned (fit) to observed weather data at the site (in UKCIP08 we extrapolate between sites to get every 5 by 5km squares as well). We then perturb the parameters based on the MOHC work to get future sequences. We need multiple generated sequences as there will be a range of possible futures from the MOHC pdfs (for temp/precip). Users define what they want in the way of futures (time period, emissions and rareness - 90th percentile). We're not using pdfs of observed weather data, but the observed data itself (to fit the WG). This may be a moot point, but all the data are better than the pdf. It also gives you sequences. I've been saying for a while that it would be possible to generate loads of sequences similar to the observed one - which could enable you to get better return period estimates for all manner of variables. This is, IF, you believed the climate was stationary! In the pre- climate change days this is what a lot of hydrologists did. 7. We're not doing wind direction. This is because the MOHC models don't do it very well, it isn't that related to the other weather variables that well, it isn't that well observed (at least in the BADC files) and as the models don't do it that well, the future is uncertain (it isn't in the MOHC variables). Finally, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to any building model either. I know people think they need it, but have they ever tried running the model without it - or just having an uncorrelated direction shifting gradually. Wind direction is unlikely to change much in the future. 8. My idea of developing the TRYs and DSYs would be to use the WG for 1) the observed, 2) the WG simulating the observed and 3) the WG simulating the future. If you came up with a way of selection - say the 3rd warmest year in the observed, then you could mimic this in the WG runs. Say there were 30 observed years, you then take the 3rd warmest - maybe combining different warm winters, springs etc . With the WG you generate a number of 30 year runs and do the same thing. You can then compare how the building model responds to the observed TRY/DSY and the possible WG (based on observed) TRYs/DSYs. Selecting (how?) one of these from the WG is the only issue. Then you do a similar thing with the perturbed future WG simulations. The key thing in this is to show that the TRYs/DSYs (weather years) got from the observed data are no different from the same things got from the WG (observed) runs. This ought to give confidence in the approach with future (perturbed) WG runs. Just realised that there seems no way you can do this project without the WG. The only way you can make this compatible with UKCIP08 is to use a WG. So written in this WG way, it ought to be impossible for anyone without a WG to compete. All you can do without a WG is to modify the observed data in some way - and that doesn't seem that good these days. I'll be here the rest of the week, if you want to iterate on this further. Finally, only the output data (the TRYs and DSYs) will be the intellectual property of the GLA - not the WG. That IPR is essentially ours, but also DEFRA's who've funded the UKCIP08 work. Cheers Phil At 14:40 18/12/2007, Jake Hacker wrote: Phil - Clare, This is the spec for the Weather Years projects for the GLA. There are five work elements/outputs: 1. diagnostic for summer warmth (this will likely relate in some way to 30-day running mean outdoor temperatures, the basis of the adaptive thermal comfort model) 2. development of a probabilistic basis for selection of weather years 3. selection of weather station(s) for London 4. production of weather years 5. production of climate change adjusted weather years I envisage we would take the lead on output 1. Output 3 builds on the work Arup/King's did earlier in the year (which Phil reviewed), so I have some thoughts on this. I'm envisaging you would take the lead on outputs 2 and 4, and also 5 if we're not just morphing. Something that is not included in the spec is a testing phase, where we check that the weather files give sensible results when run through a building model, and against the preconceptions forming the basis of the 'diagnostic of warmth' - we can do this. The tenders need to be in by 11th Jan, which gives a little time after Christmas, but it would be good if we can fix ideas before the hols. The project needs to be completed by 31st of March, which gives a tight timeframe. But we might be able to get away with leaving a few loose ends to be tied up after we get paid. There is no guide price and I don't know what they have in mind, but I would guess more than 20k and less than 50k is what they are looking at. Can you also let me know if you think it would be good to involve anybody other than ourselves. e.g. - Chris Kilsby - for output 2; he offered to contribute in an advisory capacity when we spoke about earlier in the year - Tariq Muneer - we could possibly involve him as a consultant on the solar data for 4 and 5 if he is willing, which might go down well with CIBSE, but up to you if you think a good thing or not - Stephen Belcher & Glenn McGregor - we could involve them on the UHI side of things, but not necessary. I don't know who else has been asked to tender. I suspect Geoff Levermore will have. Maybe also UKMO. We would likely be well placed to win the work if the costs are ok. On the methodology, a couple of things: - we will need wind direction and atmospheric pressure for the weather years; does that affect decision to use observed years or WG output for the weather years themselves? - I'm a bit nervous about using the WG to create the weather years, as it's an additional methodological departure from current practice; that said, CIBSE are keen on WGs and see them as the future - on output 3, the probabilistic selection' methodology, we thought we would use long timeseries WG runs. Just something nagging at the back of my mind - if the WG is preconditioned on an observed pdf for the site (?), does it provide additional information for the return period analysis, or could that have been done using the original pdf without employing the WG? All the best and hope to have caught you before you break up for Christmas, Jake ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Andrew Tucker [ [3]mailto:Andrew.Tucker@london.gov.uk] Sent: 17 December 2007 18:49 Cc: Alex Nickson; Andrew Tucker Subject: Invitation to Tender - Design Summer Guidance for London Dear Colleague, On behalf of Alex Nickson at the Greater London Authority, please find attached an Invitation to Tender for the Development of Design Summer Guidance for London study. This invitation email has been sent to you as an invitee, and is not to be passed onto others unless part of your tender bid consortium. This email should contain the following documents; - Project Specification - Form of Tender - GLA's Access to Information Policy - Invitation to Quote Letter - Pricing Schedule - Procurement - Diversity Monitoring Form The Project's Terms and Conditions document will be sent to you over the next few days. Until Friday the 21st of December, I will be the point of contact for the project. Alex Nickson will be Project's lead contact after the Christmas break. <> <> <> <> <> <> Best Regards Andrew Andrew Tucker London Climate Change Partnership Manager Greater London Authority City Hall Queens Walk London SE1 2AA Ph: 020 7983 4679 M: 07766347776 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE BICENTENNIAL 2007 - IGNORED NO MORE GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY EMAIL NOTICE: The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at [4]http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5127. 2007-12-21 12:21:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones, Gareth S" , "Jones, Phil" , "Folland, Chris" , "Boucher, Olivier" date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:21:06 +0000 from: David Parker subject: Re: FW: New Statesman to: Press Office Barry Here is an initial contribution David "Dear Sir, It is not possible to establish a significant trend of global annual surface temperatures, or lack thereof, over a period as short as 10 years. However the longer-term trends, whether over 25, 50 or 100 years remain highly significant. Short-term fluctuations in global surface temperature can be caused by natural oceanic phenomena including El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cold) events in the tropical Pacific, and 2007 has been cooled by the latter. However these phenomena merely redistribute heat towards or away from the ocean's surface, rather than changing the total heat content, which will always rise if (owing e.g. to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases) the longwave radiation going out to space is less than the incoming solar radiation. The oceans are by far the largest heat reservoir and the 2007 IPCC Report shows that their heat content is increasing. The record melt of Arctic sea ice in 2007 also represents an increase of the heat content of the Earth." ***********************************8 On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 14:03 +0000, Press Office wrote: > Both > > > > Please see the New Statesman article below which Vicky suggests we > should consider responding. Would either of you wish to draft a letter > in reply? > > > > Thanks > > Barry > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Pope, Vicky > Sent: 20 December 2007 13:59 > To: Press Office > Subject: RE: New Statesman > > > > > THis looks like one it might be worth responding to. > > > > David Parker, Olivier Boucher or Peter Stott might be able to help? > > > > Vicky > > > > > Dr Vicky Pope > Head of Climate Change for Government > Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB > Tel: +44 (0)1392 884655 mobile + 44 (0)7753 880669 > Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 (mark FAO Vicky Pope) > E-mail: vicky.pope@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From:Gromett, Barry On Behalf Of Press Office > Sent: 20 December 2007 12:46 > To: Pope, Vicky > Subject: FW: New Statesman > > Vicky > > > > Any thoughts on responding to Whitehouse 3538. 2007-12-21 12:55:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:55:01 +0000 (GMT) from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: PS AW: Fwd: Re: more questions to: Phil... I am showing you just technical bits that I need to make clear. It is probably less then half of the whole! You need to understand that speaking with you and others made me rather clear the objections. Their arguments are more complicate do condensate. I am bringing in it views of Ray Pierrehumbert, of Bard, of Delaygue. I also spoke to Stocker. Just, the editors need me to first report what are Courtillot's claims, that's the way it works in the news. I cannot start up with the comments, like in a web blog. Look at these, please, http://www.scienceandnature.net/Dati/science_stalagmites.pdf http://www.scienceandnature.net/Dati/maldives.htm Does they look like skeptic stories? However, I take it as a misunderstanding. If I get your comments by today evening, they will be most useful. Thanks, Jacopo ----Messaggio originale---- Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Data: 21.12.2007 13.25 A: Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: PS AW: Fwd: Re: more questions Jacopo, I'm not going to comment on your text, because your report is awful. I thought you wanted a balanced report. What you've written isn't. You've not understood any of what was said on the Real Climate Audit web site. You have several words wrong and what you say doesn't make sense at times. But you don't seem to want to discuss proper climate science. Phil At 17:18 20/12/2007, you wrote: >Thanks Jones, >please read the following paragraphs. Check for consistency. The >wording will also change. Basically you would help me just answering: >correct? Yes or no. >Please notice that I am not used to send so much text for revision, >but I need to be sure I am reporting correctly. Please do not >circulate this manuscript at this stage. >Thanks, Jacopo > >--- >The team of geophysicists led by Vincent Courtillot, director of >the director of Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris, insist that >the solar activity conjures with the Earth magnetic field influencing >climate of the past few centuries and back to five millennia ago. >--- >To explain how climate of the last century is affected by both the >Sun and the geomagnetic field, the team shows a graph where solar >activity and the geomagnetic field nicely shift up and down at the >unison with the global temperature. The team speculated that solar- >induced changes the magnetic field by cosmic ray fluctuations >influences climate, possibly enahncing or inhibiting cloud >formation. >--- >But looking to a more remote past makes the role of the Earth's >magnetic field even more intriguing, the geophysicists say. To look >back to when Egypt was governed by god-like pharaons, geophyisicist >Yves Gallet, who was part of the team, studied magnetic intensity >preserved in archaeological fragments. He found sharp changes in the >secular variations of the magnetic field, called "archeomagnetic >jerks", that probably result from Earth's core fluid flow variations. >According to Gallet archeomagnetic jerks match stunningly with >cooling events, occurring approximately every 500 years. >--- >The secular roaming of the dipole from the geographic north towards >lower latitudes may provide an explanation for the climate- >geomagnetism link. Magnetic field traps the cosmic rays producing >spectacular northern lights, and that's about it in the dry polar >regions. But the team argued that when the dipole tilts towards the >south and meets with a more humid atmosphere cosmic rays could form >clouds, and therefore cool the atmosphere. >--- >In a comment in press in the same journal, climatologist Edouard >Bard, from Collège de France, and geochemist Gilles Delaygue, from >the University Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille 3, unvailed approximations >and uncritical examination of current views on climate that rub >Courtillot's results away. For example Bard questioned a cooling of >the global temperature from 1940 to 1970. The French team showed a >nice fit between the sun, the geomagnetic fluctuations, and climate >showed by the French team, is commonly attributed to human made >areosols, Bard objected. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1459. 2007-12-21 15:03:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Warrilow, David (CEOSA)" date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:03:16 -0000 from: "Dagnet, Yamide (CEOSA)" subject: Future Development of the IPCC to: "Dodwell, Chris (ICC)" , "Pickard, Ian (ICC)" , "Amin, Amal-Lee (ICC)" , "Gaches, Joanna (ICC)" , "Droogsma, Dagmar (ICC)" , "Hession, Martin (ICC)" , "Bristow, Harriet (ICC)" , "Ryder, Hannah (ICC/CCE)" , "Webb, Matthew J (ICC)" , "Warrilow, David (CEOSA)" , "Penman, Jim (CEOSA)" , "Johnson, Chris (CD)" , "Sear, Chris (CEOSA)" , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , "Danskin, Hunter (CEOSA)" , "Coyne, Matthew (CEOSA)" , "Nesbit, Martin (CEBT)" , "Burt, James (CESPS)" , "Brearley, Jonathan (OCC)" , "Williams, Martin (AEQ)" , "Hughes, James (CESPS)" , , "Derwent, Henry (CEER)" , "Costigan, Peter (NESD)" , "Parker, Miles (ScD)" , "Davidson, Ian (ScD)" , "Janes, Jackie (CEHM)" , , , , "Catovsky, Sebastian (FM)" , , "Amin-Hanjani, Soheila (AEQ)" , , "Dallman, Tina (CCE)" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Holmes, John (SEERAD)" , "Montgomery, Alistair (SEERAD)" , "Wright, Philip (SEERAD)" , , "Webb, David (WAG-EPC)" , "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" , , , , , , "Harley, Mike (ENN)" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Davey, James (CEOSA)" Dear Colleagues, Many thanks to all of you who have taken part to the review of the IPCC 4th Assessment report and hence contributed to make an authoritative report and strong basis for Bali negotiations. We believe it would be useful to take the opportunity to review the IPCC structure, governance, products and consider what lessons should be learnt for the future of the IPCC. I would therefore be grateful if you could complete the attached questionnaire and return it to me by the 25th January 2008. Questions include: - Which subjects do you feel needs to be covered by special report or technical papers? - Which are the top three key questions the 5^th Assessment report should aim at answering? - Do you have any suggestions on how the IPCC Nobel prize should be used? <> <> May we take this opportunity to wish you a very happy Christmas and best wishes for the new year. Best regards, Yamide Dagnet UK Deputy Focal Point for IPCC On Behalf of David Warillow Focal Point for IPCC Yamide Dagnet Response Strategies Branch Climate Energy and Ozone Science Analysis (CEOSA) Division Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 3372 Fax: +44 (0)20 7238 3341 Email: yamide.dagnet@defra.gsi.gov.uk Address: Area 3F Ergon House, 17 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\letter - Wider Consultation (Dec07).doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Future of IPCC Questionnaire1.doc" 2108. 2007-12-22 03:23:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:23:59 -0000 from: "Earth and Planetary Science Letters" subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision to: Ref: EPSL-D-07-00839 Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe Article Type: Regular Article Dear Dr. Jones, Thank you once again for reviewing the above-referenced paper. With your help the following final decision has now been reached: Reject The author decision letter and reviewer reports can be found below. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this paper and greatly value your assistance as a reviewer for Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If you have not yet activated or completed your 30 days of access to Scopus, you can still access Scopus via this link: http://scopees.elsevier.com/ees_login.asp?journalacronym=EPSL&username=PJones-929 You can use your EES password to access Scopus via the URL above. You can save your 30 days access period, but access will expire 6 months after you accepted to review. Yours sincerely, Rob D. van der Hilst Editor Earth and Planetary Science Letters To: "Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot" courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr From: hilst-epsl@mit.edu Subject: Your Submission Ms. Ref. No.: EPSL-D-07-00839 Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe Earth and Planetary Science Letters Dear Vincent, The same reviewers of the "temperatures" paper have also seen this paper. Not surprisingly, the recommendation of the reviewers is the same. Like the revision of the temperature paper that I rejected last July, I am sorry to inform you that also this paper I have decided to reject. Please consider the brief comments below along with those given on the other paper. In one of your e-mails you referred to a paper that is currently under revision for the the Proceedings of the French Academy. Perhaps it is possible to combine the observations presented in these two papers with that one? Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Yours sincerely, Rob D. van der Hilst Editor Earth and Planetary Science Letters Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Review of Blanter et al. - submitted also to EPSL All the review of Le Mouel et al is relevant to this paper, as this has also fallen into the same pitfalls. I would suggest you read Pittock (1983) and also the papers by Brohan et al (2006) and van Loon and Labitzke (1988). The same mistakes as for the other paper have been made, and my recommendation is that this paper also be rejected. A second reason for rejecting this paper (Blanter et al) is that much of the material is the same - very similar sentences and very similar analyses. This paper does have Table 1, though. Here are some specific problems with this paper. As I have said all those for the other paper are also relevant here. 1. There are lots of long daily pressure series for other parts of the world - i.e. beyond Europe. Some long European sources are given in this paper and a long gridded database of daily pressure data (Ansell et al. 2006). Another good source of very long daily European series is this volume (Camuffo and Jones, 2002), which is also a Special Issue volume of Climatic Change. 2. The long-term trend in the green series (Germany) looks wrong in Figure 2. 3. Referencing of the climatological literature is again very superficial. There is a lot of literature on pressure variability across Europe. 4323. 2007-12-26 18:50:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:50:55 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: More significance testing stuff to: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov Dear John, Thanks for your email. As usual, your comments were constructive and thought-provoking. I've tried to do some of the additional tests that you suggested, and will report on the results below. But first, let's have a brief recap. As discussed in my previous emails, I've tested the significance of differences between trends in observed MSU time series and the trends in synthetic MSU temperatures in a multi-model "ensemble of opportunity". The "ensemble of opportunity" comprises results from 49 realizations of the CMIP-3 "20c3m" experiment, performed with 19 different A/OGCMs. This is the same ensemble that was analyzed in Chapter 5 of the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1. I've used observational results from two different groups (RSS and UAH). From each group, we have results for both T2 and T2LT. This yields a total of 196 different tests of the significance of observed-versus-model trend differences (2 observational datasets x 2 layer-averaged temperatures x 49 realizations of the 20c3m experiment). Thus far, I've tested the significance of trend differences using T2 and T2LT data spatially averaged over oceans only (both 20N-20S and 30N-30S), as well as over land and ocean (20N-20S). All results described below focus on the land and ocean results, which facilitates a direct comparison with Douglass et al. Here was the information that I sent you on Dec. 14th: COMBINED LAND/OCEAN RESULTS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS ADJUSTED FOR TEMPORAL AUTOCORRELATION EFFECTS; SPATIAL AVERAGES OVER 20N-20S; ANALYSIS PERIOD 1979 TO 1999) T2LT tests, RSS observational data: 0 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2LT tests, UAH observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, RSS observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, UAH observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. In other words, at a stipulated significance level of 5% (for a two-tailed test), we rejected the null hypothesis of "No significant difference between observed and simulated tropospheric temperature trends" in only 1 out of 98 cases (1.02%) for T2LT and 2 out of 98 cases (2.04%) for T2. You asked, John, how we might determine a baseline for judging the likelihood of obtaining the 'observed' rejection rate by chance alone. You suggested use of a bootstrap procedure involving the model data only. In this procedure, one of the 49 20c3m realizations would be selected at random, and would constitute the "surrogate observations". The remaining 48 members would be randomly sampled (with replacement) 49 times. The significance of the difference between the surrogate "observed" trend and the 49 simulated trends would then be assessed. This procedure would be repeated many times, yielding a distribution of rejection rates of the null hypothesis. As you stated in your email, "The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that this could have occurred by chance." One slight problem with your suggested bootstrap approach is that it convolves the trend differences due to internally-generated variability with trend differences arising from inter-model differences in both climate sensitivity and in the forcings applied in the 20c3m experiment. So the distribution of "hits" (as you call it; or "rejection rates" in my terminology) is not the distribution that one might expect due to chance alone. Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to generate a distribution of "rejection rates" based on model data only. Rather than implementing the resampling approach that you suggested, I considered all possible combinations of trend pairs involving model data, and performed the paired difference test between the trend in each 20c3m realization and in each of the other 48 realizations. This yields a total of 2352 (49 x 48) non-identical pairs of trend tests (for each layer-averaged temperature time series). Here are the results: T2: At a stipulated 5% significance level, 58 out of 2352 tests involving model data only (2.47%) yielded rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend. T2LT: At a stipulated 5% significance level, 32 out of 2352 tests involving model data only (1.36%) yielded rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend. For both layer-averaged temperatures, these numbers are slightly larger than the "observed" rejection rates (2.04% for T2 and 1.02% for T2LT). I would conclude from this that the statistical significance of the differences between the observed and simulated MSU tropospheric temperature trends is comparable to the significance of the differences between the simulated 20c3m trends from any two CMIP-3 models (with the proviso that the simulated trend differences arise not only from internal variability, but also from inter-model differences in sensitivity and 20th century forcings). Since I was curious, I thought it would be fun to do something a little closer to what you were advocating, John - i.e., to use model data to look at the statistical significance of trend differences that are NOT related to inter-model differences in the 20c3m forcings or in climate sensitivity. I did this in the following way. For each model with multiple 20c3m realizations, I tested each realization against all other (non-identical) realizations of that model - e.g., for a model with an 20c3m ensemble size of 5, there are 20 paired trend tests involving non-identical data. I repeated this procedure for the next model with multiple 20c3m realizations, etc., and accumulated results. In our CCSP report, we had access to 11 models with multiple 20c3m realizations. This yields a total of 124 paired trend tests for each layer-averaged temperature time series of interest. For both T2 and T2LT, NONE of the 124 paired trend tests yielded rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend (at a stipulated 5% significance level). You wanted to know, John, whether these rejection rates are sensitive to the stipulated significance level. As per your suggestion, I also calculated rejection rates for a 20% significance level. Below, I've tabulated a comparison of the rejection rates for tests with 5% and 20% significance levels. The two "rows" of "MODEL-vs-MODEL" results correspond to the two cases I've considered above - i.e., tests involving 2352 trend pairs (Row 2) and 124 trend pairs (Row 3). Note that the "OBSERVED-vs-MODEL" row (Row 1) is the combined number of "hits" for 49 tests involving RSS data and 49 tests involving UAH data: REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 5% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL: Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" Row 1. OBSERVED-vs-MODEL 49 x 2 2 (2.04%) 1 (1.02%) Row 2. MODEL-vs-MODEL 2352 58 (2.47%) 32 (1.36%) Row 3. MODEL-vs-MODEL 124 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 20% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL: Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" Row 1. OBSERVED-vs-MODEL 49 x 2 7 (7.14%) 5 (5.10%) Row 2. MODEL-vs-MODEL 2352 176 (7.48%) 100 (4.25%) Row 3. MODEL-vs-MODEL 124 8 (6.45%) 6 (4.84%) So what can we conclude from this? 1) Irrespective of the stipulated significance level (5% or 20%), the differences between the observed and simulated MSU trends are, on average, substantially smaller than we might expect if we were conducting these tests with trends selected from a purely random distribution (i.e., for the "Row 1" results, 2.04 and 1.02% << 5%, and 7.14% and 5.10% << 20%). 2) Why are the rejection rates for the "Row 3" results substantially lower than 5% and 20%? Shouldn't we expect - if we are only testing trend differences between multiple realizations of the same model, rather than trend differences between models - to obtain rejection rates of roughly 5% for the 5% significance tests and 20% for the 20% tests? The answer is clearly "no". The "Row 3" results do not involve tests between samples drawn from a population of randomly-distributed trends! If we were conducting this paired test using randomly-sampled trends from a long control simulation, we would expect (given a sufficiently large sample size) to eventually obtain rejection rates of 5% and 20%. But our "Row 3" results are based on paired samples from individual members of a given model's 20c3m experiment, and thus represent both signal (response to the imposed forcing changes) and noise - not noise alone. The common signal component makes it more difficult to reject the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend. 3) Your point about sensitivity to the choice of stipulated significance level was well-taken. This is obvious by comparing "Row 3" results in the 5% and 20% test cases. 4) In both the 5% and 20% cases, the rejection rate for paired tests involving model-versus-observed trend differences ("Row 1") is comparable to the rejection rate for tests involving inter-model trend differences ("Row 2") arising from the combined effects of differences in internal variability, sensitivity, and applied forcings. On average, therefore, model versus observed trend differences are not noticeably more significant than the trends between any given pair of CMIP-3 models. [N.B.: This inference is not entirely justified, since, "Row 2" convolves the effects of both inter-model differences and "within model" differences arising from the different manifestations of natural variability superimposed on the signal. We would need a "Row 4", which involves 19 x 18 paired tests of model results, using only one 20c3m realization from each model. I'll generate "Row 4" tomorrow.] John, you also suggested that we might want to look at the statistical significance of trends in time series of differences - e.g., in O(t) minus M(t), or in M1(t) minus M2(t), where "O" denotes observations, and "M" denotes model, and t is an index of time in months. While I've done this in previous work (for example in the Santer et al. 2000 JGR paper, where we were looking at the statistical significance of trend differences between multiple observational upper air temperature datasets), I don't think it's advisable in this particular case. As your email notes, we are dealing here with A/OGCM results in which the phasing of El Ninos and La Ninas (and the effects of ENSO variability on T2 and T2LT) differs from the phasing in the real world. So differencing M(t) from O(t), or M2(t) from M1(t), probably actually amplifies rather than damps noise, particularly in the tropics, where the externally-forced component of M(t) or O(t) over 1979 to 1999 is only a relatively small fraction of the overall variance of the time series. I think this amplification of noise is a disadvantage in assessing whether trends in O(t) and M(t) are significantly different. Anyway, thanks again for your comments and suggestions, John. They gave me a great opportunity to ignore the hundreds of emails that accumulated in my absence, and instead do some science! With best regards, Ben John Lanzante wrote: > Ben, > > Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have performed > consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with each one > of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". Significance > of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain > number of "hits". > > To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain the > given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by > treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For each > trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the "observation". > From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and perform > 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many times to > generate a distribution of "hits". > > The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be > referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that this > could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed > trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. > > There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to your method. > You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series in the > pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first > create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's trend? > The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the autocorrelation > in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" > adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this > differencing would help remove the common externally forced variability, > but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be > needed. > > Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess > differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which yields > only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you would get > potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash so to > speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would increase > as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would make the > whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since you > would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current scheme, using > a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X 49 = 2.45. > For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would have an > expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. > > I hope this helps. > > On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different versions of > Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that the > latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I recalled > from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a > couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if we use > the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can reference -- > if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in submission? > The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences in > methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as compared to > the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did changes occur to > yield a stronger warming trend? > > Best regards, > > ______John > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> Thanks Ben, >> >> You have the makings of a nice article. >> >> I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly different >> by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). You found 3. >> With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you will find there is >> indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. amplification. Setting up the >> statistical testing should be interesting with this many combinations. >> >> Regards, Tom > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3804. 2007-12-28 16:14:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:14:10 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: Leopold Haimberger Dear Leo, The Figure that you sent is extremely informative, and would be great to include in a response to Douglass et al. The Figure clearly illustrates that the "structural uncertainties" inherent in radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change are much larger than Douglass et al. have claimed. This is an important point to make. Would it be possible to produce a version of this Figure showing results for the period 1979 to 1999 (the period that I've used for testing the significance of model-versus-observed trend differences) instead of 1979 to 2004? With best regards, and frohes Neues Jahr! Ben Leopold Haimberger wrote: > Dear all, > > I have attached a plot which summarizes the recent developments > concerning tropical radiosonde temperature datasets and which could be > a candidate to be included in a reply to Douglass et al. > It contains trend profiles from unadjusted radiosondes, HadAT2-adjusted > radiosondes, RAOBCORE (versions 1.2-1.4) adjusted radiosondes > and from radiosondes adjusted with a neighbor composite method (RICH) > that uses the break dates detected with RAOBCORE (v1.4) as metadata. > RAOBCORE v1.2,v1.3 are documented in Haimberger (2007), RAOBCORE v1.4 > and RICH are discussed in the manuscript I mentioned in my previous email. > Latitude range is 20S-20N, only time series with less than 24 months of > missing data are included. Spatial sampling of all curves is the same > except HadAT which contains less stations that meet the 24month > criterion. Sampling uncertainty of the trend curves is ca. > +/-0.1K/decade (95% percentiles estimated with bootstrap method). > > RAOBCORE v1.3,1.4 and RICH are results from ongoing research and warming > trends from radiosondes may still be underestimated. > The upper tropospheric warming maxima from RICH are even larger (up to > 0.35K/decade, not shown), if only radiosondes within the tropics > (20N-20S) are allowed as reference for adjustment of tropical radiosonde > temperatures. The pink/blue curves in the attached plot should therefore > not be regarded as upper bound of what may be achieved with plausible > choices of reference series for homogenization. > Please let me know your comments. > > I wish you a merry Christmas. > > With best regards > > Leo > > John Lanzante wrote: >> Ben, >> >> Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have >> performed >> consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with each one >> of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". Significance >> of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain >> number of "hits". >> >> To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain the >> given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by >> treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For each >> trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the >> "observation". >> From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and perform >> 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many times to >> generate a distribution of "hits". >> >> The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be >> referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that >> this >> could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed >> trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. >> >> There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to your >> method. >> You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series in the >> pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first >> create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's >> trend? >> The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the >> autocorrelation >> in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" >> adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this >> differencing would help remove the common externally forced variability, >> but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be >> needed. >> >> Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess >> differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which yields >> only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you would >> get >> potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash so to >> speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would >> increase >> as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would >> make the >> whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since you >> would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current scheme, >> using >> a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X 49 >> = 2.45. >> For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would >> have an >> expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different >> versions of >> Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that the >> latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I recalled >> from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a >> couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if >> we use >> the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can reference -- >> if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in submission? >> The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences in >> methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as >> compared to the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did >> changes occur to >> yield a stronger warming trend? >> >> Best regards, >> >> ______John >> >> >> >> On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ben, >>> >>> You have the makings of a nice article. >>> >>> I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly >>> different by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). >>> You found 3. With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you will >>> find there is indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. amplification. >>> Setting up the statistical testing should be interesting with this >>> many combinations. >>> >>> Regards, Tom >>> >> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4944. 2007-12-29 22:10:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:10:30 +0100 from: Leopold Haimberger subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, I have attached the tropical mean trend profiles, now for the period 1979-1999. RAOBCORE versions show much more upper tropospheric heating for this period, RICH shows slightly more heating. Note also stronger cooling of unadjusted radiosondes in stratospheric layers compared to 1999-2004. Just for information I have included also zonal mean trend plots for the unadjusted radiosondes (tm), RAOBCORE v1.4 (tmcorr) and RICH (rgmra) I do not suggest that these plots should be included but some of you maybe want to know about the spatial coherence of the zonal mean trends. It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts. Meridional resolution is 10 degrees. As you can imagine, the tropical upper tropospheric heating maximum at 5S and the cooling in the unadjusted radiosondes at 5N are based on very few long records in these belts. 2-3 in 5S, about 5 in 5N. Best regards and I wish you all a happy new year. Leo Ben Santer wrote: > Dear Leo, > > The Figure that you sent is extremely informative, and would be great > to include in a response to Douglass et al. The Figure clearly > illustrates that the "structural uncertainties" inherent in > radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change are much > larger than Douglass et al. have claimed. This is an important point > to make. > > Would it be possible to produce a version of this Figure showing > results for the period 1979 to 1999 (the period that I've used for > testing the significance of model-versus-observed trend differences) > instead of 1979 to 2004? > > With best regards, and frohes Neues Jahr! > > Ben > Leopold Haimberger wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I have attached a plot which summarizes the recent developments >> concerning tropical radiosonde temperature datasets and which could >> be a candidate to be included in a reply to Douglass et al. >> It contains trend profiles from unadjusted radiosondes, >> HadAT2-adjusted radiosondes, RAOBCORE (versions 1.2-1.4) adjusted >> radiosondes >> and from radiosondes adjusted with a neighbor composite method (RICH) >> that uses the break dates detected with RAOBCORE (v1.4) as metadata. >> RAOBCORE v1.2,v1.3 are documented in Haimberger (2007), RAOBCORE v1.4 >> and RICH are discussed in the manuscript I mentioned in my previous >> email. >> Latitude range is 20S-20N, only time series with less than 24 months >> of missing data are included. Spatial sampling of all curves is the >> same except HadAT which contains less stations that meet the 24month >> criterion. Sampling uncertainty of the trend curves is ca. >> +/-0.1K/decade (95% percentiles estimated with bootstrap method). >> >> RAOBCORE v1.3,1.4 and RICH are results from ongoing research and >> warming trends from radiosondes may still be underestimated. >> The upper tropospheric warming maxima from RICH are even larger (up >> to 0.35K/decade, not shown), if only radiosondes within the tropics >> (20N-20S) are allowed as reference for adjustment of tropical >> radiosonde temperatures. The pink/blue curves in the attached plot >> should therefore not be regarded as upper bound of what may be >> achieved with plausible choices of reference series for homogenization. >> Please let me know your comments. >> >> I wish you a merry Christmas. >> >> With best regards >> >> Leo >> >> John Lanzante wrote: >>> Ben, >>> >>> Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have >>> performed >>> consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with >>> each one >>> of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". >>> Significance >>> of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain >>> number of "hits". >>> >>> To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain >>> the >>> given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by >>> treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For >>> each >>> trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the >>> "observation". >>> From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and >>> perform >>> 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many >>> times to >>> generate a distribution of "hits". >>> >>> The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be >>> referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability >>> that this >>> could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed >>> trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. >>> >>> There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to >>> your method. >>> You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series >>> in the >>> pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first >>> create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's >>> trend? >>> The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the >>> autocorrelation >>> in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" >>> adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this >>> differencing would help remove the common externally forced >>> variability, >>> but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be >>> needed. >>> >>> Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess >>> differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which >>> yields >>> only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you >>> would get >>> potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash >>> so to >>> speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would >>> increase >>> as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would >>> make the >>> whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since >>> you >>> would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current >>> scheme, using >>> a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X >>> 49 = 2.45. >>> For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would >>> have an >>> expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. >>> >>> I hope this helps. >>> >>> On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different >>> versions of >>> Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that >>> the >>> latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I >>> recalled >>> from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a >>> couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if >>> we use >>> the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can >>> reference -- >>> if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in >>> submission? >>> The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences >>> in methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as >>> compared to the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did >>> changes occur to >>> yield a stronger warming trend? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> ______John >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Ben, >>>> >>>> You have the makings of a nice article. >>>> >>>> I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly >>>> different by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). >>>> You found 3. With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you >>>> will find there is indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. >>>> amplification. Setting up the statistical testing should be >>>> interesting with this many combinations. >>>> >>>> Regards, Tom >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Ao. Univ. Prof. Dr. Leopold Haimberger Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universität Wien Althanstraße 14, A - 1090 Wien Tel.: +43 1 4277 53712 Fax.: +43 1 4277 9537 http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~haimbel7/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendbeltbg_Tropics_1979-1999_v1_4.eps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendzonalGlobe_tmcorr_1979-1999.ps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendzonalGlobe_rgmra_1979-1999.ps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendzonalGlobe_tm_1979-1999.ps" 1649. 2007-12-30 10:18:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , santer1@llnl.gov, Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , myles , Bill Fulkerson date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:18:04 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Tom Wigley , "Thomas.R.Karl" Dear All, Thanks very much for the helpful discussion on these issues. I write to make a point that may not be well recognized regarding the character of the temperature trends in the lowermost stratosphere/upper troposphere. I have already discussed this with Ben but want to share with others since I believe it is relevant to this controversy at least at some altitudes. The question I want to raise is not related to the very important dialogue on how to handle the errors and the statistics, but rather how to think about the models. The attached paper by Forster et al. appeared recently in GRL. It taught me something I didn't realize, namely that ozone losses and accompanying temperature trends at higher altitudes can strongly affect lower altitudes, through the influence of downwelling longwave. There is now much evidence that ozone has decreased significantly in the tropics near 70 mbar. What we show in the attached paper by Forster et al is that ozone depletion near 70 mbar affects temperatures not only at that level, but also down to lower altitudes. I think this is bound to be important to the tropical temperature trends at least in the 100-50 mbar height range, possibly lower down as well, depending upon the degree to which there is a 'substratosphere' that is more radiatively influenced than the rest of the troposphere. Whether it can have an influence as low as 200 mbar - I don't know. But note that having an influence could mean reducing the warming there, not necessarily flipping it over to a net cooling. This 'long-distance' physics, whereby ozone depletion and associated cooling up high can affect the thermal structure lower down, is not a point I had understood despite many years of studying the problem so I thought it worthwhile to point it out to you here. It has often been said (I probably said it myself five years ago) that ozone losses and associated cooling can't happen or aren't important in this region - but that is wrong. Further, the fundamental point made in the paper of Thompson and Solomon a few years back remains worth noting, and is, I believe, now resolved in the more recent Forster et al paper: that the broad structure of the temperature trends, with quite large cooing in the lowermost stratosphere in the tropics, comparable to that seen at higher latitudes, is a feature NOT explained by e.g. CO2 cooling, but now can be explained by the observed ozone losses. Exactly how big the tropical cooling is, and exactly how low down it goes, remains open to quantitative question and improvement of radiosonde datasets. But I believe the fundamental point we made in 2005 remains true: the temperature trends in the lower stratosphere in the tropics are, even with corrections, quite comparable to that seen at other latitudes. We can now say it is surely linked to the now-well-observed trends in ozone there. The new paper further shows that you don't have to have ozone trends at 100 mbar to have a cooling there, due to down-welling longwave, possibly lower down still. Whether enhanced upwelling is a factor is a central question. No global general circulation model can possibly be expected to simulate this correctly unless it has interactive ozone, or prescribes an observed tropical ozone trend. The AR4 models did not include this, and any 'discrepancies' are not relevant at all to the issue of the fidelity of those models for global warming. So in closing let me just say that just how low down this effect goes needs more study, but that it does happen and is relevant to the key problem of tropical temperature trends is one that I hope this email has clarified. Happy new year, Susan At 6:13 PM -0700 12/29/07, Tom Wigley wrote: >Tom, > >Yes -- I had this in an earlier version, but I did not want to >overwhelm people with the myriad errors in the D et al. paper. > >I liked the attached item -- also in an earlier version. > >Tom. > >+++++++++++++ > >Thomas.R.Karl wrote: > >>Tom, >> >>This is a very nice set of slides clearly >>showing the problem with the Douglass et al >>paper. One other aspect of this issue that >>John L has mentioned and we discussed when we >>were doing SAP 1.1 relates to difference >>series. I am not sure whether Ben was >>calculating the significance of the difference >>series between sets of observations and model >>simulations (annually). This would help offset >>the effects of El-Nino and Volcanoes on the >>trends. >> >>Tom K. >> >>Tom Wigley said the following on 12/29/2007 1:05 PM: >> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a participant. >>>He was not on the speaker list, but, in >>>advance of the meeting, I had thought >>>he might raise the issue of the Douglass et >>>al. paper. I therefore prepared the >>>attached power point -- modified slightly since returning from Rome. As it >>>happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did not use >>>the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members >>>of this group so I am sending it >>>to you all. >>> >>>Please keep this in confidence. I do not want >>>it to get back to Singer or any >>>of the Douglass et al. co-authors -- at least >>>not at this stage while Ben is still >>>working on a paper to rebut the Douglass et al. claims. >>> >>>On slide 6 I have attributed the die tossing >>>argument to Carl Mears -- but, in >>>looking back at my emails I can't find the >>>original. If I've got this attribution >>>wrong, please let me know. >>> >>>Other comments are welcome. Mike MacCracken and Ben helped in putting >>>this together -- thanks to both. >>> >>>Tom. >>> >>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >>-- >> >>*Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* >> >>*/Director/*// >> >>NOAA's National Climatic Data Center >> >>Veach-Baley Federal Building >> >>151 Patton Avenue >> >>Asheville, NC 28801-5001 >> >>Tel: (828) 271-4476 >> >>Fax: (828) 271-4246 >> >>Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov >> > > > >Attachment converted: Junior:Comment on Douglass.ppt (SLD3/IC) (0022CEF5) Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ForsterOzoneCooling.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ThompsonSolomon2005.pdf" 3984. 2007-12-31 11:03:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , "Thomas.R.Karl" , John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , santer1@llnl.gov, Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tom Wigley , myles date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:03:58 -0500 from: Dian Seidel subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Susan Solomon Dear Susan and Colleagues, Thank you for sending this new article by Forster et al. and for directing our attention to the role of the stratosphere on tropospheric climate changes. I tend to agree with Susan's perspective on the potential inability of AOGCMs to fully capture all 20th C climate changes, some of which may be strongly coupled to ozone changes. Tropical upper-tropospheric temperature changes, changes in tropopause height, and changes in the "width" of the tropical belt (see attached), may be among the changes more closely connected to ozone changes than to other climate forcings and so might not be well simulated in current climate models. In responding to Douglass et al., and in general, I hope we can leave open the possibility that inadequately modeled stratospheric influences may be among the explanations for discrepancies in temperature trend profiles. Looking ahead to the next few years (why not, everyone else does on December 31), we might anticipate (1) ozone levels to "recover" and (2) a better understanding of the nature of stratospheric temperature trends and their uncertainties (from the ongoing work of the SPARC stratospheric temperature trends panel), which seem as significant as tropospheric trend uncertainties. Both of these could affect actual tropical upper tropospheric temperature trends and our estimation of their magnitude. At some point, we will have a more holistic stratospheric and tropospheric perspective on the trend profile question, but until then we should be careful to acknowledge the uncertainties stemming from the stratosphere. Wishing you all a happy, healthy new year, Dian P.S. I've removed a few addresses of people I don't know from this distribution, so if you "reply all", do so with care. Susan Solomon wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks very much for the helpful discussion on these issues. > > I write to make a point that may not be well recognized regarding the > character of the temperature trends in the lowermost > stratosphere/upper troposphere. I have already discussed this with > Ben but want to share with others since I believe it is relevant to > this controversy at least at some altitudes. The question I want to > raise is not related to the very important dialogue on how to handle > the errors and the statistics, but rather how to think about the models. > > The attached paper by Forster et al. appeared recently in GRL. It > taught me something I didn't realize, namely that ozone losses and > accompanying temperature trends at higher altitudes can strongly > affect lower altitudes, through the influence of downwelling longwave. > There is now much evidence that ozone has decreased significantly in > the tropics near 70 mbar. What we show in the attached paper by > Forster et al is that ozone depletion near 70 mbar affects > temperatures not only at that level, but also down to lower > altitudes. I think this is bound to be important to the tropical > temperature trends at least in the 100-50 mbar height range, possibly > lower down as well, depending upon the degree to which there is a > 'substratosphere' that is more radiatively influenced than the rest of > the troposphere. Whether it can have an influence as low as 200 mbar - > I don't know. But note that having an influence could mean reducing > the warming there, not necessarily flipping it over to a net > cooling. This 'long-distance' physics, whereby ozone depletion and > associated cooling up high can affect the thermal structure lower > down, is not a point I had understood despite many years of studying > the problem so I thought it worthwhile to point it out to you here. > It has often been said (I probably said it myself five years ago) that > ozone losses and associated cooling can't happen or aren't important > in this region - but that is wrong. > > Further, the fundamental point made in the paper of Thompson and > Solomon a few years back remains worth noting, and is, I believe, now > resolved in the more recent Forster et al paper: that the broad > structure of the temperature trends, with quite large cooing in the > lowermost stratosphere in the tropics, comparable to that seen at > higher latitudes, is a feature NOT explained by e.g. CO2 cooling, but > now can be explained by the observed ozone losses. Exactly how big > the tropical cooling is, and exactly how low down it goes, remains > open to quantitative question and improvement of radiosonde datasets. > But I believe the fundamental point we made in 2005 remains true: the > temperature trends in the lower stratosphere in the tropics are, even > with corrections, quite comparable to that seen at other > latitudes. We can now say it is surely linked to the > now-well-observed trends in ozone there. The new paper further > shows that you don't have to have ozone trends at 100 mbar to have a > cooling there, due to down-welling longwave, possibly lower down > still. Whether enhanced upwelling is a factor is a central question. > > No global general circulation model can possibly be expected to > simulate this correctly unless it has interactive ozone, or prescribes > an observed tropical ozone trend. The AR4 models did not include > this, and any 'discrepancies' are not relevant at all to the issue of > the fidelity of those models for global warming. So in closing let > me just say that just how low down this effect goes needs more study, > but that it does happen and is relevant to the key problem of tropical > temperature trends is one that I hope this email has clarified. > > Happy new year, > Susan > > > At 6:13 PM -0700 12/29/07, Tom Wigley wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Yes -- I had this in an earlier version, but I did not want to >> overwhelm people with the myriad errors in the D et al. paper. >> >> I liked the attached item -- also in an earlier version. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++ >> >> Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> This is a very nice set of slides clearly showing the problem with >>> the Douglass et al paper. One other aspect of this issue that John >>> L has mentioned and we discussed when we were doing SAP 1.1 relates >>> to difference series. I am not sure whether Ben was calculating the >>> significance of the difference series between sets of observations >>> and model simulations (annually). This would help offset the >>> effects of El-Nino and Volcanoes on the trends. >>> >>> Tom K. >>> >>> Tom Wigley said the following on 12/29/2007 1:05 PM: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a >>>> participant. >>>> He was not on the speaker list, but, in advance of the meeting, I >>>> had thought >>>> he might raise the issue of the Douglass et al. paper. I therefore >>>> prepared the >>>> attached power point -- modified slightly since returning from >>>> Rome. As it >>>> happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did >>>> not use >>>> the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members of this group so I am >>>> sending it >>>> to you all. >>>> >>>> Please keep this in confidence. I do not want it to get back to >>>> Singer or any >>>> of the Douglass et al. co-authors -- at least not at this stage >>>> while Ben is still >>>> working on a paper to rebut the Douglass et al. claims. >>>> >>>> On slide 6 I have attributed the die tossing argument to Carl Mears >>>> -- but, in >>>> looking back at my emails I can't find the original. If I've got >>>> this attribution >>>> wrong, please let me know. >>>> >>>> Other comments are welcome. Mike MacCracken and Ben helped in putting >>>> this together -- thanks to both. >>>> >>>> Tom. >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* >>> >>> */Director/*// >>> >>> NOAA's National Climatic Data Center >>> >>> Veach-Baley Federal Building >>> >>> 151 Patton Avenue >>> >>> Asheville, NC 28801-5001 >>> >>> Tel: (828) 271-4476 >>> >>> Fax: (828) 271-4246 >>> >>> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov >>> >> >> >> >> Attachment converted: Junior:Comment on Douglass.ppt (SLD3/IC) >> (0022CEF5) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dian J. Seidel NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (R/ARL) 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dian.Seidel@noaa.gov Phone: +1-301-713-0295 ext. 126 Fax: +1-301-713-0119 http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/climate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SeidelEtal.NG.pdf" times. But you don't seem to want to discuss proper climate science. Phil At 17:18 20/12/2007, you wrote: >Thanks Jones, >please read the following paragraphs. Check for consistency. The >wording will also change. Basically you would help me just answering: >correct? Yes or no. >Please notice that I am not used to send so much text for revision, >but I need to be sure I am reporting correctly. Please do not >circulate this manuscript at this stage. >Thanks, Jacopo > >--- >The team of geophysicists led by Vincent Courtillot, director of >the director of Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris, insist that >the solar activity conjures with the Earth magnetic field influencing >climate of the past few centuries and back to five millennia ago. >--- >To explain how climate of the last century is affected by both the >Sun and the geomagnetic field, the team shows a graph where solar >activity and the geomagnetic field nicely shift up and down at the >unison with the global temperature. The team speculated that solar- >induced changes the magnetic field by cosmic ray fluctuations >influences climate, possibly enahncing or inhibiting cloud >formation. >--- >But looking to a more remote past makes the role of the Earth's >magnetic field even more intriguing, the geophysicists say. To look >back to when Egypt was governed by god-like pharaons, geophyisicist >Yves Gallet, who was part of the team, studied magnetic intensity >preserved in archaeological fragments. He found sharp changes in the >secular variations of the magnetic field, called "archeomagnetic >jerks", that probably result from Earth's core fluid flow variations. >According to Gallet archeomagnetic jerks match stunningly with >cooling events, occurring approximately every 500 years. >--- >The secular roaming of the dipole from the geographic north towards >lower latitudes may provide an explanation for the climate- >geomagnetism link. Magnetic field traps the cosmic rays producing >spectacular northern lights, and that's about it in the dry polar >regions. But the team argued that when the dipole tilts towards the >south and meets with a more humid atmosphere cosmic rays could form >clouds, and therefore cool the atmosphere. >--- >In a comment in press in the same journal, climatologist Edouard >Bard, from Collège de France, and geochemist Gilles Delaygue, from >the University Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille 3, unvailed approximations >and uncritical examination of current views on climate that rub >Courtillot's results away. For example Bard questioned a cooling of >the global temperature from 1940 to 1970. The French team showed a >nice fit between the sun, the geomagnetic fluctuations, and climate >showed by the French team, is commonly attributed to human made >areosols, Bard objected. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1459. 2007-12-21 15:03:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Warrilow, David (CEOSA)" date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:03:16 -0000 from: "Dagnet, Yamide (CEOSA)" subject: Future Development of the IPCC to: "Dodwell, Chris (ICC)" , "Pickard, Ian (ICC)" , "Amin, Amal-Lee (ICC)" , "Gaches, Joanna (ICC)" , "Droogsma, Dagmar (ICC)" , "Hession, Martin (ICC)" , "Bristow, Harriet (ICC)" , "Ryder, Hannah (ICC/CCE)" , "Webb, Matthew J (ICC)" , "Warrilow, David (CEOSA)" , "Penman, Jim (CEOSA)" , "Johnson, Chris (CD)" , "Sear, Chris (CEOSA)" , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , "Danskin, Hunter (CEOSA)" , "Coyne, Matthew (CEOSA)" , "Nesbit, Martin (CEBT)" , "Burt, James (CESPS)" , "Brearley, Jonathan (OCC)" , "Williams, Martin (AEQ)" , "Hughes, James (CESPS)" , , "Derwent, Henry (CEER)" , "Costigan, Peter (NESD)" , "Parker, Miles (ScD)" , "Davidson, Ian (ScD)" , "Janes, Jackie (CEHM)" , , , , "Catovsky, Sebastian (FM)" , , "Amin-Hanjani, Soheila (AEQ)" , , "Dallman, Tina (CCE)" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Holmes, John (SEERAD)" , "Montgomery, Alistair (SEERAD)" , "Wright, Philip (SEERAD)" , , "Webb, David (WAG-EPC)" , "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" , , , , , , "Harley, Mike (ENN)" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Davey, James (CEOSA)" Dear Colleagues, Many thanks to all of you who have taken part to the review of the IPCC 4th Assessment report and hence contributed to make an authoritative report and strong basis for Bali negotiations. We believe it would be useful to take the opportunity to review the IPCC structure, governance, products and consider what lessons should be learnt for the future of the IPCC. I would therefore be grateful if you could complete the attached questionnaire and return it to me by the 25th January 2008. Questions include: - Which subjects do you feel needs to be covered by special report or technical papers? - Which are the top three key questions the 5^th Assessment report should aim at answering? - Do you have any suggestions on how the IPCC Nobel prize should be used? <> <> May we take this opportunity to wish you a very happy Christmas and best wishes for the new year. Best regards, Yamide Dagnet UK Deputy Focal Point for IPCC On Behalf of David Warillow Focal Point for IPCC Yamide Dagnet Response Strategies Branch Climate Energy and Ozone Science Analysis (CEOSA) Division Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 3372 Fax: +44 (0)20 7238 3341 Email: yamide.dagnet@defra.gsi.gov.uk Address: Area 3F Ergon House, 17 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\letter - Wider Consultation (Dec07).doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Future of IPCC Questionnaire1.doc" 2108. 2007-12-22 03:23:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:23:59 -0000 from: "Earth and Planetary Science Letters" subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision to: Ref: EPSL-D-07-00839 Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe Article Type: Regular Article Dear Dr. Jones, Thank you once again for reviewing the above-referenced paper. With your help the following final decision has now been reached: Reject The author decision letter and reviewer reports can be found below. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this paper and greatly value your assistance as a reviewer for Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If you have not yet activated or completed your 30 days of access to Scopus, you can still access Scopus via this link: http://scopees.elsevier.com/ees_login.asp?journalacronym=EPSL&username=PJones-929 You can use your EES password to access Scopus via the URL above. You can save your 30 days access period, but access will expire 6 months after you accepted to review. Yours sincerely, Rob D. van der Hilst Editor Earth and Planetary Science Letters To: "Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot" courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr From: hilst-epsl@mit.edu Subject: Your Submission Ms. Ref. No.: EPSL-D-07-00839 Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe Earth and Planetary Science Letters Dear Vincent, The same reviewers of the "temperatures" paper have also seen this paper. Not surprisingly, the recommendation of the reviewers is the same. Like the revision of the temperature paper that I rejected last July, I am sorry to inform you that also this paper I have decided to reject. Please consider the brief comments below along with those given on the other paper. In one of your e-mails you referred to a paper that is currently under revision for the the Proceedings of the French Academy. Perhaps it is possible to combine the observations presented in these two papers with that one? Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Yours sincerely, Rob D. van der Hilst Editor Earth and Planetary Science Letters Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Review of Blanter et al. - submitted also to EPSL All the review of Le Mouel et al is relevant to this paper, as this has also fallen into the same pitfalls. I would suggest you read Pittock (1983) and also the papers by Brohan et al (2006) and van Loon and Labitzke (1988). The same mistakes as for the other paper have been made, and my recommendation is that this paper also be rejected. A second reason for rejecting this paper (Blanter et al) is that much of the material is the same - very similar sentences and very similar analyses. This paper does have Table 1, though. Here are some specific problems with this paper. As I have said all those for the other paper are also relevant here. 1. There are lots of long daily pressure series for other parts of the world - i.e. beyond Europe. Some long European sources are given in this paper and a long gridded database of daily pressure data (Ansell et al. 2006). Another good source of very long daily European series is this volume (Camuffo and Jones, 2002), which is also a Special Issue volume of Climatic Change. 2. The long-term trend in the green series (Germany) looks wrong in Figure 2. 3. Referencing of the climatological literature is again very superficial. There is a lot of literature on pressure variability across Europe. 4323. 2007-12-26 18:50:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:50:55 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: More significance testing stuff to: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov Dear John, Thanks for your email. As usual, your comments were constructive and thought-provoking. I've tried to do some of the additional tests that you suggested, and will report on the results below. But first, let's have a brief recap. As discussed in my previous emails, I've tested the significance of differences between trends in observed MSU time series and the trends in synthetic MSU temperatures in a multi-model "ensemble of opportunity". The "ensemble of opportunity" comprises results from 49 realizations of the CMIP-3 "20c3m" experiment, performed with 19 different A/OGCMs. This is the same ensemble that was analyzed in Chapter 5 of the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1. I've used observational results from two different groups (RSS and UAH). From each group, we have results for both T2 and T2LT. This yields a total of 196 different tests of the significance of observed-versus-model trend differences (2 observational datasets x 2 layer-averaged temperatures x 49 realizations of the 20c3m experiment). Thus far, I've tested the significance of trend differences using T2 and T2LT data spatially averaged over oceans only (both 20N-20S and 30N-30S), as well as over land and ocean (20N-20S). All results described below focus on the land and ocean results, which facilitates a direct comparison with Douglass et al. Here was the information that I sent you on Dec. 14th: COMBINED LAND/OCEAN RESULTS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS ADJUSTED FOR TEMPORAL AUTOCORRELATION EFFECTS; SPATIAL AVERAGES OVER 20N-20S; ANALYSIS PERIOD 1979 TO 1999) T2LT tests, RSS observational data: 0 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2LT tests, UAH observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, RSS observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. T2 tests, UAH observational data: 1 out of 49 model-versus-observed trend differences are significant at the 5% level. In other words, at a stipulated significance level of 5% (for a two-tailed test), we rejected the null hypothesis of "No significant difference between observed and simulated tropospheric temperature trends" in only 1 out of 98 cases (1.02%) for T2LT and 2 out of 98 cases (2.04%) for T2. You asked, John, how we might determine a baseline for judging the likelihood of obtaining the 'observed' rejection rate by chance alone. You suggested use of a bootstrap procedure involving the model data only. In this procedure, one of the 49 20c3m realizations would be selected at random, and would constitute the "surrogate observations". The remaining 48 members would be randomly sampled (with replacement) 49 times. The significance of the difference between the surrogate "observed" trend and the 49 simulated trends would then be assessed. This procedure would be repeated many times, yielding a distribution of rejection rates of the null hypothesis. As you stated in your email, "The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that this could have occurred by chance." One slight problem with your suggested bootstrap approach is that it convolves the trend differences due to internally-generated variability with trend differences arising from inter-model differences in both climate sensitivity and in the forcings applied in the 20c3m experiment. So the distribution of "hits" (as you call it; or "rejection rates" in my terminology) is not the distribution that one might expect due to chance alone. Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to generate a distribution of "rejection rates" based on model data only. Rather than implementing the resampling approach that you suggested, I considered all possible combinations of trend pairs involving model data, and performed the paired difference test between the trend in each 20c3m realization and in each of the other 48 realizations. This yields a total of 2352 (49 x 48) non-identical pairs of trend tests (for each layer-averaged temperature time series). Here are the results: T2: At a stipulated 5% significance level, 58 out of 2352 tests involving model data only (2.47%) yielded rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend. T2LT: At a stipulated 5% significance level, 32 out of 2352 tests involving model data only (1.36%) yielded rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend. For both layer-averaged temperatures, these numbers are slightly larger than the "observed" rejection rates (2.04% for T2 and 1.02% for T2LT). I would conclude from this that the statistical significance of the differences between the observed and simulated MSU tropospheric temperature trends is comparable to the significance of the differences between the simulated 20c3m trends from any two CMIP-3 models (with the proviso that the simulated trend differences arise not only from internal variability, but also from inter-model differences in sensitivity and 20th century forcings). Since I was curious, I thought it would be fun to do something a little closer to what you were advocating, John - i.e., to use model data to look at the statistical significance of trend differences that are NOT related to inter-model differences in the 20c3m forcings or in climate sensitivity. I did this in the following way. For each model with multiple 20c3m realizations, I tested each realization against all other (non-identical) realizations of that model - e.g., for a model with an 20c3m ensemble size of 5, there are 20 paired trend tests involving non-identical data. I repeated this procedure for the next model with multiple 20c3m realizations, etc., and accumulated results. In our CCSP report, we had access to 11 models with multiple 20c3m realizations. This yields a total of 124 paired trend tests for each layer-averaged temperature time series of interest. For both T2 and T2LT, NONE of the 124 paired trend tests yielded rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend (at a stipulated 5% significance level). You wanted to know, John, whether these rejection rates are sensitive to the stipulated significance level. As per your suggestion, I also calculated rejection rates for a 20% significance level. Below, I've tabulated a comparison of the rejection rates for tests with 5% and 20% significance levels. The two "rows" of "MODEL-vs-MODEL" results correspond to the two cases I've considered above - i.e., tests involving 2352 trend pairs (Row 2) and 124 trend pairs (Row 3). Note that the "OBSERVED-vs-MODEL" row (Row 1) is the combined number of "hits" for 49 tests involving RSS data and 49 tests involving UAH data: REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 5% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL: Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" Row 1. OBSERVED-vs-MODEL 49 x 2 2 (2.04%) 1 (1.02%) Row 2. MODEL-vs-MODEL 2352 58 (2.47%) 32 (1.36%) Row 3. MODEL-vs-MODEL 124 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 20% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL: Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" Row 1. OBSERVED-vs-MODEL 49 x 2 7 (7.14%) 5 (5.10%) Row 2. MODEL-vs-MODEL 2352 176 (7.48%) 100 (4.25%) Row 3. MODEL-vs-MODEL 124 8 (6.45%) 6 (4.84%) So what can we conclude from this? 1) Irrespective of the stipulated significance level (5% or 20%), the differences between the observed and simulated MSU trends are, on average, substantially smaller than we might expect if we were conducting these tests with trends selected from a purely random distribution (i.e., for the "Row 1" results, 2.04 and 1.02% << 5%, and 7.14% and 5.10% << 20%). 2) Why are the rejection rates for the "Row 3" results substantially lower than 5% and 20%? Shouldn't we expect - if we are only testing trend differences between multiple realizations of the same model, rather than trend differences between models - to obtain rejection rates of roughly 5% for the 5% significance tests and 20% for the 20% tests? The answer is clearly "no". The "Row 3" results do not involve tests between samples drawn from a population of randomly-distributed trends! If we were conducting this paired test using randomly-sampled trends from a long control simulation, we would expect (given a sufficiently large sample size) to eventually obtain rejection rates of 5% and 20%. But our "Row 3" results are based on paired samples from individual members of a given model's 20c3m experiment, and thus represent both signal (response to the imposed forcing changes) and noise - not noise alone. The common signal component makes it more difficult to reject the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trend. 3) Your point about sensitivity to the choice of stipulated significance level was well-taken. This is obvious by comparing "Row 3" results in the 5% and 20% test cases. 4) In both the 5% and 20% cases, the rejection rate for paired tests involving model-versus-observed trend differences ("Row 1") is comparable to the rejection rate for tests involving inter-model trend differences ("Row 2") arising from the combined effects of differences in internal variability, sensitivity, and applied forcings. On average, therefore, model versus observed trend differences are not noticeably more significant than the trends between any given pair of CMIP-3 models. [N.B.: This inference is not entirely justified, since, "Row 2" convolves the effects of both inter-model differences and "within model" differences arising from the different manifestations of natural variability superimposed on the signal. We would need a "Row 4", which involves 19 x 18 paired tests of model results, using only one 20c3m realization from each model. I'll generate "Row 4" tomorrow.] John, you also suggested that we might want to look at the statistical significance of trends in time series of differences - e.g., in O(t) minus M(t), or in M1(t) minus M2(t), where "O" denotes observations, and "M" denotes model, and t is an index of time in months. While I've done this in previous work (for example in the Santer et al. 2000 JGR paper, where we were looking at the statistical significance of trend differences between multiple observational upper air temperature datasets), I don't think it's advisable in this particular case. As your email notes, we are dealing here with A/OGCM results in which the phasing of El Ninos and La Ninas (and the effects of ENSO variability on T2 and T2LT) differs from the phasing in the real world. So differencing M(t) from O(t), or M2(t) from M1(t), probably actually amplifies rather than damps noise, particularly in the tropics, where the externally-forced component of M(t) or O(t) over 1979 to 1999 is only a relatively small fraction of the overall variance of the time series. I think this amplification of noise is a disadvantage in assessing whether trends in O(t) and M(t) are significantly different. Anyway, thanks again for your comments and suggestions, John. They gave me a great opportunity to ignore the hundreds of emails that accumulated in my absence, and instead do some science! With best regards, Ben John Lanzante wrote: > Ben, > > Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have performed > consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with each one > of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". Significance > of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain > number of "hits". > > To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain the > given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by > treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For each > trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the "observation". > From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and perform > 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many times to > generate a distribution of "hits". > > The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be > referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that this > could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed > trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. > > There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to your method. > You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series in the > pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first > create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's trend? > The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the autocorrelation > in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" > adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this > differencing would help remove the common externally forced variability, > but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be > needed. > > Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess > differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which yields > only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you would get > potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash so to > speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would increase > as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would make the > whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since you > would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current scheme, using > a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X 49 = 2.45. > For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would have an > expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. > > I hope this helps. > > On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different versions of > Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that the > latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I recalled > from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a > couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if we use > the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can reference -- > if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in submission? > The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences in > methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as compared to > the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did changes occur to > yield a stronger warming trend? > > Best regards, > > ______John > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> Thanks Ben, >> >> You have the makings of a nice article. >> >> I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly different >> by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). You found 3. >> With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you will find there is >> indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. amplification. Setting up the >> statistical testing should be interesting with this many combinations. >> >> Regards, Tom > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3804. 2007-12-28 16:14:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:14:10 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: Leopold Haimberger Dear Leo, The Figure that you sent is extremely informative, and would be great to include in a response to Douglass et al. The Figure clearly illustrates that the "structural uncertainties" inherent in radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change are much larger than Douglass et al. have claimed. This is an important point to make. Would it be possible to produce a version of this Figure showing results for the period 1979 to 1999 (the period that I've used for testing the significance of model-versus-observed trend differences) instead of 1979 to 2004? With best regards, and frohes Neues Jahr! Ben Leopold Haimberger wrote: > Dear all, > > I have attached a plot which summarizes the recent developments > concerning tropical radiosonde temperature datasets and which could be > a candidate to be included in a reply to Douglass et al. > It contains trend profiles from unadjusted radiosondes, HadAT2-adjusted > radiosondes, RAOBCORE (versions 1.2-1.4) adjusted radiosondes > and from radiosondes adjusted with a neighbor composite method (RICH) > that uses the break dates detected with RAOBCORE (v1.4) as metadata. > RAOBCORE v1.2,v1.3 are documented in Haimberger (2007), RAOBCORE v1.4 > and RICH are discussed in the manuscript I mentioned in my previous email. > Latitude range is 20S-20N, only time series with less than 24 months of > missing data are included. Spatial sampling of all curves is the same > except HadAT which contains less stations that meet the 24month > criterion. Sampling uncertainty of the trend curves is ca. > +/-0.1K/decade (95% percentiles estimated with bootstrap method). > > RAOBCORE v1.3,1.4 and RICH are results from ongoing research and warming > trends from radiosondes may still be underestimated. > The upper tropospheric warming maxima from RICH are even larger (up to > 0.35K/decade, not shown), if only radiosondes within the tropics > (20N-20S) are allowed as reference for adjustment of tropical radiosonde > temperatures. The pink/blue curves in the attached plot should therefore > not be regarded as upper bound of what may be achieved with plausible > choices of reference series for homogenization. > Please let me know your comments. > > I wish you a merry Christmas. > > With best regards > > Leo > > John Lanzante wrote: >> Ben, >> >> Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have >> performed >> consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with each one >> of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". Significance >> of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain >> number of "hits". >> >> To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain the >> given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by >> treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For each >> trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the >> "observation". >> From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and perform >> 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many times to >> generate a distribution of "hits". >> >> The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be >> referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability that >> this >> could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed >> trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. >> >> There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to your >> method. >> You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series in the >> pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first >> create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's >> trend? >> The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the >> autocorrelation >> in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" >> adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this >> differencing would help remove the common externally forced variability, >> but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be >> needed. >> >> Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess >> differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which yields >> only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you would >> get >> potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash so to >> speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would >> increase >> as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would >> make the >> whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since you >> would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current scheme, >> using >> a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X 49 >> = 2.45. >> For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would >> have an >> expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different >> versions of >> Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that the >> latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I recalled >> from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a >> couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if >> we use >> the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can reference -- >> if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in submission? >> The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences in >> methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as >> compared to the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did >> changes occur to >> yield a stronger warming trend? >> >> Best regards, >> >> ______John >> >> >> >> On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ben, >>> >>> You have the makings of a nice article. >>> >>> I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly >>> different by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). >>> You found 3. With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you will >>> find there is indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. amplification. >>> Setting up the statistical testing should be interesting with this >>> many combinations. >>> >>> Regards, Tom >>> >> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4944. 2007-12-29 22:10:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, "Thomas.R.Karl" , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:10:30 +0100 from: Leopold Haimberger subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, I have attached the tropical mean trend profiles, now for the period 1979-1999. RAOBCORE versions show much more upper tropospheric heating for this period, RICH shows slightly more heating. Note also stronger cooling of unadjusted radiosondes in stratospheric layers compared to 1999-2004. Just for information I have included also zonal mean trend plots for the unadjusted radiosondes (tm), RAOBCORE v1.4 (tmcorr) and RICH (rgmra) I do not suggest that these plots should be included but some of you maybe want to know about the spatial coherence of the zonal mean trends. It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts. Meridional resolution is 10 degrees. As you can imagine, the tropical upper tropospheric heating maximum at 5S and the cooling in the unadjusted radiosondes at 5N are based on very few long records in these belts. 2-3 in 5S, about 5 in 5N. Best regards and I wish you all a happy new year. Leo Ben Santer wrote: > Dear Leo, > > The Figure that you sent is extremely informative, and would be great > to include in a response to Douglass et al. The Figure clearly > illustrates that the "structural uncertainties" inherent in > radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change are much > larger than Douglass et al. have claimed. This is an important point > to make. > > Would it be possible to produce a version of this Figure showing > results for the period 1979 to 1999 (the period that I've used for > testing the significance of model-versus-observed trend differences) > instead of 1979 to 2004? > > With best regards, and frohes Neues Jahr! > > Ben > Leopold Haimberger wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I have attached a plot which summarizes the recent developments >> concerning tropical radiosonde temperature datasets and which could >> be a candidate to be included in a reply to Douglass et al. >> It contains trend profiles from unadjusted radiosondes, >> HadAT2-adjusted radiosondes, RAOBCORE (versions 1.2-1.4) adjusted >> radiosondes >> and from radiosondes adjusted with a neighbor composite method (RICH) >> that uses the break dates detected with RAOBCORE (v1.4) as metadata. >> RAOBCORE v1.2,v1.3 are documented in Haimberger (2007), RAOBCORE v1.4 >> and RICH are discussed in the manuscript I mentioned in my previous >> email. >> Latitude range is 20S-20N, only time series with less than 24 months >> of missing data are included. Spatial sampling of all curves is the >> same except HadAT which contains less stations that meet the 24month >> criterion. Sampling uncertainty of the trend curves is ca. >> +/-0.1K/decade (95% percentiles estimated with bootstrap method). >> >> RAOBCORE v1.3,1.4 and RICH are results from ongoing research and >> warming trends from radiosondes may still be underestimated. >> The upper tropospheric warming maxima from RICH are even larger (up >> to 0.35K/decade, not shown), if only radiosondes within the tropics >> (20N-20S) are allowed as reference for adjustment of tropical >> radiosonde temperatures. The pink/blue curves in the attached plot >> should therefore not be regarded as upper bound of what may be >> achieved with plausible choices of reference series for homogenization. >> Please let me know your comments. >> >> I wish you a merry Christmas. >> >> With best regards >> >> Leo >> >> John Lanzante wrote: >>> Ben, >>> >>> Perhaps a resampling test would be appropriate. The tests you have >>> performed >>> consist of pairing an observed time series (UAH or RSS MSU) with >>> each one >>> of 49 GCM times series from your "ensemble of opportunity". >>> Significance >>> of the difference between each pair of obs/GCM trends yields a certain >>> number of "hits". >>> >>> To determine a baseline for judging how likely it would be to obtain >>> the >>> given number of hits one could perform a set of resampling trials by >>> treating one of the ensemble members as a surrogate observation. For >>> each >>> trial, select at random one of the 49 GCM members to be the >>> "observation". >>> From the remaining 48 members draw a bootstrap sample of 49, and >>> perform >>> 49 tests, yielding a certain number of "hits". Repeat this many >>> times to >>> generate a distribution of "hits". >>> >>> The actual number of hits, based on the real observations could then be >>> referenced to the Monte Carlo distribution to yield a probability >>> that this >>> could have occurred by chance. The basic idea is to see if the observed >>> trend is inconsistent with the GCM ensemble of trends. >>> >>> There are a couple of additional tweaks that could be applied to >>> your method. >>> You are currently computing trends for each of the two time series >>> in the >>> pair and assessing the significance of their differences. Why not first >>> create a difference time series and assess the significance of it's >>> trend? >>> The advantage of this is that you would reduce somewhat the >>> autocorrelation >>> in the time series and hence the effect of the "degrees of freedom" >>> adjustment. Since the GCM runs are based on coupled model runs this >>> differencing would help remove the common externally forced >>> variability, >>> but not internally forced variability, so the adjustment would still be >>> needed. >>> >>> Another tweak would be to alter the significance level used to assess >>> differences in trends. Currently you are using the 5% level, which >>> yields >>> only a small number of hits. If you made this less stringent you >>> would get >>> potentially more weaker hits. But it would all come out in the wash >>> so to >>> speak since the number of hits in the Monte Carlo simulations would >>> increase >>> as well. I suspect that increasing the number of expected hits would >>> make the >>> whole procedure more powerful/efficient in a statistical sense since >>> you >>> would no longer be dealing with a "rare event". In the current >>> scheme, using >>> a 5% level with 49 pairings you have an expected hit rate of 0.05 X >>> 49 = 2.45. >>> For example, if instead you used a 20% significance level you would >>> have an >>> expected hit rate of 0.20 X 49 = 9.8. >>> >>> I hope this helps. >>> >>> On an unrelated matter, I'm wondering a bit about the different >>> versions of >>> Leo's new radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE). I was surprised to see that >>> the >>> latest version has considerably more tropospheric warming than I >>> recalled >>> from an earlier version that was written up in JCLI in 2007. I have a >>> couple of questions that I'd like to ask Leo. One concern is that if >>> we use >>> the latest version of RAOBCORE is there a paper that we can >>> reference -- >>> if this is not in a peer-reviewed journal is there a paper in >>> submission? >>> The other question is: could you briefly comment on the differences >>> in methodology used to generate the latest version of RAOBCORE as >>> compared to the version used in JCLI 2007, and what/when/where did >>> changes occur to >>> yield a stronger warming trend? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> ______John >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:21 pm, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Ben, >>>> >>>> You have the makings of a nice article. >>>> >>>> I note that we would expect to 10 cases that are significantly >>>> different by chance (based on the 196 tests at the .05 sig level). >>>> You found 3. With appropriately corrected Leopold I suspect you >>>> will find there is indeed stat sig. similar trends incl. >>>> amplification. Setting up the statistical testing should be >>>> interesting with this many combinations. >>>> >>>> Regards, Tom >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Ao. Univ. Prof. Dr. Leopold Haimberger Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universität Wien Althanstraße 14, A - 1090 Wien Tel.: +43 1 4277 53712 Fax.: +43 1 4277 9537 http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~haimbel7/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendbeltbg_Tropics_1979-1999_v1_4.eps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendzonalGlobe_tmcorr_1979-1999.ps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendzonalGlobe_rgmra_1979-1999.ps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\t00_trendzonalGlobe_tm_1979-1999.ps" 1649. 2007-12-30 10:18:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , santer1@llnl.gov, Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , myles , Bill Fulkerson date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:18:04 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Tom Wigley , "Thomas.R.Karl" Dear All, Thanks very much for the helpful discussion on these issues. I write to make a point that may not be well recognized regarding the character of the temperature trends in the lowermost stratosphere/upper troposphere. I have already discussed this with Ben but want to share with others since I believe it is relevant to this controversy at least at some altitudes. The question I want to raise is not related to the very important dialogue on how to handle the errors and the statistics, but rather how to think about the models. The attached paper by Forster et al. appeared recently in GRL. It taught me something I didn't realize, namely that ozone losses and accompanying temperature trends at higher altitudes can strongly affect lower altitudes, through the influence of downwelling longwave. There is now much evidence that ozone has decreased significantly in the tropics near 70 mbar. What we show in the attached paper by Forster et al is that ozone depletion near 70 mbar affects temperatures not only at that level, but also down to lower altitudes. I think this is bound to be important to the tropical temperature trends at least in the 100-50 mbar height range, possibly lower down as well, depending upon the degree to which there is a 'substratosphere' that is more radiatively influenced than the rest of the troposphere. Whether it can have an influence as low as 200 mbar - I don't know. But note that having an influence could mean reducing the warming there, not necessarily flipping it over to a net cooling. This 'long-distance' physics, whereby ozone depletion and associated cooling up high can affect the thermal structure lower down, is not a point I had understood despite many years of studying the problem so I thought it worthwhile to point it out to you here. It has often been said (I probably said it myself five years ago) that ozone losses and associated cooling can't happen or aren't important in this region - but that is wrong. Further, the fundamental point made in the paper of Thompson and Solomon a few years back remains worth noting, and is, I believe, now resolved in the more recent Forster et al paper: that the broad structure of the temperature trends, with quite large cooing in the lowermost stratosphere in the tropics, comparable to that seen at higher latitudes, is a feature NOT explained by e.g. CO2 cooling, but now can be explained by the observed ozone losses. Exactly how big the tropical cooling is, and exactly how low down it goes, remains open to quantitative question and improvement of radiosonde datasets. But I believe the fundamental point we made in 2005 remains true: the temperature trends in the lower stratosphere in the tropics are, even with corrections, quite comparable to that seen at other latitudes. We can now say it is surely linked to the now-well-observed trends in ozone there. The new paper further shows that you don't have to have ozone trends at 100 mbar to have a cooling there, due to down-welling longwave, possibly lower down still. Whether enhanced upwelling is a factor is a central question. No global general circulation model can possibly be expected to simulate this correctly unless it has interactive ozone, or prescribes an observed tropical ozone trend. The AR4 models did not include this, and any 'discrepancies' are not relevant at all to the issue of the fidelity of those models for global warming. So in closing let me just say that just how low down this effect goes needs more study, but that it does happen and is relevant to the key problem of tropical temperature trends is one that I hope this email has clarified. Happy new year, Susan At 6:13 PM -0700 12/29/07, Tom Wigley wrote: >Tom, > >Yes -- I had this in an earlier version, but I did not want to >overwhelm people with the myriad errors in the D et al. paper. > >I liked the attached item -- also in an earlier version. > >Tom. > >+++++++++++++ > >Thomas.R.Karl wrote: > >>Tom, >> >>This is a very nice set of slides clearly >>showing the problem with the Douglass et al >>paper. One other aspect of this issue that >>John L has mentioned and we discussed when we >>were doing SAP 1.1 relates to difference >>series. I am not sure whether Ben was >>calculating the significance of the difference >>series between sets of observations and model >>simulations (annually). This would help offset >>the effects of El-Nino and Volcanoes on the >>trends. >> >>Tom K. >> >>Tom Wigley said the following on 12/29/2007 1:05 PM: >> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a participant. >>>He was not on the speaker list, but, in >>>advance of the meeting, I had thought >>>he might raise the issue of the Douglass et >>>al. paper. I therefore prepared the >>>attached power point -- modified slightly since returning from Rome. As it >>>happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did not use >>>the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members >>>of this group so I am sending it >>>to you all. >>> >>>Please keep this in confidence. I do not want >>>it to get back to Singer or any >>>of the Douglass et al. co-authors -- at least >>>not at this stage while Ben is still >>>working on a paper to rebut the Douglass et al. claims. >>> >>>On slide 6 I have attributed the die tossing >>>argument to Carl Mears -- but, in >>>looking back at my emails I can't find the >>>original. If I've got this attribution >>>wrong, please let me know. >>> >>>Other comments are welcome. Mike MacCracken and Ben helped in putting >>>this together -- thanks to both. >>> >>>Tom. >>> >>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >>-- >> >>*Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* >> >>*/Director/*// >> >>NOAA's National Climatic Data Center >> >>Veach-Baley Federal Building >> >>151 Patton Avenue >> >>Asheville, NC 28801-5001 >> >>Tel: (828) 271-4476 >> >>Fax: (828) 271-4246 >> >>Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov >> > > > >Attachment converted: Junior:Comment on Douglass.ppt (SLD3/IC) (0022CEF5) Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ForsterOzoneCooling.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ThompsonSolomon2005.pdf" 3984. 2007-12-31 11:03:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , "Thomas.R.Karl" , John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , santer1@llnl.gov, Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tom Wigley , myles date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:03:58 -0500 from: Dian Seidel subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Susan Solomon Dear Susan and Colleagues, Thank you for sending this new article by Forster et al. and for directing our attention to the role of the stratosphere on tropospheric climate changes. I tend to agree with Susan's perspective on the potential inability of AOGCMs to fully capture all 20th C climate changes, some of which may be strongly coupled to ozone changes. Tropical upper-tropospheric temperature changes, changes in tropopause height, and changes in the "width" of the tropical belt (see attached), may be among the changes more closely connected to ozone changes than to other climate forcings and so might not be well simulated in current climate models. In responding to Douglass et al., and in general, I hope we can leave open the possibility that inadequately modeled stratospheric influences may be among the explanations for discrepancies in temperature trend profiles. Looking ahead to the next few years (why not, everyone else does on December 31), we might anticipate (1) ozone levels to "recover" and (2) a better understanding of the nature of stratospheric temperature trends and their uncertainties (from the ongoing work of the SPARC stratospheric temperature trends panel), which seem as significant as tropospheric trend uncertainties. Both of these could affect actual tropical upper tropospheric temperature trends and our estimation of their magnitude. At some point, we will have a more holistic stratospheric and tropospheric perspective on the trend profile question, but until then we should be careful to acknowledge the uncertainties stemming from the stratosphere. Wishing you all a happy, healthy new year, Dian P.S. I've removed a few addresses of people I don't know from this distribution, so if you "reply all", do so with care. Susan Solomon wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks very much for the helpful discussion on these issues. > > I write to make a point that may not be well recognized regarding the > character of the temperature trends in the lowermost > stratosphere/upper troposphere. I have already discussed this with > Ben but want to share with others since I believe it is relevant to > this controversy at least at some altitudes. The question I want to > raise is not related to the very important dialogue on how to handle > the errors and the statistics, but rather how to think about the models. > > The attached paper by Forster et al. appeared recently in GRL. It > taught me something I didn't realize, namely that ozone losses and > accompanying temperature trends at higher altitudes can strongly > affect lower altitudes, through the influence of downwelling longwave. > There is now much evidence that ozone has decreased significantly in > the tropics near 70 mbar. What we show in the attached paper by > Forster et al is that ozone depletion near 70 mbar affects > temperatures not only at that level, but also down to lower > altitudes. I think this is bound to be important to the tropical > temperature trends at least in the 100-50 mbar height range, possibly > lower down as well, depending upon the degree to which there is a > 'substratosphere' that is more radiatively influenced than the rest of > the troposphere. Whether it can have an influence as low as 200 mbar - > I don't know. But note that having an influence could mean reducing > the warming there, not necessarily flipping it over to a net > cooling. This 'long-distance' physics, whereby ozone depletion and > associated cooling up high can affect the thermal structure lower > down, is not a point I had understood despite many years of studying > the problem so I thought it worthwhile to point it out to you here. > It has often been said (I probably said it myself five years ago) that > ozone losses and associated cooling can't happen or aren't important > in this region - but that is wrong. > > Further, the fundamental point made in the paper of Thompson and > Solomon a few years back remains worth noting, and is, I believe, now > resolved in the more recent Forster et al paper: that the broad > structure of the temperature trends, with quite large cooing in the > lowermost stratosphere in the tropics, comparable to that seen at > higher latitudes, is a feature NOT explained by e.g. CO2 cooling, but > now can be explained by the observed ozone losses. Exactly how big > the tropical cooling is, and exactly how low down it goes, remains > open to quantitative question and improvement of radiosonde datasets. > But I believe the fundamental point we made in 2005 remains true: the > temperature trends in the lower stratosphere in the tropics are, even > with corrections, quite comparable to that seen at other > latitudes. We can now say it is surely linked to the > now-well-observed trends in ozone there. The new paper further > shows that you don't have to have ozone trends at 100 mbar to have a > cooling there, due to down-welling longwave, possibly lower down > still. Whether enhanced upwelling is a factor is a central question. > > No global general circulation model can possibly be expected to > simulate this correctly unless it has interactive ozone, or prescribes > an observed tropical ozone trend. The AR4 models did not include > this, and any 'discrepancies' are not relevant at all to the issue of > the fidelity of those models for global warming. So in closing let > me just say that just how low down this effect goes needs more study, > but that it does happen and is relevant to the key problem of tropical > temperature trends is one that I hope this email has clarified. > > Happy new year, > Susan > > > At 6:13 PM -0700 12/29/07, Tom Wigley wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Yes -- I had this in an earlier version, but I did not want to >> overwhelm people with the myriad errors in the D et al. paper. >> >> I liked the attached item -- also in an earlier version. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++ >> >> Thomas.R.Karl wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> This is a very nice set of slides clearly showing the problem with >>> the Douglass et al paper. One other aspect of this issue that John >>> L has mentioned and we discussed when we were doing SAP 1.1 relates >>> to difference series. I am not sure whether Ben was calculating the >>> significance of the difference series between sets of observations >>> and model simulations (annually). This would help offset the >>> effects of El-Nino and Volcanoes on the trends. >>> >>> Tom K. >>> >>> Tom Wigley said the following on 12/29/2007 1:05 PM: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a >>>> participant. >>>> He was not on the speaker list, but, in advance of the meeting, I >>>> had thought >>>> he might raise the issue of the Douglass et al. paper. I therefore >>>> prepared the >>>> attached power point -- modified slightly since returning from >>>> Rome. As it >>>> happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did >>>> not use >>>> the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members of this group so I am >>>> sending it >>>> to you all. >>>> >>>> Please keep this in confidence. I do not want it to get back to >>>> Singer or any >>>> of the Douglass et al. co-authors -- at least not at this stage >>>> while Ben is still >>>> working on a paper to rebut the Douglass et al. claims. >>>> >>>> On slide 6 I have attributed the die tossing argument to Carl Mears >>>> -- but, in >>>> looking back at my emails I can't find the original. If I've got >>>> this attribution >>>> wrong, please let me know. >>>> >>>> Other comments are welcome. Mike MacCracken and Ben helped in putting >>>> this together -- thanks to both. >>>> >>>> Tom. >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* >>> >>> */Director/*// >>> >>> NOAA's National Climatic Data Center >>> >>> Veach-Baley Federal Building >>> >>> 151 Patton Avenue >>> >>> Asheville, NC 28801-5001 >>> >>> Tel: (828) 271-4476 >>> >>> Fax: (828) 271-4246 >>> >>> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov >>> >> >> >> >> Attachment converted: Junior:Comment on Douglass.ppt (SLD3/IC) >> (0022CEF5) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dian J. Seidel NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (R/ARL) 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dian.Seidel@noaa.gov Phone: +1-301-713-0295 ext. 126 Fax: +1-301-713-0119 http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/climate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SeidelEtal.NG.pdf"